[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Ail CITY OF DETROIT RECREATION DEPARTMENT SEPTEM13ER 1987 consulting engineers LN C @'ASTAL I N F 021. AT, 4 A T 10 N C12, TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction and Existing Conditions 11. Divers Investigation III. Soils Analysis IV. Existing Hydraulic Data V. Existing Utilities VI. Short term goals 1. Marina Redevelopment 2. Park Redevelopment VII. Long term goals 1. Marina Expansion 2. Park Redevelopment Appendix A - Preliminary Soils investigation 14. Appendix B - Cross Sections Appendix C - Short Range Plan-Cost Itemization Appendix D - Long Range Plan-Cost Itemization C QL z SECTION I - INTRODUCTION & EXISTING CONDITIONS Memorial Park and tile Memorial. Park Marina are located on 36 acres of river front property, south of East Jefferson Avenue between Burns Drive and Marina Drive in tile City of Detroit. Existing Marina Tile existing Marina facility covers 12 acres of the property and includes 96; 24 foot slips, 102; 36 foot slips and 34; 57 foot slips with 41 additional slips available for outboard motor boats. Parking for the boaters is currently provided adjacent to the individual docks at an approximate ratio of 1 car per slip. The existing Marina is completely enclosed by chain link fence with a controlled access point at tile north end of the Marina. The existing Marina Gatehouse building, located at the entrance serves as tile gate house, for control of vehicular and visitor access, and also houses the restroom, shower, and laundry facilities (See figure 1. for footprint of existing building). Vending machines are also located at the building, this being tile extent of food service currently available at the park. EXISTING MARINA GATEH0USE BUILDING FIGURE #1 The existing Marina Basin is a horse shoe shape configuration approximately 300 feet wide and 1300 feet long. Boat slips are oriented in an east-west direction off each side of the basin. There is also a 10' wide center dock oriented north- south which extends 750 feet with 24' slips off of each side. Scheduled for construction this summer is installation of a new steel sheet piling breakwater at the entrance to the marina from the Detroit Piver. Construction of the breakwater will lessen the wave action currently experienced by smaller boats housed in the marina due to the passing of large vessels in the river channel. ftisting Park The remainder of the park property (approximately 24 acres) is currently utilized as recreational land. As can be seen on Exhibit I, the park has a gently rolling terrain which varies in elevation from 115'* at the north end of the park near East Jefferson Ave. to approximately 96.51* at the edge of the Detroit River. Existing park facilities include meandering concrete walks, a basketball court, comfort station/restroom facilities (not currently in service), and a concrete promenade and fishing area adjacent to the existing seawall along the river's edge. Public parking is currently available for 160 cars with space for 80 cars in the Promenade Parking Lot and 80 additional cars in the existing parking lot located immediately north of the Marina Facility. *Elevations refer to City of Detroit Datum SECTION II - DIVERS INVESTIGATION For the purpose of this study, the firm of Sea Side Diving Incorporated was contracted to perform an underwater inspection of the existing dock facilities within the Marina as well as the existing seawall both along the Detroit River and in the existing Marina basin. A copy of their inspection report is included as Exhibit I of this study. In summary, the underwater docks and pilings are in good condition. The concrete wall also appears to be in sound condition with the exception of a few locations where spawling of the concrete has occurred. The method and costs for repair of these areas is covered in Section VI of this report. SECTION III - SOILS ANALYSIS Tile soil firm of SME (Soils and Materials Engineers, Inc.) was utilized to perform a preliminary soil investigation at the Memorial Park Site. A copy of their report is included as Appendix A of this study. Three soil borings were taken at the Memorial Park site to determine the nature of tile soils. There locations are shown on Exhibit 11 which is included as part of this report. One boring was taken in the existing Promenade area approximately 112 feet north of the Detroit River and the remaining two were taken immediately west of the existing Marina. In addition to a soils analysis of the existing material, a chemical analysis was also performed on tile samples from two of the borings. In general, the soil conditions encountered at the site consisted of mixed sand, clay, and rubble fill from the existing ground surface to depths of 13 to IS feet. Under the fill. layer, the soil. consists of a silty clay material. Chemical analysis of'the borings taken west of tile existing Marina detected traces of gasoline, diesel fuel, in(] fuel oil as well as above normal levels of copper, zinc, cadmium and Dichloroethane. Because of the presence of these chemicals as well as the concrete rubble contained in the fill material, special problems may be encountered during various construction operations at tile site. Further discussion concerning these potential problems is covered in Section VII of this report. it should be noted, however, that prior to final design of any of the alternatives suggested in this report, additional soil borings and more specialized testing will be required. This additional. work is necessary to determine more specifically the existing soil parameters, particularly at the seawall locations where additional. information is required to resolve final design factors. SECTION IV - EXISTING HYDRAULIC DATA Historical data provided by the City of Detroit sets the low water for the Detroit River at elevation 93.24 City of Detroit Datum (571.71 IGLD) and the high water at elevation 98.20 (576.67 IGLD). The water level at time of survey was approximately elevation 96.7 (575.17 IGLD). Due to the extremely high water levels of the Detroit River which have existed over the last two years, flooding has been experienced both in the Promenade area along the rivers edge and in the Marina area. The top of the existing seawall along the Detroit River is approximately elevation 96.5 and in the Marina area the top of the wall is approximately elevation 98.5. The current flooded condition at the Memorial Park site is the result of the low wall height, relative to the existing high water level, combined with the fact that a portion of the catch basin rim elevations are lower than the river water surface elevation for the existing storm sewer which outlets directly in the river. *IGLD refers to International Great Lakes Datum SECTION V - EXISTING UTILITIES All available existing utility information is shown on Exhibit II included as a part of this report. Water: A 6" watermain loop extends through the site which ties into the 6" watermain in Jefferson Avenue on the north end and to the existing 6" main in Burns Drive at the south end. From this line service is provided to the existing comfort station, the Marina Control Building and the boat slips. Fire protection throughout the site is also provided via the 6" water system. SePer: A 13' x 91 storm sewer runs from north to south on the west side of the existing park site, outletting into the Detroit River. This line serves as the eventual storm sewer outlet for the runoff from the existing parking lot located immediately north of the Marina as well as runoff from Burns Drive. The remaining storm sewers systems which drain the areas adjacent to the Marina basin as well as thp promenade area outlet directly into the Marina Basin or the Detroit River respectively. This permits a very undesirable condition during periods of high water, because in some instances, the water level is higher than the existing ground elevation being drained, therefore, these areas remain constantly flooded. Sanitary sewer service to the existing comfort station is provided by a 611 service which eventually connects to the 11' diameter sanitary sewer in Jefferson Avenue. The existing Marina Gatellouse building is served by an existing sanitary sewer located on the property immediately east of Memorial. Park. SECTION VI SHORT TERM REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed short term redevelopment plan for the Memorial Park site can be divided into 2 parts, one being the rehabilitation of the existing Marina facility and the second being the redevelopment of the park itself. Marina Redevelopment - Short Term Goals Discussion with City of Detroit Staff has been very effective in pinpointing and prioritizing current needs at the Marina facility. A list, in order of priority, of the major items of work proposed to be accomplished as part of the short terra plan follows: 1. Raise.and repair the existing Marina Seawall to elevation 101.0 -(City of Detroit Datum) and in conjunction raise and repair the existing parking areas adjacent to the Marina Seawall. As discussed previously, the recent underwater investigation revealed certain areas along the existing seawall where spawting of the concrete is occurring. in addition, the relatively low elevation of the top of the seawall both in the Marina and along the river has contributed to the flooded condition recently experienced. A preliminary design to raise and repair the wall based on preliminary soils information has been accomplished and is detailed in Figure 2 bel.ow. qd-cqr lop or %JALL F-L 101.0 FFJ k J R-qW-E 1) qMrqMF 0 GRAM q"IslitiG copicqMI E CAP sirel- '41F!E r FEL. C16. 0 SIEEL q"IP- PH-ikKA1lClk-1% 0q01% ME) L.ql.o Ile - F'to EL q9P3.0-, rroxYqMICIIORED EAR5 WANK qV 6 20 FEY I 5T I " G 0q6qA qKq"Eir- UlAil- FA( E CO- qWAI-L In vEqMIr'r-r) pjEqq nrjEo 14 G 51IFF I 111. UFJ:11 11 // I'll If 16 I q"@qW" 1.q0 IE Tit-Itf-IN Pit E 5 Ile, t z'-cqf ((-*if 1-.c IF. CAP AUqMD r) c4@it-lsk IAL qqAL EXI2qSqI q16qKqJG WALL 6qA8qEqRAqIqF) qD2qE TA I 6qU EXISTING WALL REPAIR DETAIL FIGURE #2. Together with the raising of the wall around the marina, the existing parking areas adjacent to wal1 must also be filled, regraded to improve drainage and repaved with asphalt. 2. Rehabilitation of all existing utilities. This work would include the reworking of the surface drainage around the Marina basin to eliminate direct runoff into the basin. This would be accomplished by construction of an underground storm drainage system. The work in connection with raising the grade around the marina wall. would involve installation of numerous new catch basins on both sides of the marina basin. These catch basins are proposed to be connected by an underground 'storm drain. Flow- on the east side of the basin would be directed to the north to a small lift station then pumped into the existing storm sewer system. On the west side of the basin, flows are proposed to be directed to the south and then west with eventual gravity connection to the existing storm sewer outfal.l. Runoff from the Promenade area is atso proposed to be directed into the east-west line via underground storm drains as shown on Exhibit Ill. in addition to the extensive storm drainage work proposed, all existing watermains and electric services within the Marina area are also proposed for replacement as a part of the short term rehabilitation. This work would include the lowering and replacement of the existing watermain as well as replacement of the existing electric services and installation of new utility terminals. The existing pump out. system has long presented problems for the Marina patrons as well as staff. Proposed short term rehabilitation includes the provisions for a new pump out facility as well as rehabilitation of the existing mechanical system. 3. Installation of a new Security System The proposed security system preferred by City Staff utilizes a key card and control gate to restrict vehicular access to the Marina. Each key card is individually coded and the system has the capability of restricting the ingress to only one vehicle per card. In addition, the system works such that no other vehicle is able to enter through the gate using the same card until the initial vehicle exits. 4. Replace the existing center dock with a floating pier and T-docks. The floating pier design proposed to replace the existing center dock would be of the type and configuration that could be reused if expansion of the Marina takes place as proposed in the Long Range Redevelopment plan shown in Exhibit IV. 5. Additional Parking Installation of the new key card access system described above will enable the parking rules previously established by Marina Staff to be enforced, however, provisions for more parking for the Marina patrons is still a necessity. To meet this demand, negotiations are proposed to continue with the Whittier Apartments across Burns Street from Memorial Park to lease a portion of their property for additional Marina parking. The total estimated cost to accomplish the items described above as the short term goals for the Marina redevelopment is $2,310,000.00. An itemized breakdown of the cost estimate is included in Appendix C of this report. Park Redevelopment Short Term Goals For the purpose of this report, the remaining recreational land at the park has been broken into 3 separate regions. For clarity, the Promenade is considered Region 1, the Park area north of the Marina is Region 2, and the Memorial Park Extension is Region 3. The short term goals for each area are addressed individually in the following text. 1. Region 1 - Promenade Short term redevelopment of Region 1, as shown on Exhibit III centers around the rai sing of the existing seawall along the Detroit River to an elevation of 101.0, City of Detroit Datum together with filling arid regrading of the Promenade to match the new wall height. In addition, approximately 150 feet of new seawall is also proposed for construction near the existing fishing pier at the west end of the park. Preliminary design for both the raising of the wall arid construction of the new seawall has been accomplished. The wall details are included as Figure 2 - Section VI and Figure 5 - Section VII. Construction of a new concrete boardwalk arid miscellaneous concrete walkways, reconstruction of a portion of the existing public parking lot arid resurfacing of the remainder of the lot as well as landscaping of the area are all proposed to be included as part of the short term redevelopment of the Memorial Park Promenade. Total cost for this work is estimated to be $730,400-00 An itemized breakdown of the costs are included in Appendix C of this report. 2. Region 2 - Area north of.the existing Marina Short, term redevelopment of Region 2, the park area just north of the Marina is proposed to include rehabilitation of the existing restroom/comfort station facility, removal the existing basketball court, installation of a children's play area and picnic shelter, construction of additional public parking for 20 cars along Marina Drive, and the resurfacing of the existing public parking lot. Regrading of the area as well as new landscaping are also included as part of the short term redevelopment plan. Total estimated cost for the proposed work for Region 2 is $346,500.00. A cost breakdown follows in Appendix C of this report. 3. Region 3 - Memorial Park Extension Short term redevelopment of Region 3, the Memorial Park Expansion area is proposed to include raising of the existing seawal I to elevation 101.0, consl.ruction of a new concrete boardwalk, installation of a picnic shelter and a chi-ldreTI'S play area as well. as filling, regrading and additional. landscaping for the area. Currently a chain link fence exists between the Marina and the Memorial Park Extension. Installation of a gate along this east fence line with controlled access is proposed to allow access to the area by the Marina patrons. The estimated cost for redevelopment of Region 3 is $493,900.00. An itemized breakdown of the cost is included in Appendix C. Summary of Costs - Short Term Goals Marina Redevelopment 2,310,000.00 Region 1 - Promenade Area 730,400.00 Region 2 - Area North of Marina 346,500-00 Region 3 - Memorial Park Extension 493,900.00 Total. Cost Short Term Goals 3,880,800.00 Note: All estimated costs are based on 1988 prices. SECTION VII - THE LONG TERM REDEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed long term redevelopment plan for Memorial Park as shown in Exhibit IV centers around the expansion of the existing marina Facility. The proposed expansion would increase the size of Marina basin from 8 acres to 15 acres. As was the case with the short term goals, the long term redevelopment plan can also be separated into two parts, redevelopment of the Marina and the. rehabilitation of the Park itself. Marina Expansion - Long Term Goals The proposed marina layout, as well as the boat slip and pier design, follow the requirements and guidelines established by the State of Michigan Department of Natural. Pesources (DNR) Waterways Division. The recommended layout has been reviewed and conceptually approved by the Waterways Division. As shown in Exhibit IV, expansion of the Marina would encompass the existing Marina basin as well as approximately 12 acres of the park property adjacent immediately west of the existing Marina. The new slip layout is proposed as a T-Dock configuration with finger piers off the main piers and the boat slips oriented in the north-south direction. The expanded Marina will provide capacity for 193; 30' boats (55%) and 158; 45' boats (45%). in addition, the marina will be able to accommodate 2 or 3 601 boats on an interim basis as it is the desire of both the City of Detroit & the DNR Waterway Division that 601 boats be phased out at the Memorial Park Marina. The boat docks are proposed to be 3' wide with a center to center distance of 35' for 30' boats and 40' for 45' boats. The length of the docks as shown on the concept drawing is proposed to be equal to the length of tile boat to be docked in the slip. As an alternative to this, the docks may have a length of 3/4 of the boat length if a mooring pile is provided at the end of the docks. Although a cost savings may be realized by using mooring piles, disagreements may arise between boaters in adjacent slips when required to share tile mooring piling. Therefore, cost estimates included in this report are based on dock lengths equal to the length of tile boat. Fairway width between tile boat docks shall be 1 1/2 x the boat lengths and a minimum of 60' adjacent to tile seawall. Tile width of the main pier shall be 10' to accommodate pier dock boxes which are to be provided at each slip. Per recommendation from tile Waterways Division, a float.ing dock design is proposed to be utilized for the 30' boats with a fixed pile foundation pier design for the docks housing the 45' boats. The new entrance channel from the Detroit River to the Marina is proposed to be narrowed dramatically from its current width of approximately 300' to 140'. in addition, the entrance is proposed to be skewed slightly to the north-east and the entrance seawalls lined with rip-rap. Implementation of these measures in combination will mitigate the wave action which normally would be felt in the marina during the passing of larger vessels in the river channel. As can be seen on the proposed redevelopment concept plan, Exhibit IV, onsite parking for the boat owners will be provided in a parking lot adjacent to the Marina Basin. The proposed lot has a capacity of 300 cars, this being a ratio of .8 car per slip in addition to the 20 spaces provided for employee parking. As described in Section VI of this report, the potential for additional parking exists across Burns Drive from the park at a lot owned by the Whittier Apartments. Long term redevelopment shall include the leasing of this area to provide additional. parking for Marina patrons at a total ratio of 1.5 car per sli.p. The key card security system previously described in Section VI as part of thp short term redevelopment plan is again proposed to be utilized to control the ingress of vehicles to the Marina. The new parking arrangement and revised location of the Marina access point make it unfeasible to utilize the existing marina building as the Gatehouse facility, therefore, a new building is proposed for construction. An alternative use for the existing building is discussed later in this section. in addition to the Gatehouse building, two other new buildings are proposed for construction in conjunction with the Marina Expansion. The larger of the two structures, the new Marina Control Building shown in Figure 3 below, would be located immediately east of the Marina parking lot at approximately the midpoint of the new Marina basin. This facility would house restroom and shower facilities, and the Marina laundry facility as well as the electric transformers. The Harbor Master's office would also be located in this facility and thus the building would function as the base for Marina Security. )h qn4o4ss qD-4p 2qh0qw= qFqMIT74 qAqkE4qA tPS I T@O qUM@ q-qY 2qm4qiqr04qm 2qOqi4qr 4qtqcqo qSqF. qSqP n A qN 'qT6q=c q:q1 '1; 7q1 q, 2qF8qr/q, -C, D parking side PROPOSED MARINA CONTROL BUILDING FlGURE #3 The smaller structure, planned for location near the south-east corner of the Marina parking lot, is slated to house only restroom facilities. The building design as shown in Figure 4 below, is such that the structure would be a shared facility with access for the public on the one side and access for the Marina patrons on the other. In this way service is provided for the public who are utilizing the Promenade area and, at the same time, the boat owners are provided the convenience of an additional restroom facility for their use. 4qCUq14q3LqIC ql6qbo 8qSqr@ 6qW", q1q4qV 4qSqp. U6qW IqJ4qC. 0q0 qC') 4qC) 4q76q"q14q7q1 Lqe-qV q;8q@q: Iq)6qN8qC0qf0qf0qi8qF_0qN 16qM56qARI60qN72qN PROPOSED RESTROOM FACILITY FIGURE # 4 Expansion of the Marina Basin and redesign of the Channel entrance necessitates construction of a substantial legth of new seawall at the Memorial Park Site. As discussed previously in Section IV of this report, a preliminary soils investigation has been performed. Information from the soils report together with the proposed utilization of the areas adjacent to the new walls, as shown in Exhibit IV, have been useful in developing a preliminary design for the proposed seawall. Due to existing soil conditions, a cantileaver type retaining wall will not be cost effective, rather, an anchored sheet pile wall design, shall be implemented. A preliminary wall section is shown in Figure 5 below. Preliminary design requires steel sheet piling lengths of 30 to 40 feet with tie backs spaced approximately 12 feet apart. It must be stressed that tie back spacings and sheet piling lengths outlined in this report are preliminary in nature and are to be utilized only for feasibility and estimating purposes. Once again, it should be noted that prior to final design, additional soil borings and more specialized testing will be required, particularly along tile Marina basin wall, to determine more specific soil parameters necessary to resolve final design factors. Extensive dredging of the park land west of the existing basin will also be required to construct tile expanded Marina basin. Quantities calculated for cost estimating purposes are based on tile DNR requirements of depths of 8' below low water elevation in the slip areas and 101 below low water datum in the fairway areas. Cross sections taken through the existing and proposed Marina are included in Appendix B. These sections include tile proposed dredging -limits superimposed on the existing topography and are able to show with more clarity the actual extent of the excavation necessary. The preliminary soils report suggests that much of the material to be excavated will consist of rubble fill and some degree of difficulty is likely to be encountered during excavation operations. In addition, due to the abnormally high concentrations of certain organic compounds detected during chentical analysis of the soil samples, additional cost is likely to be incurred because of the special method in which the material must be handled and disposed of in order to meet applicable government regulations. Proposed to be included as part of the Marina redevelopment is the provision for utilities at each boat slip. one flutility terminal" will be provided for every two boat slips. The terminals are located between two of the finger piers or docks and provide electrical and water service for-the 2 slips. A typical detail of a utility terminal is shown in Figure six below. Electrical service shall be 30 amps for each 30' slip and 50 amps for each 45' or 60' slip. Two 3/4" hose bibs with check valves will be provided on each utility terminal. Additional utilities such as cable T.V. and tetephone will be accommodated by the placement of "blank" conduit inside the main piers during the initial. Marina redevelopment enabling future installation should their service be desired. In addition to the utility terminals, a public address system which can be heard throughout all portions of the Marina is proposed to be provided. The long term redevelopment concept plan, Exhibit IV denotes the existing utilities and access points for the installation of the new utilities to serve the Marina. Electric service for the Marina facilities as well as the 3 new buildings are proposed to be provided by extension to the south and west of the existing electric lines which currently serve the comfort station and Marina Gatehouse. Telephone service will be provied from the existing telephone lines in Burns Drive. As shown on Exhibit IV, a sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from the existing pump station near the north-west corner of the site to the south to serve both the new Marina Control building as well as the proposed restroom facility near the Promenade. Sanitary service for use by the boaters will be provided by means of a pumpout facility which will be located at the end of the main pier adjacent to the Marina Control Building. A pump and force main will be utilized to transfer the waste flows from this location to a sanitary manhole. Storm drainage for the new parking lots and other improvements will be provided by extension of;the underground storm system proposed in the short term goals previously covered in this report. In addition to new utilities to be installed as part of the Marina redevelopment, the Marina Expansion necessitates the relocation of some existing utilities. In particular, the existing 6" watermain located immediately west of the existing Marina will require relocation to facilitate dredging operations. Tile proposed new watermain alignment is such that water service from the line can easily be provided for the new Marina facilities as well as the proposed buildings. Cost analysis of the work described above has been accomplished and is estimated at $11,100,000.00. An itemized breakdown of cost can be found in Appendix D of this report. Park Redevelopment - Long Term Goals Expansion of the Marina as proposed above leaves a remainder of 17 acres of actual land for recreational use. Long term redevelopment planning for the remaining recreational land has been broken into 3 separate regions for the purpose of clarity, with Region I being considered tile Promenade, Region 2 the Memorial Park expansion, and Region 3 the remaining park between tile expanded Marina and Jefferson Avenue. It should be noted that this report assumes that tile short term redevelopment plan has been implemented prior to the .long term redevelopment. Therefore, cost estimates for tile long term redevelopment goals do riot include costs for work previously proposed as short term redevelopment goals. 1. Region 1 - Promenade For purpose of this study, the Promenade is defined as the 4.5 acres of property adjacent to tile Detroit River west of the new channel entrance as well as the 2 acres along Burris Drive which acts as a buffer strip between the roadway and the proposed Marina Parking lot. Redevelopment of the Promenade area includes construction of a public parking lot with capacity for 34 cars, a turn around for Burns Avenue, new concrete walks, installation of a children's play area and extensive new landscaping. The long range plan also includes construction of the restroom facility described previously in this section and shown previously in Figure 4. As discussed, final design of the building shall be such that the facility houses restroom facilities for Marina patrons on one side and the general public on the other. The total cost for the above described work is estimated to be $374,000.00. An itemized breakdown is included in Appendix D of this report. 2. Region 2 - Memorial Park Expansion The Memorial Park Expansion area includes the 4.3 acres of park land east of the Marina and immediately north of the river. In the long range planning, public access would be allowed along the east wall of the Marina basin both by pedestrian as well. as cars, thorefore, redevelopment of this area includes construction of additional public parking and a turn around area for vehicles near the river's edge. A fishing pier and additional landscaping of the region are also included as part of the long range plan. The estimated cost for this work is $242,000.00. A cost breakdown is included in Appendix D. 3. Region 3 - Area North of the expanded Marina Long range planning for Region 3, the area north of the proposed expanded Marina proposes construction of new concrete walks and extensive new landscaping. In addition, the long range redevelopment calls for removal of the existing comfort station and the rennovation of the former Marina Gatehouse building for use as public restrooms (see Figure 7 below). A public restroom facility at this location would best serve the needs of the public utilizing either the play area and picnic shelters north of the Marina or the expanded fishing and picnic areas near the river's edge east of the Marina. IFF MW RENOVATED GA-rEHO05E DOILDING, FIC-40E 47. Cost to accomplish the above describe work is estimated at $396,000.00. An itemized breakdown is.included in Appendix D. Summary of Costs - Long Term Goals Marina Redevelopment 11,100,000.00 Region 1 -Promenade Area 374,000.00 Region 2 - Area North of Marina 242,000.00 Region 3 - Memorial Park Extension 396,000.00 Total Cost Short Term Goals 12,112,000.00 Note: Total cost does not reflect work included in short range redevelopment plan. All estimated costs are based on 1988 prices. o t APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION August 10, 1987 Ms. Helen M. Himes, P.E. Charles S. Davis Associates, Inc. 220 Bagley, Suite 700 Detroit, Michigan 48226 RE: Geotechnical Investigation Memorial Park Marina Detroit, Michigan SME Project No. E/10579 Dear Ms. Himes: We have completed our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Memorial Park Marina expansion, to be constructed in Detroit, Michigan. This letter presents the results of our field investigation and our comments concerning design and construction of sheet pile retaining walls. An environmental evaluation was also requested. The results of the soils chemical analysis are not yet available at the time of writing, and will be sent to you later as an addendum to this letter. Project Information The site is located at Memorial Park, south of Jefferson Avenue and between Burns Street and Marina Drive, in Detroit, Michigan. Based on the site plan, provided by Charles S. Davis and Associates (the Engineer), the site generally slopes down from north to south, with ground surface elevations varying from abotu 117 feet DCD to about 97 DCD along the Detroit River. The water level of the Detroit River is currently at about 98 DCD. We understand the proposed development is to consist of extending the existing marina basin to the west, into the area which is currently being used as recreational land. Based on the conceptual plan provided to us by the Engineer, piers with boat slips will extend westward from the retaining wall at the east side of the basin. The slips will be reached by channels running along the north, west, and south ends of the basin, and between the boat slip piers. Parking for passenger vehicles could be within about 20 feet of the west wall of the marina basin. Ms. Helen Himes'. P.E. Charles S. Davis and Associates, Inc. August 10, 1987 Page 2 Steel sheeting Is to be used for construction of retaining walls. The top of the sheeting is to be about elevation 101 feet, DCD. Proposed channel depths below low water level (LWL) are as follows: boat slips, 5 feet; channels, 7 feet; main channel, 10 feet. LWL is about elevation 93.25 DCD, and High Water Level (HWL) is about elevation 98.2 DCD. Field Operations The number and depth of the borlngs were selected by the Engineer, with Input from SME. The boring locations were selected by the Engineer. Three soil borings were performed at the site for this Investigation, extending to depths of 40 to 45 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were drilled by SME at points close to the planned locations. Boring locations were controlled by drilling equipment access. Ground surface elevations were Interpolated from contour- elevations on the site plan prepared by,the Engineer. The soil borings were drilled using a truck-mounted rotary type drilling rig. The bore holes were advanced to the sampling depths using continuous flight hollow stem augers. The borings included soil sampling in general accordance with ASTM Standard D-1586 (split-barrel sampling procedures). Results of the boring data showing materials encountered, -penetration resistances obtained in the soil and other pertinent field observations made during the drilling operations are included on the logs at the end of this letter. Groundwater measurements were also obtained In the bore holes during and after completion of drilling at each location. Since the bore holes were backfilled soon after drilling, long term water level information is not available from these borlngs. An explosive gas indicator was placed in each borehole to detect the presence of explosive gas escaping from the boreholes. Laboratory Testing The soil samples were sealed In glass jars in the field and brought to the laboratory for further examination and testing. Also, samples of the fill materials have been subjected to a soils chemical analysis. The results of the chemical analysis tests are not available at the time of this writing, and will be sent when they are available. The soil samples were classified In the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer in general accordance with the Unified Soil Ms. Helen Himes, P.E. Charles S. Davis and Associates, Inc. August 10, 1987 Page 3 Classification System. The general testing program consisted of performing moisture content, and hand penetrometer and/or Torvane shear tests upon portions of the cohe-31ve samples obtained. In the hand penetrometer test, the unconfined compressive strength of a cohesive soil sample is estimated by measuring the resistance of the sample to penetration of a small calibrated spring-loaded cylinder. The maximum capacity of the penetrometer Is 4.5 tsf. In the Torvane shear test, the shear strength of a cohesive soil sample is estimated by measuring the torque applied to a small spring loaded vane which Is Inserted Into the soil sample. The shear strength of a cohesive sample Is equal to one- half the unconfined compression strength. The Torvane is generally used to test the strength of softer clays. Subsurface Conditions A. Soil Conditions The soil conditions encountered at the boring locations can be summarized as follows. Mixed sand, clay, and rubble fill or possible fill extended to depths of 13 to 16 feet below the existing ground surface. At Boring 1, clayey sand was observed underlying the fill material,-, to a depth of 18 feet, which was underlain by silty clay to the explored depth of the boring. At Boring 2, the fill was underlain by clayey silt to 24 feet followed by sand to 27 feet, and finally underlain by silty clay to the explored depth of the boring. At Boring 3, underlying the fill to the explored depth of the boring was silty clay. The fill material was very loose to medium dense, with Standard Penetration Test resistances (N-values) of 4 to 17 blows per foot. The moisture content of the fill generally varied from about 12 to 27 percent. The natural sand soils in Borings I and 2 were very loose to loose, with N-values of 4 and 9 blows per foot. The clayey silt was soft, with a shear strength of about 200 psf, and a moisture content of about 48 percent. The silty clay layer encountered at a depth of about 15 feet In Boring 3 was very stiff, with unconfined compression strengths of 3-1/2 and 2-112 tsf, and moisture contents of about 16 and 17 percent. The underlying silty clay soils in Boring 3 and silty clay soils In the other borings, were soft to medium, with shear strengths of about 300 to 800 psf, and moisture contents of about 12 to 37 percent. Ms. Helen Himes, P.E. Charles -S. Davis and Associates, Inc. August 10, 1987 Page 4 Please refer to the boring -logs for the specific details of the soil conditions at the respective boring locations. Stratifica- tion lines on the boring logs Indicate a general transition between soil types. They are not Intended to show an area of exact geological change. B. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered at depths of 3.5 to 9 feet below the existing ground surface (elevations 96 to 101, DCD) during the drilling operations. Water was encountered at depths of 3 to 28 feet (elevations 82 to 96, DCD) Immediately after completion of the drilling operations. Based on the available information, we believe the water level at this site to be about elevation 98 feet., DCD, which is about the current level of the Detroit River. Due to the proximity of.th1s site to the Detroit River, we believe the groundwater levels are primarily influenced by the water level of the river. The long term hydrostatic groundwater level should be expected to fluc- tuate on a seasonal and long term basis with variations in precipitation, evaporation and surface run-off. C. Explosive Gas Based on the results of our explosive gas indicator, explosive gas mixtures were not encountered in any of the three soil borings. D. Chemical Testing Results At the time of this writing, the results froin the chemical testing of selected samples of the existing fill materials was not complete. We shall submit the analysis of the test results In a subsequent letter, after they become available. Analysis and Recommendations Based upon the soil boring Information and our understanding of the proposed project, as mentioned herein, we present the following preliminary g'eotechnical recommendations related to design and construction of marina retaining walls. The analyses and recommendations In this letter are preliminary In nature, and should not be used for specific design purposes. After the design criteria are more complete, additional soil borings should be performed in areas where the retaining walls will be constructed. If the conceptual design is incorrect or changed subsequent to our reporting, or if conditions during construction Ms. Helen Himes, P.E. Charles S. Davis and Associates, Inc. August 10, 1987 Page 5 are found to be significantly different from those encountered in our borings, we should be contacted so we may re-evaluate our recommendations to the extent dictated. A. Marina Design Based on the project construction as described herein, and the conceptual plan provided to us by the Engineer, we understand piers for boat slips will extend perpendicular to the marina retaining walls. Thus, the walls will be mainly In channel areas, where 7 to 10 feet of channel depth is required below LWL. Given the available project information and the soil boring conditions, we believe several types of construction could be used for retaining wall. These types basically fall into two categories; cantilevered and anchored bulkheads. 1. Cantilevered Walls Due to the marina configuration and the soil conditions, a typical free standing cant1levered steel sheetpile retaining wall does not appear cost effective, and may not be technically feasible. With water depths of 10 feet for LWL conditions In the main channel, support of the retaining wall may be difficult because of the weak underlying soils. We believe cantilevered walls could be successfully utilized If a stabilizing berm is used In front of the wall. The berm, consisting of (nominally) 6 inch size crushed stone or rip-rap, would provide, the resistance necessary for support. Preliminarily, we anticipate a stone berm depth of about 8 feet In thickness, projecting about 25 to 35 feet away from the wall would be necessary In combination with cantilevered sheet piles of about 40 to 50 feet in length. Adequate stability must be provided during all phases of construction. Since the stone berm would be necessary to provide sufficient stability to the wall, it will be necessary to install the berm before the sheeting Is fully loaded (phased loading) or provide temporary tiebacks until the stone berm Is in place. For phased loading of the wall, the construction sequence could be as follows: . excavate behind the proposed wall; Install the sheeting; dredge and place the stone berm in front of the wall; and then backfill behind the wall. For the temporary tiebacks, the construction sequence could be: install the sheeting, temporary tiebacks and anchors; dredge in front of wall and place stone berm, remove tieback and anchors. Ms. Helen Himes, P.E. Charles S. Davis and Associates, Inc. August 10, 1987 Page 6 Any excavations behind the wall, before or after the wall is Installed, should be refilled with an approved granular material. 2. Anchored Sheetpile Wall For an anchored sheetpile wall design, the sheeting is held near the top with tie bars or cables connected to anchors, located some distance behind the wall. The anchors typically consist of concrete deadmen or another sheetpile wall, installed below grade. Based on the conceptual plan, we do not anticipate serious problems with locating anchors on this site. The thickness and nature of the fill In the marina area may require relatively large or deep deadman or sheetpile anchors. If an anchored alternative is selected, we recommend test pits be performed along the anchor line to determine the depth and consistency of the fill materials. Based on the properties of the soil, an anchor design may then be performed. lie preliminarily anticipate sheet pile lengths of 30 to 40 feet could be used with a properly designed anchor system. B. Construction Considerations We anticipate some problems with excavation during the construction at this site. A relatively large amount of material will have to be excavated and removed. We anticipate this material will primarily consist of rubble fill. The materials excavated should be handled and disposed of in a proper manner In accordance with governing regulations. The excavation contractor should be prepared with suitable equipment to excavate and remove large pieces of concrete, wood, wood piles, etc., during mass excavation. Obstructions could be encountered during the Installation of sheetpiles. The rIverfront of Detroit has a long history of development and industrial activity. Although a records search was not performed for this project, we believe It may be possible old timber pile foundations could be encountered during driving of the sheetpiling. Efforts should be made to locate and remove old timber piles or other large obstructions which may interfere with sheetpile Installation during the mass excavation. Also, the contractor who Installs the sheetpiling should be aware of the possibility of large obstructions, and should be prepared to remove them once encountered. Ms. Helen Himes, P.E. Charles S. Davis and Associates, Inc- August lo, 1987 Page 7 All excavations will require adequate slopes or sharing for slope stability. All excavations should be sloped as necessary to comply with MI-OSHA requirements. If dictated by the ground conditions, an adequately constructed and braced shoring system -should be provided for employees working in an excavation that may expose employees to the danger of moving ground. If material is stockpiled or heavy equipment Is operated near an excavation, stronger shoring must be used to resist the extra pressure due to superimposed loads. C. Additional Investigation Sheeting lengths and other recommendations contained in this letter are considered preliminary in nature. They are Intended for feasibility and estimating purposes only, and should not be construed as specific design recommendations. Factors affecting sheetpile design Include (but are not limited to) soil strength parameters and surcharge loads behind walls, such as landscaped berms and parking areas. For soft clay soils encountered In the soil borings, relatively small changes In strength parameters can have a significant affect on sheetpIle lengths and design considerations. After the project plans are more complete, we recommend additional soil borings be performed along the marina basin walls to resolve the design factors. Also, we recommend more specialized soil sampling and testing procedures should be used. . This would Include Shelby tube sampling to obtain larger, relatively undisturbed samples of' the cohesive soils below the fill; and triaxial shear tests in the laboratory, to more accurately determine strength parameters. SME would be pleased to provide these services. D. Construction Quality Control SME should be given the opportunity to review the project plans and specifications to verify the project is as anticipated when our preliminary design recommendations were provided and our recommendations were properly Incorporated. In addition, SME should be used during construction to monitor all site prepa- ration activities and retaining wall Installation activities. General Comments This letter report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices to aid In the evalua- tion of this property and to assist in the design of this project. This report, with its recommendations and conclusions, should be considered preliminary In nature. In the event of Ms. Helen Himes, P.E. Charles S. Davis and Associates, Inc. August 10, 1987 Page 8 changes in the design criteria, the conclusions and recommendations contained In this letter shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by our office. The analysis and recommendations submitted In this letter are based upon the data obtained from the three soil borings per- formed at the approximate locations indicated on the appended location plan. This report does not reflect variations which may occur between the borings. The nature and extent of the varia- tions may not become evident until the time of construction. if significant variations then become evident, It may be necessary for us to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, procedures are followed that represent reasonable and accepted practice In the field of soil and foundation engl- neering. Specifically, field logs are prepared during the drill- Ing and sampling operations that describe field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information. However, the samples obtained in the field are frequently subjected to additional testing and reclassification in the laboratory and differences may exist between the field logs and the final logs. The engl- neer preparing the report reviews the field logs, laboratory classifications and test data and then prepares the final boring logs. Our recommendations are based on the contents of th e final logs and the information contained therein. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you during this phase of the project. If there are any questions concerning this letter, please contact us. Very truly yours, SOIL AND MATERIALS E INEERS, INC. Theodore A. Janish 0 otechnical Engineer Garrett Ii. Evans, P.E. Principal Engineer Enclosures 2 pe: enclosed IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More cnonstruction problems are caused by site subsurface MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as sub- PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES surface problems can be their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent year thanks to the Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) only at those points where samples are taken when they When ASFE was founded in 1969, subsurface problems are taken Data denved through sampling and subsequent were frequently being resolved through lawsuits. In fact, laboratory testing are extrapolated by the geotechnical the situation had grown to such alarming proportions that engineer who then tenders an opinion about overall sub consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes- surface condition. Their likely reaction to the proposed con sional liability record of all design professionals. By 1980 struction activity and appropriate foundation design. Even ASFE-member consulting soil and foundation engineers had the best under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ professional liability record. This dramatic turn about can be from those opined to exist. Because no geotechnical en- attributed directly to client acceptance of problem solving gineer no matter how qualified and no subsurface explor programs and materials developed by ASFE for its mem- ration program no matter how comprehensive can reveal bers application. This acceptance was gained because clients what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. For example the perceived the ASFE approach to be in their own best interests. actual interface between materials may be far more Disputes benefit only those who earn their living from gradual or abrupt than the report indicates, and actual others disagreements. conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predic- The following suggestions and observations are offered to tions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, cost-over- be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultant through the constuction project. construction stage. To identify variances, conduct additional tests which may be needed and to recommend solutions A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING to problems encountered on site. REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project specific factors. These typically include the general Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly nature of the structure involved. Its size and configuration changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engineer- the location of the structure on the site and its orientation ing report is based on conditions which existed at the tiem physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots of subsurface exploration constrution decisions shoucl not be and underground utilities and the level of additional risk based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed been affected by time. Speak with the geotechnical consultant upon the exploratory program to help avoid costly prob- to learn if additional tests are advisable before construc- lems consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how tion starts. any factors which change subsequent to the date of his Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and report may afffect his recommendations natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates thus the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not be used The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any *When the nature of the proposed structure is such events, and should be consulted to determine if changed. For example if and office building will be additional tests are necessary. erected instead of a parking garage. Or if a refriger- rated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrig- A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING erated one. REPORT IS SUBJECT TO *When the size or configuration of the proposed MISINTERPRETATION structure is altered. Costly problems can occur when other design profession- *When the location or orientation of the proposed als develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a structure is modified geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid these prob- *When there is a change of ownership, or lems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work *for application to an adjacent site with other appropriate design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy A geotehnical engineer cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if he is not consulted after factors considered in his report's development have changed. Sidewalk "4S, B3 5,0 Sidewalk B 2 A- @c@ NORTH SOIL BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM MEMORIAL MARINA DETROIT, MICHIGAN --- ANN ARBOR Date 8/6/87 By- BATTLE CREEK CS BAY CITY sr-ale 1":200' soil and materials LANSING engineers, inc- LIVONIA E 10-57S general notes soil and materials engineers, inc Drilling & Sampling Symbols SS- Split-Spoon _ 13 1 D., 2'0 D . except where noted ST - Shelby Tube 2"OD. except where noted PS Piston Sample - 3" diameter AS Power Auger Sample WS - Wash Sample HA - Hand Auger Sample BS- Miscellaneous Bag or Bottle Sample NR- No Recovery RC - Rock Core with diamond bit NX size. except where noted RB- Rock Bit Standard*N' Penetration -Blows per toot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. Water Level Measurement Symbols Particle Sizes WIL -Water Level Boulders -Greater than 12" (305 mrn) WCI - Wet Cave In Cobbles - 3' (76.2 mm) to 12"(305 mm) DCI -Dry Cave In Gravel - Coarse - 1.,'(19.05 mm) to 3'( 76.2 mm) WS - While Sampling Gravel - Fine - No. 4 ('./,@')(4 75mm) to '/@*(1905mm) WD - While Drilling Sand Coarse -No 10 (2.00mm) to No. 4 (4.75mm) BCR - Before Casing Removal Sand Medium -No@ 40 (0.425mm) to No,10 (2.00mm) ACR - After Casing Removal Sand Fine -No. 200 (0.074mm) to No.40(0.425mm) AB - After Boring Silt - 0.005mm to 0.074 mm Clay -Less than 0.005mm Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. The accurate determination of ground water levels may not be possible with short term observations especially in impervious soils. The levels shown may fluctuate throughout the year with variations in precipitation. evaporation. and runoff. Classification Cohesionless Soils Cohesive Soils Very Loose 0to 4 Blows CONSISTENCY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Loose 5to 9 Blows Very Soft Less than 0 25 tons/ft' Medium Dense 10 to 29 Blows Soft 0 25 to 0 49 tons/ It Dense 30 to 49 Blows medlu m 0 50 to 0 99 ionsm Very Dense 50 to 80 Blows Stiff 1 00 to 1 99 Ions/it' Extremely Dense Over SO Blows very stiff 200 to 3 99 tons / it' Hard Greater than 400 tons/ft' Soil Constituents Soil Description Trace Less than 10% It clay content is sufficient So that clay dominates soil prop - Trace to Some": 10% to 20% erlies then Jay becomes the primary noun with the other ma@r Soi@,,ConS(,iluent as modifier ie, silly clay Other minor 'Some" 20% to 35% sot cons uent may be added according to estimates of And' 35tto 60% soil constituent s preseni. i e . sill y clay, irace to some sand Irace gravei 90RING LOG NO. or i) OWNER ARCIIITECT/ ENGINE City_ol Detroit Charles S. Davis & Associates, lite. LOCATION PROJECT NAME 9etroiL, Michip n Memorial Park Marina LEGEND cc uj S I ANOA RD riNtIRATION. -H- 16LOWSIti I ui uj t4ATURAL WATER CONTENT. TO z :E DEPTH E] TORVANE 81 1EAR STRENGTI I (tsf) IN DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL W ui 0 coNfiNfo COmrsfSSIVE STRI"r.111 11.1) 441 A uJ FEET I'_ CAkibRAIEU HAHu rtmtTaomtua %vntt4GiH (,.ij -A CL W SCA L E 4 *00 1 2 3 4 5 let SURFACE ELEVATION 99�))CD 0 0 10 20 30 40 0 %,N I SS 2 SS 5- 3 SS -Mixed Sand, Clay, and RLIbble Fill- Pieces of Concrete and Brick - Dark Brown - Moist to Wet - Loose to Very Loose - (SP-CL-Fill) 4 SS 10- 15 Clayey Fine Sand - Trace to Some Silt - WiLh Shell Fragments, Root - Fibers and Occasional Clay Seams- -Grey Wet Very Loose (SC) 6 20- 7 25- -Silty Clay Trace Saiid and Gravel -With Occasional Silt and Sand Seams Grey Soft (CL) 8 SS 30- SS SS S SS SS 9 SS 35 40 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ORING LOG NO. 1 (2 of 2) OWNER ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Detroit Charles S. Davis & Associates, Inc. LOCATION PROJECT NAME Detroit, Michigan Memorial Park Marina LEGEND cc W S T A N OA NO PENETRATION. 'N' illiOWS/Ft.) uj ui NATURAL WATER CONILM. z DEPTH z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL El TORVANE SHEAR. STRENGTI-j (IsO W a IN W _j A kj,,,0NflN&O COMPRESSIVE SiRENG114 hill _j W FEET (L _j CALIBRATED HAND PENEIROMLIER STRiNG11i (s.11 z '(@ SCALE *00 1 2 3 4 5 tat CA i i i I- hURFACE ELEVATION 99�DCD 0 (g) 10 20 30 io 50 %,N CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE 35 10 S 40 Silty Clay -Trace Sand and Gravel- With Occasional Si1L and Sand Seams Grey - Soft - (C0 45 END OF BORING NOTE: The indicated stratification lines are app(o Mal@. MINERAL WELL in 3itu, The Itan3ition between Materials M&Y be Qladuall PERMIT NO. A WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORIN0 ST RTED BORING COMPLETED1 7-23-87 3.5' WHILE SAMPLING OR WHILE DRILLING RIG: #72 DRAWN BY: CB 31 _ IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION FOREMAN: J11 APPROVED: WD/TJ soil and materials AFTER COMPLETION JOB:E10579 SHEET: 2 of 2 engineers, inc NOTE: Boring back 1111ed with na I ijral SOWi UnIOSS 0Ih(J'l`Wi!;C(1UIqjd. 601-IiNU LOG NO. z (i ot OWNER ARCHITECT/ ENGINE City of Detroit Charles S. Davis & Associates, Tne. LOCATION PROJECT NAME Detroit, Michigan Memorial Park Marina LEGEND cc UA S I AN DA It DPEN( I R A 11004. 'N' (II(OWS i I I) W ui 0 t4AIUMAt WAIER CONILHI. % z I- DEPTH z U) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL El TORVANE SHEAR. STnENGTH Ut;t) - IN uj 93 UNCONIFINto COMPRESSIVE STRENGIII 1'.01 -j a- W FEET ED ED PIANO PENEIROM(TER SIR1#4GIt4 (1.1) 0@ -4 -j CAJIBRAT :E SCALE '001 2 3 4 5 to( SURFACE ELEVATION 107�DCD 10 20 30 40 50 %,N Mixed Sand, C I ay, and Ibibb I e F i I I - With Pieces of Brick and Concrete- 2 Ss Dark Brown - Medium Dense - (SP- 5 Cl,-Fill) 3 SS- 4 SS 10 Organic Clayey Sil.t - 14itil Pieces of Wood - Trace Saud alid Gravel Black to Wet - Loose (01, Possible Fill) 15 Clayey Silt With RoA Fibers Trace Sand Discolor , Gray 6 Soft - Ni. Ol') 20 7 SS 25 Clayey Fine to Medium Sand Trace Gravel - Grey - Wet - Loose (SC) 8 Ss- 30 Silty Clay - Trace Sand and Gravel- With Occasional Sand and Silt Seams Grey Soft, (CL) 9 SS S S S S 1 9 3 @ Is @s S@S- S - 35 CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ORING LOG NO. 2 (2 of 2) OWNER ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Detroit Cliarles S. Davis & Associates, Inc. LOCATION PROJECT NAME Detroit, Michigan Memorial Park Marina LEGEND cc Lu STANDARD PENETRATION. -14' (E1LOW$/FT I 111 C) Lu z NATURAC WAIIER CONTENT. % CL DEPTH z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL El TORVANE SHEAR STRENG11i QsO w IN Cr. w IINCONIIHIL) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ii'll uA FEET -j (.A110RAIED HANO P1.1111CIM111. ll.tNGIIJ 11.11 4 SCALE W 2 3 4 5 SURFACE ELEVATION 107�DCD 0 Q) 10 210 30 40 50 %,N CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE 35 Silty Clay - Trace Sand and Gravel With Occasional Sand and Silt Seams Grey - Soft - (CL) 10 Ss 40 END OF BORING NOTE;The inclicatad sl(alilicalion lines are app(oximate. MINERAL WEIL in silu,lha transition ualwisen materials rr PERMIT No. A W ATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORIN G ST RTED 7- 22-87 BORING COMPLETEDI_-7-22-87 81 WHILE SAMPLING OR WHILE DRILLING Rw: #72 DRAWN IBY: CB IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION FOREMAN:J11 APPROVED: RH/TJ AFTER COMPLETION joe:E]0579 SHEET: 2 of 2 soil and materials HOTE: Boring backfilled with nal- engineers, I Inc butliNu L-ou Nia. j 01 OWNER ARCHITECT/ ENGINI. City of Detroit Charles S. Davis & Associates, Inc. LOCATION PROJECT NAME Memorial Park Marina Detroit, Michig n LEGEND STANDARD PENETRATION. 'N- ifiLOWS/FT.) Uj L) NATURAL WATER CONTENT. % w CL z DEPTH z CA DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL TORVANE SHEAR STRENGTFI Ust) TILT IN UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 11.11 -A C3 A Uj _j Q. Ui FEET I.- ca CAtIBRATED HAND PENETROMETER STRENGTH Ii.1i IL M _j -A :E 4 IT. 2 .< U) SCALE U) *00 1 2 3 4 5 tot SURFACE ELEVATION 110�DCD (X) 10 210 30 40 50 %,N 1 Ss 0 2 SS 5- 3 SS -Mixed Clay, Sand, and Rubble Fill- -With Pieces of Slag and Concrete -Black - Medium Dense to Loose (CL-SP-Fill) 4 SS 10- 5 SS 157 6 20- 1 Silty Clay Occasional GreySilt Seams - Trace Sand and Gravel Mottled Brown and Grey Very Stiff - (CL) 7 25- Silty Clay - Trace Sand and Gravel- Brown to Grey Medium to Soft 8 30 (CL) 13 SS S 4 SS SS SS 19) 35- CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ORING LOG NO. 3 (2 of 2) OWNER ARCHITECT /ENGINEER City of Detroit Charles S. Davis & Associates, Inc. LOCATION PROJECT NAME Detroit, Michigan Memorial Park Marina LEGEND LU STANDARD PENETRATION. 'N' (BLOWS/ FT cc W Uj U WATER CONTENT, z NATURAL DEPTH AYTERBERG LIMITS 4'- z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL PA % It% W IN IX W -1 0 A UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ii.fi -i m w FEET CL :E -j -j CALIBRATED HAND PENETROMETER STRENGTH (1.1) zj SCALE 4 *00 1 2 3 4 5 111 001 i 30 4i0 50 %'N SURFACE ELEVATION 110�DCD 0 20 CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE -35 Silty Clay- Trace Sand and Gravel- Brown to Grey Medium to Soft (CL) 10 Ss 40 END OF BORING NOTE:The inciicatecs stratification lines are approximate. MINERAL WELL In Situ, the transition between materials may be gradual PERMIT NO. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING START 7-22-87 BORING COMPLETEDI 7-22-87 91 WHILE SAMPLING OR WHILE DRILLING RIG: #72 DRAWN BY- CB -281 IMMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION FOREMAN: J11 APPROVED: RIT/TJ soil and materiai@ - AFTER COMPLETION JOB:E10579 SHEET: 2 of 2 jNOTE: Boring backtilled with nail engineerS, Inc AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS 16 Race St., Philadelphia, Pa. Reprinted from Copyrighted 1981 of ASTM Standards, Part 19 Standard Method for PENETRATION TEST AND SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLING OF SOILS ASTM Designation: D 1586-67 (Reapproved 1974) This Standard of the American Society for Testing and Materials is issued under the fixed designation D1586; the number immediately following the desinga- tion indicates the year of original adoption of, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parenteses indicates the year of last reaproval. This method has been approved for use by agencies of the Department of Defense and for lastin in the DoD indr of Specifications and Standards. 1. Scope 3. Procedure 4. Report 1.1 This method describes a procedure for 3.1 Clear out the hole to sampling elevation 4.1 Data obtained in borings shall be re- using a split-barrel sampler to obtain repre- using equipment that will ensure that the corded in the field and shall include the sentative samples of soil for identification material to be sampled is not disturbed by the following: purposes and other laboratory tests. and to operation. In saturated sands and silts with- 4.1.1 Name and location of job. obtain a messure of the resistance of the soil to draw the drill bit slowly to prevent loosening of 4.1.2 Date of boring-start, finish penetration of the sampler. the soil around the hole. Maintain the water 4.1.3 Boring number and coordinate. if level in the hole at or above ground water level. available. 2. Apparatus 3.2 In no case shall a bottom-discharge bit 4.1.4 Surface elevation if available. 2.1 Drilling Equipment-Any drilling equip- be permitted. (Side-discharge bits permissi- 4.1.5 Sample number and depth. ment shall be acceptable that provides a rea- ble.) The process of getting through an open 4.1.6 Method of advancing sampler, pene- sonable clean hold before insertion of the tube sampler and then sampling when the tration and recovery lenghts. sampler to ensure that the penetration test is desired depth is reached shall not be permitted. 4.1.7 Type and size of sampler. performed on undisturbed soil, and that will Where csing is used, it may not be driven 4.1.8 Description of soil. permit the driving of the sampler to obtain the below sampling elevation. Record any loss of 4.1.9 Thickness of layer. sample and penetration record in accordance circulation of excess pressure in drilling fluid 4.1.10 Dept to water surface: to loss of the procedure described in Section 3. To during advancing of holes. water; to artesian head;time at which reading avoid "whips" under the blows of the hammer. 3.3 With the sampler resting on the bottom was made. it is recommended that the drill rod have a of the hole, drive the sampler with blows from 4.1.11 Type and make of machine. stiffness equal to or greater than the A-rod. An the 140-lb (63.5-kg) hammer falling 30 in. 4.1.12 Size of casing, depth of cased hole. "A" rod is a hollow drill rod or "steel" having (0.76m) until either 18 in. (0.45m) have been 4.1.13 Number of blows per 6 in. (0.15m). an outside diameter of 13/4 in. (41.2mm) and penetrated or 100 blows have been applied. 4.1.14 Names of crewmen, and an inside diameter of 11/4 in. (28.5m). 3.4 Repeat this operation at intervals not 4.1.15 Weather, remarks, through which the rotary motion of drilling is longer than 5 ft (15m) in homogeneous stata transferred from the drilling motor to the and at every change of strata. drilling bit. A stiffer drill rod is suggested for 3.5 Record the number of blows required to drill deeper than 50 ft (15m). The hole shall effect each 6 in. (0.15m) of penetration or be limited in diameter to between 2' and 6 in. fractions thereof. The first 6 in. (0.15m) is (57.2 and 152mm). considered to be a seating drive. The number of 2.2 Split-Barrel Sampler-The sampler blows required for the second and third 6 in. shall be constructed with the dimensions in- (0.15m) of penetration added is termed the dicated in fig.1. The drive shoe shall be of penetration resistance. n. If the sampler is hardened steel and shall be replaced or re- driven less than 18 in. (0.45m). the penetration paired when it becomes dented or distorted. resistance is that for the last 1 ft (0.30m) of The coupling head shall have four 1/2 in. (12.7- penetration (if less that 1 ft (0.30m) is penetrated. The logs shall state the number of mm)(minimum diameter) vent ports and shall blows and the fraction of 1 ft (0.30m) pene- contain a ball check valve. If sizes other than trated). the 2-in. (50.8mm) sampler are permitted. the 3.6 Bring the sampler to the surface and size shall be conspicuously noted on all pene- open. Describe carefully typical samples of tration records. soils recovered as to composition, structure. 2.3 Drive Weight Assembly-The assembly consistency, color, and condition:then put into shall consist of a 140-lb (63.5kg) weight a jars without ramming. Seal them with wax or driving head, and a guide permitting a free fall hermetically seal to prevent evaporation of the Special precautions shall be soft moisture. Affix labels to the jar and make to ensure that the energy of the falling notions on the covers (or both) bearing job weight is not reduced by friction between the designatioin, boring number, sample number. drive weight and the guides. depth penetration record, and length of recov- 2.4 Accesory Equipment-Labels, data cry. Protect samples against extreme tempera- sheets, sample jars, paraffin, and other neces- ture changes. sary supplies shoukd accompany the sampling equipment. FIG. 1 Standard Split Barrel Sampler Assembly. The American Society for Testing and Materials takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights. and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that other comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards. 1416 Race St. Philadelphia, Pa 14101 which will schedule a further hearing regarding your comments. Failing satisfaction these you may appeal to the ASTM Board of Directors. MeEm! U4. 11 ied soil se'" and niatefials classification system gineers, inc Group Major divisions sym- Typical names Laboratory classification criteria bols Well-graded gravels. gravel- 0 (D GW sand mixtures. little or no > 12 Cu- 60 V-_- than 4, Ccz 30 between I and 3 _T 0 0 lines n D 10 qC@DGO C: (D0 E 3 U) (Do > CD, 0 VC8Poorly graded gravels. grav > CU 0) GP -sand mixtures. little or no Not mooling all gradation requirements for GW 0 2: n Z=Z fines 10 CD1 >0 C co CIA 003d 2E Atterberg limits below 'A' Silty gravels. gravel-sand- =3 0 @E Z.9 am cr).M? 3: Above 'A' fine with P.I. Z W:u silt mixtures E c" fine or P.I. less than 4 C -00 0 0 0-0 W between 4 and 7 are - CD C!2 @- -Afforberg limits above 'A' 0Q. C: =CL :1 Clayey gravels. Qravel-sand- Z0 a- 0 0 borderline cases requiring 0 00<0 GO > = cq (5 0 fine with PJ. greater than Z -E clay mixtures 0. :g W 0 7 use of dual symbols V).5; Well-graded sands. gravelly c: 2 Z 00WC V D60 (1330) 03 = N=SW C greater than 6; Cc- D@Iwvvn I and 3 10 ' 'u - C _-c 0 0 Csands. little or no fines C 0 4A ca cc0 cc CD %As D10 DIOX060 ZtoC oco E >-C 00 Cc0 -6 4Z ID Sp Poorly graded sands. gravelly WV5= a) C No( meeting all gradation requirements for SW 0 -0 sands. little or no lines ca CD CD &Z S ca =;i 04Dd CL Allerberg limits below 'A' Lirni(s plo"ing in hatched Silty sands. SM CX La L_ u sand-silt mixtures zone with P.L between 4 (34 C fine or P.J. less than 4 aj CD 00 WC:: Co am. X:- 0. C;a 0UJ C" 05 C" E 'E C 0E - and, 7 are borderline EXD Atterberg limits above *A" V CX Clayey sands. 'A cases requiring use of. C: <0 (3L 4) 2 0 0 line with P-L greater than M.2 CD 43ESO sand-clay mixtures dual symbols 0) 7 -I-inorganic slits and very fine C@ PLASTICITY CHART to sands. rock flour. silly or CD ML toCclayey fine sands or clayey CD >1M:sifts with sfight plasticity UJ r- -For classilicatioln Inorganic clays of low to -of fine-grained tolls and med C C11 Z ium plasticity. gravelly -fine firaction of "barse- cc CL clays. sandy clays. silty clays 50- --gr@ain ad . r. oils. @tterbarg,-_ lean clays -Lim.lis -Plotting In -hatched C --area are, borderline . Organic slits and organic silty x -classific'ations requirinQ* Z OL , 40--use of dual symbcls. clays of low plasticity a -Equation* of. A-line: 7 PI-0.73(LL-20) inorganic silts, micaceous or 30- MH dlatomaceous fine sandy or C> saty solls, 0 L lastic ants 0"And MH- =WJ V Ac clays of t0gh 20-- .V C. GS0plasdclity. tat clays 0 40 10 0H Oruanlo clays of aledium so 75.1 @ML wh P184001ty. wislic 6ft 4 Lend OL' F d u W ru L9 01, 1 Psat and ottw t*ft 0 10 .90 30 40 60- 60 70 so 90 400 Pt "Ift 0 Urm Undt August 19, 1987 111 WEST KINGSLEY ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48103 (313) 994-5055 Ms. Helen Himes, P.E. Charles S. Davis Associates, Inc 220 Bagley, Suite 700 Detroit. Michigan 48226 RE: Environmental Evaluation Memorial Park Marina Detroit, Michigan SME Project No. E-10579 Dear Ms. Himes: We have received the results of the chemical tests performed, on soil samples collected from the above referenced site. These results are enclosed. This letter should serve as an addendum to the geotechnical investigation report. Selected soil samples extracted during Borings 2 and 3 were combined into two composite groups for analysis. Samples extracted during Boring I were not submitted for analysis. Composite Group I was composed of samples entracted from the 1.0- to 2.5-foot and 3.0-to 4.5-foot depth intervals during Borings 2 and 3. Composite Group II was composed of samples extracted from the 5.0- to 6.5-foot depth intervals during Boring 2 and 3 and the 8.5- to 10.0-foot depth intervals during Boring 3. Twenty-two organic compounds were delected in Composite Group I and 18 organic compounds were detected in Compostie Group II. In addition, total phenolics were detected in both composite groups. Many of the organic compounds detected are gasoline and diesel fuel/ diesel exhaust/ fuel oil related. Several chlorinated organic compounds were also detected. The levels of many of organic compounds that were detected can be considered low, however, a number of levels are elevated. For instance, 295 mg/kg of 1,2-Dichloroethane was detected in Composite Group I. Several inorganic elements were detected at elevated levels in the two composite groups when compared to common concentration ranges reported for soils. In particular, the levels of cadmium, copper and zinc appear to be elevated in both composite groups. MEMORIAL PARK MARINA ENVIRONMENTAL PAGE 2 In addition, the level of lead detected in Composite Group I appears to be elevated. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you during this phas of the project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact us. Sincerely, SOIL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS, INC. Cheryl Kehres-Dietrich Senior Hydrogeologist Jerry B Given, P.E. Project Manager Enclosure CAL Canton Analytical Laboratory, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS August 12, 1987 Ms. Cheryl Kehres-Dietrich SOIL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS, INC. III W. Kingsley Ann Arbor, MI 48103 RE: Lab #7070780 Composite Group I: B-2(S-1,S-2) & B-3(S-1, S-2) & 1 additional sample; samples rec'd 7/23/87 Dear Ms. Kehres-Dietrich: The sample(s) we received from you has/have been analyzed as requested. The results are compiled in the enclosed report. It is a pleasure to be of assistance to you. Please contact us if you have questions concerning any aspect of this work. Very truly yours, CANTON ANALYTICAL LABORATORY, INC. Roy Marvel QA/QC Coordinator RM/pj AUG 14 1987 SME Ann Arbor P.O. Box 1129 153 Elder Street Ypsilanni, Michigan 48197 (313) 483 7430 SOIL & f,,AT. SAMPLES RECEIVED 07/23/87 PAGE, LAB# 7070780 COMPOSITE GRDUP I: & LPB# 70707S1 COMPOSITE GROUP II: B-2(S-3) Ei--3*(S-3!1S-4) L 3:1) -i-4 Tx 707678,il il. 7 101 T To u r m LEE. C-L- PURG 0 VFJL@-Tj c I 0 C i'l j c, r, cl rn e t h a n e 0. 7 1 . V-t D, o r, mr-, c h 1c, r orn e t h a ri e 0. 7 no fo r-,,i,, < P --,ni :: to e t r) a r, e 0. ane Trichlorof 1 uorcirilethane 0. 7 1. I-Dacnlorcletnerje Ch 1 or-orilet h ane < CA. 4 0.6 1 , I -D i ch I oroet h arie t rarts- 1, 2-1) i ch I oroet herte 0. 21 < ki. "'ll 1. 2-Dichlor-c-etharie a' j 0.2 1 1, I-Trichloroetharie < C". SDIL & MATFrIIALS ENGINEERS SAMPLES RECEIVED 07/2-'.3/87 PAGE LAB# 7070780 7070781 UNITS mg/kq rag / ka ---------------------------- ------------ ------------ Carbon Tetrachlor-joe I :, 1. 2-Dichloroor-opane Q1. 2-1 tranE-1, -7-DichloroPropene 0.2 0. Tri chloroethene c i s- 1, 3-D i ch I oro prooene I 1, 2-Trich1c,rc-ethane 0. 0. :.-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether 0.4 0.6 I , I , 2, "'::-T et r a c h I ct r oe t h a ne 2, 0 . 2: T e t- r a c n 1 --, ro e t h e r, e 0. Viriyl Chloride 0.4 0. E E-- e r, e r, e 1 0. Q) 2, -tene 50 50 Ch I or-c-berizerie 0. 0 21 3. 5 EthylberiZerse 14 20 Acro I e i n < 5 . 0 6 2: Acry 1 on i t r i I e BASE/NEUTRALS-46 CPDS, GC/MS AcerjaDhthene @0. 44 SOIL & MA- '14 S ENGINEERS SAMPLES RECEIVED 07/21-5/87 PAGE LAB# 7070780 7070-181 UNITS mg/ko ran. / kc ----------------------------- ------------ ---------- Aceria pht h v 1 ene 0. Ole, ( 0. 10 A rit- h r a ce ne 0. Eier,-- i ci i rie 0 < LA DeriZct(a) aritnracone be n Z a.) P v r e r, e Benzc. (co) f I uorar,T herie 0. 4 4 Ben= c, (oh-, ) Derv I ene 0. DeriZo (k) f I 1-i-Dranthene 1.7 4. 0 ois(L:,-Ch1c,rc,eth,--1xy) Methane 0. 0 21 0. V-4 bis(L-Z'-Ch1c,r-,---ethv1) Ether 0. 0:3 Ether 0. 1 iz, bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 01. IZ198 01. 0 4 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether 0.05 0. 018 Putyl Ben--yl Phthalate 0. 05 0. 08 ,:,-Ch1c-r-orjaohtha1ene 0 . 17-12 01. 0 3 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether- 05 Chrysene 0.88 0 D i ben--c. (a, h) ant hracene 0.18 0. 54 r--' A SOIL MATPQIALS EJNGINEERS SAMPLES RECEIVED 07/2'33/87 PAGE LAB# 7070780 7070781 UNITS rn a / k. Q roo / ka - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 1, 2-Dichlorobenzerte 0. 0. Q-) 4 i, 13-D _4 chi orooerZene 0. 0 3 ( 0. 04 1. it-D i ch 1 orc,Llenz ene 0. 0 3 ( 0. C/14 6! -D i ch 1 orober;Z i d i ne < Q!. elE, ( 0. 04 Diethyl Phthalate ( 0.07 ( CA.i Dirfietnvl Phthalate V--). 02 0. 03 Di-rt-butvl Pnthalate O.Oi 0. L71'-' 4-D i n i t rot oli 1-lene 0.10 0 2:, E-D i n i t rot t--, 1 uene 0.10 0. 21 Di-n-octvl Phthalate 0. Lll'=, 0. Q, I.. 2'-Diphenvlhvora-irie <0.01 0. Q,,-, F 1 uorant h erte 2.4 5 . 4 F I i-torene 0. 13* el. 49 Hexach I oroberizene <01. 03 el. OE Hexachlorobutadiene (0. OF, el. I Q) Hexach 1 orocycl opentad i ene <0.2 < 0.3 Hexach I oroetriane 0.08 < 0.1 I rideno (1, -2, 37-cd) oyrene 0.67 SOIL Mg R I Ai-S ENGINEERS SAMPLES RECEIVED 07/23/87 PACE LAB# 7070780 7070781 UNITS ro o. / W. o ril o/ K c ----------------------------- ------------ -------------- N lt rooeriz ene c". 0. 0! 5 N-N i t i metn v 1 arn i ne 0. 0 5 06 N-Nit aro i rie Q I . 3, 01. 5 N-N i t rosocl i crieny I am i ne 0. 0 4 OF, Prieriant hr-ene 1 . F, 4.4 Pyrene i.7 4.6 1, 2'. 4-Trichlorcoberizene 0.04 ( 0. 07 ACID EXTRPLTS-11 CPDS, G C S -Chlor-ohericil Q) . Q) 4 ( 0 . 0 4: 2, 4 -D i ch I orc, ph eno 1 01 . 0 5-- k 0. 0 7 2, 4-Diroethylpheriol < 0.04 01. IZIE 2-Methyl-4, 6-d ini troc)henol ( 0. Cf, a 0.1 2. 4-D i n i t rc,Dherio 1 Q) . 2 C, 2 - N i t r- op h e n c, 0. 1 0. 4 - N 4- t rc, o h e n o 01. 07 0. i 4-Chlorc,-3-roethyl phersol < 0 5 121.08 SOIL & MAI IALS ENGINEERS SAMPLES RECEIVED 07/2-3/87 PAGE 6 LAr_?R 7070780 7070781 UNITS rilQ/kc ra o/ P. p ----------------------------- ------------ ------------ P e r, t a c h 1 c- r- ---, D h e n cl I Ql. i h c- ric, 1 0. 0 if el. 0 4 4. 6-Trich lorc-Dhenc, 1 0. 07 0. E-OB PCBI ES/ PESTIC !DES PCB-iO16 Eli. 0 r15. el PCB- 1212-1 i 5. 0 5.0 Pcp-ia6--=, < 5. 0 < 5.0 P C b - 124 L:-:.' ( 51. 0 < 5. 0 PCB-12*48 15 . 0 5 . 0 PCD-1254 5@ 21 5.0 PCE-1260 5. QA 5. 0 P C B - ILE, El 2 5. V, 5. Q, PCB, Total 5. lb 5.0 alpha-BHC 0. 002 ( 0.001 beta-BHC 0.00"D ( 0. 002, garnma-BHC (L i nd ane) 0. 004 ( 0.003 Heotach lor 0. 006 0. 004 delta-BHC VZI. 002 0. eloa A %,-VIAL SDIL Mf RIALS ENGINEERS SAMPLES RECEIVED 07/2-6/87 PAGE 7 LAB# 7070760 7070781 UNITS rao/ko rn o. /k o ---------------------------- ------------ -------------- Albrin 0. 0 0 2 2 a 1 i3ha-Enocisu 1 f an 0. oi 1-6. 4.41-DDE &1021 Dielor-in 0. 0 '71 jZi t7i i E rid, r i r, < 0. 004 El. 00211 4,41-DDD ( C/11. 0 i O.Oi bet 2--;: rrCjl--ISLI 1 f an 0. V! 4 Ql 32 4,41-E)DT 0. iz, 1 0.01 Pldehvde 0. CIE-, CA. 0 1 Erjoc@sulfan Sulfate 0 . 0 5. K 0. 01H** Chlordarte ki. 0 1 0. Q) I Tcl>(ac)herie 0 . 0 2, 0. 02 METALS-113 CPDS A r, t i rii,--. ri v, T cl t a 1 0. 521 0.50 Arsenic, Total 0.35 0. Pervl1il-tril, Total 0. '---CA 0.50 Cadmium, Total -.0 4.5 SOIL MA7 1ALS ENGINEERS SAMPLES RECEIVED-07/23/87 PAGE 8 LAB# 7070780 7070781 UNITS mQ/ko ---------------------------- ------------ ------------ C h r o rii i u T -:, t a 1 14 r@,-Ioper'. 7otaj -0, t: Lead. Total 170 Mercury, Tot a 1 0. 0.6 0. C/13 Nick.ei. 7,:. t a. 1 19 17 Selenium, Total III) CA. i 0 Silver. Total 0. 50 0.50 Thallium, Total 0. 1 1z, 0.10 LlYic, Total 3 E, 0 1200 MISCELLPNE"OLIS-3 CPDS Evanioe, Total el. 0 13 01. 07 Asbestos. Finers in Water/1 *N.D. N. D. Phenolics, Total 51 49 C)H units 8. E, 8.6 *Non-detectable I APPENDIX B CROSS SECTIONS v EXISTING SEAWALL EXIST HIGH WATER EL.98.2 MARINA EL. 100.0 _j-LOW WATER EL. 93.25 90.0 PROFILE OF EX. MARINA BOTTOM EL. 86.0 4- DETROIT RIVER. 80.0 -PROFILE OF PROPOSED MARINA BOTTOM EL. 83.25 70.0 NORTH $HORT RAWC-,E FLAtA MARINA DR L 74 ........... I gill it lillill III It I ilio" MARINA DE7RO17 R I V ER In MEMORIAL PARK MARINA SECTION LOOKING EAST %.%- %l.. VERT. I"= 10'-0" HORIZ. I"=100'-O" PROF @@Za BURNS KEY PLAN ELEV. 110.0 PROPOSED SEAWALL 101.0 HIGH WATER EL.98.2 100.0- LOW WATER EL.93.25 90.0 PROFILE OF PROPOSED DETROIT MARINA BOTTOM sow EL. 83.25 RIVER 80.0 ails 10 01 70.0- NORTH LONG R,4,NNGE- MARINA DR. 0 M117=1 T777111111 '74 MARINA 1 0 E TROIT RIVER 7.7 cr. E RIA A MAR I NA SECTION LOOKING EAST VERT. I"= 10'- 0" HORIZ. I"= 10 0' - 0" 100. BURNS I KEY PLAN PROPOSED SEAWALL EXISTING SEAWALL EXIST EL. 100. HIGH WATER EL.98.2 MARINA @-LOW WATER 'EL. 93.25 90.0 PROFILE OF FX. MARINA BOTTOM EL. 86.0 DETROIT RIVER. 80.0 LPROFILE OF PR OPOSED loo, MARINA BOTTOM EL. 83.25 70-0 NORTH MARINA DR. :5@ MARINA DETROIT 7. J RIVER EMORIA K MARINA SECTION LOOKING EAST VERT. I Io'-o HORIZ. I"= 100'-0" BURNS KEY PLAN PROPOSED SEAWALL EXISTING SEAWALL NS ST 110.0 EXIST MARINA 100.0 -101.0 HIGH WATER EL.98. PROFILE OF EXISTING 90.0. LOW WATER EL.93.25- MARINA BOTTOM EL. 86.0� PROFILE OF PROPOSED MARINA BOTTOM EL.83.25 80.0 NORM 70.0 300, NORTH LO W G N G E L N MARINA DR. 1111111111117mTnIIIIII MARINA DETROIT RIVER cr- MARINA SECTION LOOKING NORTH -oil VERT 1 10 -0 HORIZ. 1 100 oil BURNS KEY PLAN 4 11 6 APPENDIX C SHORT RANGE PLAN - COST iTEmiZATION 4 MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT SHORT RANGE PLAN-COST ITEMIZAT10N MARINA REDEVELOPMENT ITEM AMOUNT Raise and Repair Seawall $ 700,000.00 Raise Area Adjacent to Seawall $ 75,000.00 Pavement Construction $ 150,000.00 Underground Storm Sewer SyQtem $ 145,000.00 Rehabilitation of Existing Utilities $ 460,000.00 Pump Out Facility and Mechanical Sy-tem Rehabilitation $ 60,000.00 Center Dock Replacement $ 500,000.00 Key Card Security System $ 10,000.00 Subtotal $2,100,000.00 10% Contingencies 210,000.00 Total Cost $2,310,000.00 MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT SHORT RANGE PLAN-COST ITEMIZATION REGION I-PROMENADE REDEVELOPMENT ITEM AMOUNT Raise and Repair Seawall $125,000.00 Construct New Seawall $150,000.00 Raise Area Adjacent to Seawall $ 90,000.00 Underground Storm Sewer System $ 37,500.00 Concrete Walk Construction $ 50,000.00 Picnic Shelter $ 60,000.00 Landscaping $150,000.00 Subtotal $662,500.00 10% Contingencies 66,250.00 Total. Cost $728,750.00 MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT SHORT RANGE PLAN-COST ITEMIZATION REGION 2-AREA NORTH of the MARINA ITEM AMOUNT Parking Lot Construction $ 25,000.00 Parking Lot Rehabilitation $ 20,000.00 Concrete Walk Construction $ 10,000-00 Storm Sewer System $ 15,000.00 Existing Comfort Station Renovation $100,000.00 Children's Play Area $ 25,000.00 Picnic Shelter $ 60,000.00 Landscaping $ 60,000.00 Subtotal $315,000.00 10% Contingencies 31,500.00 Total Cost $346,500.00 MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT SHORT RANGE PLAN-COST ITEMIZATION REGION 3-MEMORIAL PARK EXTENSION ITEM AMOUNT Tnstall Seawall $260,000.00 Fill Area Adjacent to Seawall $ 40,000.00 Children's Play Area $ 25,000.00 Picnic Shelter $ 60,000.00 Landscaping $ 50,000.00 Subtotal $435,000.00 10% Contingencies 43,500.00 Total Cost $478,500.00 iT i- 0 :. APPENDIX D i LONG RANGE PLAN - COST ITEMIZATION I 1.4, A MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT LONG RANGE PLAN - COST ITEMIZATION MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION ITEM AMOUNT New Seawall $ 3,200,000.00 Excavation $ 2,700,000.00 Marina Docks and Channel Entrance $ 1,600,000.00 Marina Utilities $ 650,000.00 Off Site Utilities $ 200,000.00 Parking Lot $ 400,000.00 Concrete Walkways $ 240,000.00 Marina Gatehouse $ 50,000.00 Marina Control Building $ 800,000.00 Restroom Facility $ 200,000.00 Landscaping $ 50,000.00 Subtotal $10,090,000.00 10% Contingencies 1,010,000.00 Total Cost 11,100,000.00 Note: Total cost does not reflect costs for work included in the short range development plan. MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT LONG RANGE PLAN - COST ITEMIZATION REGION 1 - PROMENADE REDEVELOPMENT ITEM AMOUNT Parking Lot and Roadway Construction $ 75,000.00 Children's Play Area $ 25,000.00 Picnic Shelter $ 60,000.00 Concrete Walkways $ 50,000.00 At Land@caping $130,000.00 Subtotal $340,000.00 10% Contingencies 34,000.00 Total. Cost $374,000.00 Note: Total cost does not reflect costs for work included in the short range redevelopment plan. MEMORIAL PARK REDEVEWPMENT LONG RANGE PLAN - COST ITEMIZATION REGION 2 - MEMORIAL PARK EXTENSION ITEM AMOUNT Roadway and Parking Lot Construction $ 75,000.00 Expanded Children's Play Area $ 15,000.00 Fishing Promenade $ 30,000.00 Grading and Landscaping $ 75,000.00 Subtotal $195,000.00 10% Contingencies 19,500.00 Total Cost $214,500.00 Note: Total cost does not reflect costs for work included in the short range redevelopment plan. MEMORIAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT LONG RANGE PLAN - COST ITEMIZATION REGION 3 - AREA NORTH OF THE MARINA ITEM AMOUNT Removal of Existing Comfort Station $ 50,000.00 Removal of Existing Parking Lot $ 5,000.00 Renovation of Existing Gatehouse $100,000.00 Parking Lot Construction $ 15,000.00 Relocation of Existing Armillary $ 5,000.00 Concrete Walkways $ 40,000.00 Grading and Landscaping $100,000.00 Subtotal $315,000.00 10% Contingencies 31,500.00 Total Cost $346,500.00 Note: Total cost does not reflect work included in the short range redevelopment plan. NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LMRARY . @ 3 6668 14112002 4 t e. t, f '-f