[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Sasaki Associates, Inc. Sewaren Peninsula Feasibility Study Woodbridge, New Jerse' Prepared forTownship of Woodbridge,' New Jersey By.-- Sasaki Associates 'Inc.. 64 Pleasant Stree"t Watertown, Massachusetts with: Cross Group, Inc. Ma,tawan,,-New Jersey November 198 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER HD 266 00 N5 S49 1981 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This acknowledges the financial assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, with funds administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment. This,study was prepared under the supervision of the New Jersey Coastal Energy Impact Program of the New Jersey Department of Energy. However, any opinions, find- ings, conclusions or reconmendations expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or N.J.D.O.E. U S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 SEWAREN PENINSULA FEASIBILITY STUDY WOODBRIDGE, NEW JERSEY For The TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE By Sasaki Associates, Inc. 64 Pleasant St. Watertown, MA 02172 And Cross Group, Inc. 123 Main St. Matawan, N.J. 07747 Property of CSC Library TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Page List of Tables 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose and Objectives 1 1.2 Field Reconnaissance and Inventory 1 2.0 Existing Conditions 2 2.1 Locus and Land Use Context 2 2.1.1 Locus 2.1.2 Historical Land Use 2 2.1.3 Land Use 2 2.1.4 Zoning 3 2.1.5 Property Ownership 3 2.1.6 Riparian Rights 4 2.2 Access 4 2.3 Physical Characteristics 4 2.3.1 Topography and Drainage 4 2.3.2 Geology and Soils 5 Geology 5 Soils 5 Subsurface Data 5 2.3.3 Vegetation 7 2.3.4 Wildlife and Fisheries 8 2.3.5 Meteorology 9 2.3.6 Marine Characteristics 10 Tides 10 Flooding 10 Currents 11 Bathymetry 11 Dredging and Siltation 12 Erosion /Accretion Regime 12 2.3.7 Utilities 12 2.3.8 Special Areas 13 3.0 Engineering Analysis 17 3.1 Foundation Analysis 17 3.2 Marine Analysis 20 3.2.1 Design Criteria 20 Wave Height 20 Flood Elevations 20 Marina Dimensions 21 Depths- 21 Marina Water Surface Area 21 Facilities and Services 21 3.2.2 Marina Alternatives 23 Alternative 1 23 Alternative Il 23 Alternative 111 23 Alternative IV 2 3 Alternative V 23 Summary 23 3.2-3. Costs 25 Edge Treatments 25 Dock Systems 25 3.2.4 Preferred Design 26 3.2.5 Dredging 26 4.0 Master Plan Program 27 4.1 Site Access 27 4.2 Boat Basin 27 4.3 Open Space/Recreation 28 4.4 Nature. Study Area 28 4.5 Summary of Park Facilities 28 4.6 Preliminary Cost Estimate 29 4.7 Funding Sources 29 5.0 Environmental An alysis 31 5.1 Existing Conditicns 31 5.2 Impacts of the Proposed Project 32 5.2.1 Land Use Changes 32 5.2.2 Noise 32 5.2.3 Air Quality 32 5.2.4 Historic and Archaeologic Resources 32 5.2.5 Wildlife 33 5.2.6 Fisheries 33 5.2.7 Vegetation 33 5.2.8 Water Quality 33 5-2-9 Erosicn. 34 5.2.10 Socioeconomics 34 5.3 Mitigation Measures 34 5.3.1 Wildlife 34 5.3.2 Fisheries 35 5.3.3 Vegetation 36 5.3.4 Water Quality 36 5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects 36 5.5 Environmental Permit Requirements 36 Appendices Appendix I Bibliography Appendix II Subsurface Data Appendix III Proposed Boring Program LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Locus Figure 2 Land Use Figure 3 Zoning Figure 4 Property Ownership Figure 5 Riparian Rights F igure 6 Topography Figure 7 Surficial Geology Figure 8 Soils Figure 9 Vegetation Figure 10 Special Areas Figure 11 Alternative I Schematic Figure 12 Alternative Il Schematic Figure 13 Alternative III Schematic Figure 14 Alternative IV Schematic Figure 15 Alternative V Schematic Figure 16 Schematic Cross-Section of Bulkhead Figure 17 Schematic Cross-Section of Slope Protection Figure 18 Cross-Section of Concrete Floating Dock Figure 19 Cross-Section of Aluminum Floating Dock Figure 20 Assembled Walkway Figure 21 Dock Systems Schematics Figure 22 Typical Layout for Floating Docks Figure 23 Typical Gangway Detail Figure 24 Typical Fuel Dock LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Contacts Table 2 Sewaren Peninsula Vegetation Table 3 Floating Dock Evaluation Chart Table 4 Life-Cycle Cost Comparison Wood vs. Concrete Floating Dock Systems Table 5 Dredge Spoil-Tolerant Vegetation of Value to New Jersey Wildlife 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Objectives This report'was prepared in order to provide information necessary for the development of a conceptual master plan for recreational use of the 36-acre Sewaren peninsula site.' As a site feasibility study, the objectives were as follows: 1. Examine the site's existing conditions including land use, physical characteristics, utilities and special features. 2. Conduct an engineering analysis (including cost-s) of alternative marina and park designs to aid in the selection of a workable design solution. 3. Develop a park/marina master plan which reflects the community's desires for additional recreational facilities and is feasible from both an engineering and environmental standpoint. 4. Conduct an environmental analysis of the master plan, recommend mitigation measures, and identify permitting requirements. 5. Prepare,a cost estimate of the master plan and identify possible sources of funding. 1.2 Field Reconnaissance and Inventory The site was inspected by Varoujan Hagopian, Coastal Engineer (Sasaki Associates, Inc.), on 25 June 1981. Observations were made of the wave climate, erosion/ accretion regime, surficial soils, currents, access, visual qualities and general site conditions. Also during this site visit, several inquiries were made to the Corps of Engineers and marina operators along Smith Creek concerning water quality, vessel mix, navigation hazards, permitting, dredging frequency and tidal data. On 28 July 1981, Ellen Chagnon, Aquatic Ecologist (Sasaki Associates, Inc.), made observations regarding-wetlands, topography, vegetation, land use and drainage. During the course of these site visits and following the field inspections, contacts were made with appropriate agencies to obtain data pertinent to evaluating the technical and environmental feasibility of developing recreational facilities on the site. A listing of the contacts made is presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 C 0 N T A C T S Purpose/Issues Contact Coastal Project Review Barbara Kauffman Coastal.Grants Coordinator N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection Division of Coastal Resources Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development Darryl Jennus N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection Division of Coastal Resources Bureau of Coastal Project Review William Dargay, Regional Supervisor N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection Division of Coastal Resources Bureau of Coastal Enforcement Green Acres Program funding, development issues Dennis Davidson, Director Green Acres Program Permits prior to funding Bob Rusch Green Acres Program Fishing and Crabbing Various crab fishermen Dredging frequency, siltation, navigation Mr. O'Halloran, Operator Riley Boat Yard Wave climate, storms Various Boat Operators and Owners Dredge Disposal Permits 0. Martino U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York Ocean Disposal Mr. Creamur U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York Channel and Waterway Maintenance P.J. Puglese U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York Purpose/Issues Con tact Wave climate/erosion Gilbert Hersesian, Chief Coastal Engineer and Jim Urbelas, Coastal Engineer U''S. Army Corps of Engineers New York Dredging frequency John Garofalo N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection Division of Coastal Resources Bureau of Coastal Engineering Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Oliver Edstrom U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Absecon, New Jersey N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife Office of Non-Game Species Dredging Costs Mr. Lindholm Great Lakes Engineering Union, New Jersey Jim Wayne U. S. Army Corps of Engineers New York Gates Engineering Corp. Bill Gingerich Simpson and Kenlan Frank Jannuzzi Weeks Construction Cranford, New Jersey Chris Kirk Gibson and Cushman Long Island, New York Utilities Ted Grundmann Middlesex Water Co. 1 Woodbridge Center Woodbridge, New Jersey Angelo Valetutto, P.E. Woodbridge Engineering In addition to agency contacts, a literature search of existing data also was conducted. Woodbridge authorities provided much of the base-line data for the site. A bibliography of all reports, maps, and plans consulted during this study is presented in Appendix I. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Locus and Land Use Context 2.1.1 Locus The proposed Sewaren Waterfront Park is to be located on a 36+ acre portion of the Sewaren Peninsula in Woodbrijge, New Jersey. The site is approximately 1.5 miles from the center of Woodbridge and is bounded on the east and south by the Arthur Kill, on the west by Smith Creek, and on the north by a sewage treatment facility (Figure 1). 2.1.2 Historical Land Use The Sewaren peninsula area historically has been used for waterfront recreation. In 1880, a waterfront resort (Boynton Beach) was developed along the Arthur Kill just to the south of the peninsula. This resort, which included a bathing beach, dance pavilion, picnic area, and amusement park, was extremely popular during the 1890s and early years of the 20th century. During this same period, a social club (Sewaren Land and Water Club) was established on the waterfront along Cliff Road. This club, a witness of the time when the area was valued by wealthy society, was destroyed by a hurricane in the 1940s. Beginning with the 1920s, the area became industrial. In 1927, the Boynton Beach property was purchased by Shell Oil Company for use as an oil storage facility (its present use). Following Shell Oil Company's lead, additional property was purchased by Royal Petroleum, and Public Service Electric and Gas C6mpany. The proposed waterfront. park site long has been used as a dredge disposal area and is essentially man-made land. No historic or archaeologic features are known to exist on this site. 2.1.3 Land Use The Sewaren peninsula is presently an undeveloped open space resulting from placement of dredge spoils. Adjacent land uses shown on Figure 2 are a -2- M. M6 Ed '&;@'ading wp. Td, _tEd Port @J@. vi BM21 W 0 0 D B JZJ D G AM .Z . BM - Lij i. U @j P 01 tj mv. 4 R il E b r N 40 0 ffb a TT "Flat wag 'Se ubstat ons _01sposi - 1p @S' 7) ta ell rpts It Ft a nt ?0 OT W, boymon PetrolElp e "N "0. as -y 4u. /to Is 0 1) 39 -eWate n Pit ofe 6 Is Y 99iml '- z Isq 6 A) L OIL I - . _.@ I'! . , S ate, 4@/ lam igh Sch 'i eso Charleston o E, _71 24 so C4 aurei:@. SM 94 Tr5,:" .1 L 0 les Oil QparjesW 0 1 L-,- J Wreckage-' @ts J@4 Figure 1, 0 2000' Site Locus: A V PS.EaG.. V rlOA 4 --- lkw 11@i AM SPACE MARS%ANDI I Sil - 016M PACE- X, Av A,, 4, 7 IEN -4k_ V -- --------------- @@ -:0 .0" IIAL RE 4 0 J Sasaki Associates, Inc. gur 2 Nth Watertown, hUssachusetts Sewaren Waterf ront Nrk Land Use Cross Group Inc. Woodbridge, New Jersey Matawan, New fersey 100 zooko SA No. 0276 power generation plant, 0 en space marshlandq mixed residential and commerical marine operations, and a Town of Woodbridge sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant is scheduled for decommissioning in the future. With this exception, all other land uses appear to be stable and no major shifts are expected or assumed for purposes of this Report. I It is proposed that a waterfront related land use replace the treatment plant in the future. The sources used to compile land use data were field surveys and air photo interpretation. 2.1.4 Zoning Sewaren peninsula is presently zoned R-6, High Density Single Family Residential. Adjacent zones are M-2, Heavy Industrial Zone of Public Service Electric and Gas lands and B-1 Neighborhood Business Zone along the west bank of Smith Creek. See the Zoning Map, Figure 3. Apart,from the juxtaposition of Heavy Industrial and High Density Single Family Residential zones, the desirability of housing is thought to be low when compared with the more accessible Public Park land use recommended by this Report. A zoning variance may be necessary changing the Sewaren peninsula to a Park and Recreation zone with a portion of the site named B-1 Business Zone, which is congruent with the Boat Basin and Restaurant and Harbor Master facilities. The source of Zoning data is the Town of Woodbridge zoning ordinance 1979. 2.1. 5 Property Ownership Parcel Ownership is shown on Figure 4. The Township of Woodbridge has title to two large parcels; 1) The Sewaren peninsula comprises a 27.4 acre tract, not including Riparian lands held by the State of New Jersey (8.6 acres) and 2) the Sewage Treatement Plant tract of approximately 8.7.acres. The largest abuttor is Public Service Electric and Gas Company. More than 100 small lots front on Cliff Road and also abut the Sewaren peninsula on the west shore of Smith Creek. The source for property ownership information shown in Figure 4 was Town of Woodbridge Assessors Tax Maps. -3- I M on Im, In MW 40 am m low' M' Am >) Nz Is h A P EAG V, F) 41al "A M-2 4k 42@ T R-6 V, r NA @@ ; @_Jj' 6@ Q 7 r R -6 0 0 Li 0 --- --------- - '4, 130 "00 4- 0 R7'6 CD A n Figure 3 egeM Sasaki Associates, Inc. ZjC)t,.lirg N.A Watertown, Massachusetts Sewmen Waterfront Park - Hl,h D-Illy Si.gll Fllily R,,jd &I N.1shbafhood ft,i-l X'" Cross Group Inc. MW[wiclge, New hUtawan, New @-sey d.-M Z... T11. of WIldblidg, Z,@X OM-1. SA No. 0276 14m, on M, 04 M) law low m am imm AM M M OW 4M MAD 774@ Al AEA1 G f v" V, J, 1A N I ---------- tPlAw S" _j 0 W.@"'@ @w! t A rl ih'; L, - - - - - - Ji IT --- -- ------ Mw Z -7 % Di oil' T' 7- b" Sasaki Associates, Iric. Figure 4 Nwh Watenown, hUssachusetts Sewaren Waterfront Nrk Rq3ffty Ownershp Cross G Woodbridge, New Jersey Mataw n, -Y M N@ 0278 2.1.6 Riparian Rights The State of New Jersey controls the Riparian Rights to 7 parcels within the boundary of the Sewaren Penninsula tract owned by the Town of Woodbridge. (Figure 5). These remain in effect although the spoil drainage pattern no longer falls within the old Riparian streams. Request for transfer of the Riparian lands ownership will be made in conjunction with permit and funding applications in later stages of the planning process. Ownership of these lands is essential to the development of the Alvin P. Williams Memorial Park. It is also recommended that the Town of Woodbridge purchase a small piece-of Riparian land along Smith Creek in order to make more efficient layout of the boa@ slips, finger-piers@ and fuel dock. The cost of aquiring the Riparian lands from the State of New Jersey is being discussed by the State and the Township of Woodbridge presently. The source.of Riparian Rights information is the Township of Woodbridge, Sewaren Penninsula Riparian Boundary Survey, May 1977, with Revisions, November 1980. 2.2 Access Access presently is provided by an unimproved drive which intersects Cliff Road, crosses Smith Creek and services the Public Service Electric and Gas (P.S.E. & G) generating station northeast of the proposed site. Since this roadway (particularly its intersection with Smith Creek) is inadequate to support anticipated future use, a new access roadway is proposed as part of the Waterfront Park Master Plan. Under the master plan, a new crossing of Smith Creek will be constructed at the northeast corner of the park (this will allow removal of the existing crossing). A temporary access road will be constructed south of the sewage disposal facility (located north of the proposed park) from Cliff Road to the site. Following closure of this treatment facility, a permanent roadway will be constructed through the area now occupied by the facility (see Sewaren Waterfront Park Master Plan). 2.3 Physical Characteristics 2.3.1 Topography and Drainage As a dredge spoil site, the peninsula is relatively level. Most of the parcel is at elevation 10 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), although occasional mounds rise to 20 feet. The perimeter of the disposal area is diked to an elevation of 16+ feet (NGVD). -4- ma) '00 #a so '410 m 'im' go OW N, EA G l @P_ p N C' t L Ij, A\ -Y 0 0 0 R'@ On t @J IN --A S -@P ca Sasaki Associates, Inc. Figure 5 Nrth Watertown, Massachtisetts Sewaren Waterfront. Park Ripadan Nghts Cross GrV "bodbridge, New Jersey j), Inc. Matawan, Ne ler@ey T-)O a W-&klp $-- U", .00 R.W^ ---b- SA No. 0276 All site drainage exits the parcel via an ope n out-flow channel on the eastern side of the peninsula, and enters the Arthur Kill. Runoff essentially is uncontrolled. The existing topography and drainage pattern is presented in Figure 6. 2.3.2 Geology and Soils Geology The entire site is underlain by a marine tidal marsh (Rutgers University, 1953). This unit consists of a decomposed organic mat, two to five feet thick, which rests upon organic sand, silt, clayey silt and clay to variable depth. This marsh formed at the confluence of Smith Creek and the Arthur Kill (Figure 7). Smith Creek forms the boundary between two major geological units. On the east lies the site and marsh deposits, on the west shore and extending' inland is glacial till. This is a deposit of unconsolidated material ranging from boulders to clay- size particles which were deposited by continental glaciers. Locally, this material may be quite sandy. Much of the 36-acre site has been covered by 10 to 15 feet of hydraulic fill (dredged spoil) consisting of fine sand and silt. Levees were built around the perimeter of the site to contain the fill. The dredged spoil was placed over the tidal marsh as a slurry and allowed to de-water in place. The fill now forms the surficial deposits. Bedrock lies at depths ranging from 60 to 150 feet below the surface. Soils The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soils of the site. Their findings corroborate the surficial geology (Figure 8). The site consists of man-made land which was placed over tidal marsh deposits. All soils west of Smith Creek have been disturbed by urban development. Subsurface Data All existing subsurface soil borings and analyses available from the surrounding area were obtained from the Town and are included with this report (Appendix II). Boring locations are presented on the Surficial -Geology Map (Figure 7) and are between 150 and 1,000 feet from the northeast side of the site. -5- aw me (00 4w @Ow me on @m 4im so k", 13 ez,- 9- ESG A W -44, A 4 A 0 G A 4@. -2\.. A@- r Lct 4 It) @---k 5W.- 3,71 4 z A f-Tj k V ky RA, 7--o -OV b b S -F 7 C, 00 ------ Q1j Sasaki Associates, Inc. Figure 6 Nd, k Topography Watenown, &UssacN&tts iewairen Waterfront Par' Cross Gr vpj Inc. Vv"[wdge, New Jersey Contour Intervals 2 Feet Matawan, Ne "y SA No. 0278 J" (M Am. 11W on am *m low 100 'No Legend GM ClacW A 'N Y '1,Y t' W dk@ all PIA.* Will. t1i,,, 1-Y @t. p E. IN, If ri@ MTM @ine Idil Wish villillil, dp@ Wli,i -,,d d hy&@ W TN Ll-lLm MM 4 - ----- "4b 171, 4". L r Ij' -1, f Al rm 4LW x__ , C I'M MTA ?" xg, M > v- --- ------- v 7' U ---- -- -J t - ------ ---- -b, 0 -=4 . .... .. - ----- _4 C4 .... ... y r,7 0 --- --------- Sasaki Associates, Inc. Figure 7 Nnh Watertown, Massachusetts Sewaren Waterif ront Park Surficial Geology N >11@0 Cross GF09y, Inc \Voodbri*e, New S__ G.Av fti'll"" W W@ 19 @@ey' Matawan, Ne 0 1W f. [.*q kft bilitillill C-a*q Ullill b, $A NO.0276 Am Oa vN Aw am AM (no Am On mm An Iwo 1" Ail- -A E a G lz 4 Fj U FL lee ", Nq 7F N n" JR, j, oe--, ( -V < 117 @,/ FL o- UL L 'Y 71 4.;Z1 U, 6'. Jll@ ItT 110 -- ----- A-V 00 0 0 VF 65i?,, m 052 Do 00 v -J ----- Z sasaki Assockes, Inc. Figure 8 tegerd. Watertown, Massadnaetts Sewaren Waterf ront Park Soils R fbd -4 Tw@ Cross Group, Iric. Woodbridge, New Jersey as w m.4 ow sw Pft Matawan, NevJ Jersey a- - Ib. c@i@ 01- @1.2 feet nk.Aw@ Hdw., t*. ww c."k, sw d P4*1-. c-", ml cb.@w tw SA No,0278 Subsurface data were available from two sources. Borings B1 through B8 were conducted by Johnson Soils Engineering Company in 1978 for a proposed Maintenance Shop at the.Sewaren Generating Station, and Boring Numbers 5-7, 16 - 19, 27, and 33 - 40 were conducted by Sprague and Henwood in 1970 for Sewaren Generating Station Units Nos. 7 and 8 and a proposed new oil tank. Included with the attached boring log data (Appendix II) is a copy of the geotechnical report prepared by Johnson Soil Engineering for the proposed Central Maintenance Shop. This boring information is valuable to the Sewaren site in that it provides a general description of the Subsurface soils, including stratificaton of the deposits, lateral consistency, penetration resistence and strength characteristics. Most importantly, the data allows the Sasaki Associates' team to flag certain characteristics of the soils which may offer constraints to site development. Certain constraints may result in added construction costs and may _-require more elaborate designs. Of particular interest in coastal regions are settlement potential and bearing capacity of the soils. The existing boring data Also aids in designing a boring program if specific data are lacking or problem areas need further evaluation. However, in no case does subsurface data obtained from areas off the site preclude the need for,adequate, site-specific, subsurface investigation. A review of soilahd geological data from the area suggests that the subsurface conditions at the site and in the area northeast of the site, for which existing boring data is available, are similar. Therefore, the available subsurface boring data is appropriate for estimating general characteristics at the Sewaren site. The results of the subsurface borings indicate that the area is underlain by 3 distinct strata, defined as follows: STRATA RANGE IN TH ICKNESS Fill (1) 10-15 feet Organic Silt (2) 10-15 feet Sandy Gravel (3) 35-50 feet 1. Unit may contain thin layer of sand and gravel between fill and underlying unit. 2. This unit may contain some clay and peat lenses. -6- 3. May be a thin (4-8 foot) lens of silty sand and sandy silt between the organic deposits and underlying sandy gravel. This intervening unit is not present in all the borings. , The above strata can be.broadly described in the following manner: Fill - This material consists of fly ash, sand, silt, gravel, wood, bricks, wire and other miscellaneous debris. Whether this material extends to the Sewaren site is not known. It is believed that the Sewaren site is an old hydraulic fill as evidenced by the perimeter levees constructed to contain the dredge spoil while de-watering. In this case the sand, silt, gravel component is expected to be greater. The compaction of this material is erratic and is suggested by Johnson Soil Testing as being unsuitable for bearing. Where no fill exists, the top soil layer is a loose, wet, dark, gray, sand and gravel with black river mud and organic silt along the shore. Organic Silt - This material consists of very soft, highly compressible organic silt. It once formed the top layer of what used to be a tidal marsh. This Ok unit occurs consistently throughout the site. For the most part, this stratum is overlain by fill and probably has undergone partial consolidation. Therefore, it is expected to exhibit a slightly higher strength than similar material with no fill overburden. However, some settlement may be expected to occur under superimposed loading. Sandy Gravel - Underlying the organic silt is a granular deposit of sand and gravel. The compaction of this deposit varies with depth, ranging from loose at the top to compact near the base of the deposits. Penetration resistance increases from up to 10 blows per 6 inches to 40 to 60 blows per 6 inches with increased depth. 'A thin layer of silty sand or sandy silt lies above the granular deposits in some instances. Its strength is lower than the granular deposits. Groundwater was encountered generally at depths varying from 8 to 11 feet below the surface. The water table fluctuates in response to the rise and fall of the tides. 2.3.3 Vegetation There are two vegetative associations occupying the site: upland waste area vegetation and salt marsh/mud flats. The upland area, which occupies -7- 30.46+ acres of the site, is only 65% vegetated. Bare Tatches make up the remainder of this zone. Vegetation species in this zone are typical of those found on dredge spoil sites and other "waste areas". The dominant species are Queen Anne's lace, goldenrod, foxtail reed grass, and various grasses. A few small trees (i.e. poplars, catalpa, Tree of Heaven) also are present. The salt marsh and mud flat areas occupy 5+ acres along the intertidal zones of Smith Creek and Arthur Kill. These areas are dominated by cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and foxtail reed grass. The mud flats along the Arthur Kill are sparcely vegetated and contain bands of green algae. The extent and location of these vegetative associations is presented in Figure 9 and a complete listing of species is presented in Table 2. 2.3.4 Wildlife and Fisheries There are four distinct habitat types on the site: upland shrub, pebbly beach, salt marsh, and mud flats. The upland-type (as described in the section entitled Vegetation) is potential habitat for a number of shorebirds (i.e. herons, gulls, common terns, etc.), songbirds, and small mammals. However, due to the lack of vegetation over a substantial portion of this area (35%), its value is limited for most of these species. The pebbly beach area also is of potential value to shorebirds, particularly common terns. Although no published evidence exists of tern nesting at this site, it is potential habitat. The salt marshes and mud flats are valuable habitat for several species of waterfowl, shellfish, and small mammals. Shellfish in these areas include mussels, clams and oysters. However, due to contamination, these are of no direct economic value. The Sewaren peninsula is within the potential habitat range of three threatened or endangered fish species: shortnose sturgeon (Federal and State endangered), Atlantic sturgeon (State threatened), and Atlantic tomcod (State threatened). Both sturgeons are anadromous fish (spawn in fresh water but spend the remainder of the life cycle in salt water), but the tomcod is an inshore species (lives in stream mouths, estuaries and harbors). The actual presence of these species in the immediate vicinity of Sewaren peninsula has not been recorded. -8- owl "a Aft *0 j", 400 A* Am- 'im '(M *0 (mm @10 (an A N P;,S.E,a 6. /x@ AX"ON" 4 j MILAM 90V 2- J-@ 7, "'C :411 --- --------- ------- ----- - 0 z "Oc b" 0 bo - ----- 0 ''tin Sasaki Associates, Inc. Figure 9 N.Th Watertown, Massachusetts Sewaren Waterf ront Park Vegetation Cross GrouD, Inc. "bodbridge, New Jersey Matawan, NeW Jersey SA N@ 0278 TABLE 2 SEWAREN PENINSULA VEGETATION Upland Queen Anne's Lace Daucus carota Goldenrod Solidago sp. Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Catalpa Catalpa speciosa Grasses Gramineae Foxtail Reedgrass Phragmites communis Marsh Foxtail Reedgrass Phragmites communis Saltwater Cordgrass Spartina alterniflora Green Alga Enteromorpha sp. Marsh Elder Iva ructescens [email protected] Meteorology .Prevailing winds are west southwest during the period May to December, northwest during February to April, and northeast during January. Wind speeds average 8 to 9 mph in the summer and 10 to 11 mph during the other months. The fastest wind speed on record occurred in November 1950 and reached 82 mph from the southwest. Nearly all the damaging storm winds occurring in the area result from "northeasters". These are low, pressure cells that generally develop off the east coast of the United States between New Jersey and Cape Hatteras, intensify, and move northeast along the coast to New England and the Canadian Maritimes. These storms are responsible for the major episodes of precipitation. Low pressure systems passing east of the area produce the characteristic northeast winds. The maximum recorded northeast wind speed was 52 mph in January 1964. Storms which pass west of the area create southeasterly winds. The "Northeasters" produce a considerable portion of the annual precipitation and are most common during the fall and winter. They generally last for 48 hours and produce between one-and two inches of precipitation. Storms producing four inches or more of'snow occur, on the average, twice a year. The maximum frequency is five per year. Storms producing eight or more inches of snowfall occur, on the average, once every two years with a maximum of three per year. Northwest winds can achieve high velocities following the passage of cold fronts. These winds tend to last for a short period of time. Winds also will back around to the northwest after the passage of coastal, low pressure systems. These winds may be continuous for up to 24 hours. Southwest summer winds are generated by extensive, upper level, high pressure cells which commonly stall over the Bermuda area. Under these conditions, warm muggy air is pumped continuously into the area until the systemmoves or is dissipated. The source of the above meterological information is: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1980), Local climatological data, annual summary with comparitive data, 1980, Newark, New Jersey. 2.3.6 Marine Characteristics Tides According to th e U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,. imean tide range is about 5.1 feet with a mean spring tide range of 6.1 feet. Tidal elevations are summarized as follows: Mean High Water + 3.15 ft. Mean Low Water - 1.95 ft. Extreme High Water +10.05 (9/12/60) Extreme Low Water - 5.55 ft. (3/27/55) Tidal means are based on a 21-year record, extending from 1938 to 1953. All of the above elevations are given in feet above or below the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (formerly mean sea level of 1929). This reference plane is a standardized datum utilized in most surveys. Some confusion may result depending on the kind of survey work requested. Land surveys commonly use NGVD. However, water surveys, utilized for dredging documents, give elevations which are referenced to a mean low water datum (mlw). For this study the difference between NGVD and mlw is 1.95 feet (mlw datum is 1.95 feet below NGVD). Flooding Regarding flooding frequency and flood elevations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supplied the following information:' Storm Frequency Event Flood Elevation (NGVD) 10 - year 8.61 25 - year 9.3' 50 - year 10.01 100 - year 10.5 to 11.5' Some variability exists in the 100-year flood elevation. This variation results from the method used to plot the upper limits of the frequency curve. Recent analyses, conducted for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by Dewberry and Davis in Fairfax, VA, indicate different flood elevations. Their study utilized the National Academy of Science's wave height and storm surge analysis. The study was recently completed for Woodbridge and gave .the following results: Storm Frequency Flood Elevation (Static Only) 10 + 7.41 (NGTD 50 +10.01 100 +12.01 500 +15.01 -10- These elevations were obtained from a t4de gauge analysis at Perth Amboy and Sandy Hook. The original analysis was completed by Richard Brown Associates for the N. J. Department of Environmental Protection. The'southern and eastern portions of the site have been designated V12-zones. A V-zone is defined as that portion of the 100-year coastal flood zone which is subjected to the breaking of 3-foot waves and the resulting dynamic forces. The V12-zone is the V-zone in-areas where the base flood elevation is +12 feet (NGVD). From the southern tip of the site to a point about 750+ feet north along the Arthur Kill the actual 100-year flood elevation (base flood elevation plus anticipated wave height and runup) is +15 feet (NGVD). North of this point the flood elevation is +12 feet (NGVD). However, the +15-foot (NGVD) flood elevation is applicable only under existing grade conditions. Under the proposed Master Plan, the elevation of the peninsula will be increased to +12 feet (NGVD), and the shoreline grade will be adjusted to 3:1. Due to the changes in elevation and grade, 3-foot waves will break further offshore from the new berm crest; thus, reducing damages to the peninsula. Cur rents Maximum current velocities in the Arthur Kill from Outerbridge to Port Reading (reaches adjacent to site) is 1.5 or 1.7 knots (flood and ebb tide, respectively). No current data is available for Smith Creek but velocities are not expected to exceed those in Arthur Kill. Bathymetry There are two navigational channels which pass by the site. The primary channel follows the Arthur Kill and carries a substantial portion of commercial vessels. This channel is maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and depths range from 32 to 35 feet below mean low water. A channel also is provided for small boat navigation on Smith Creek. This channel is 50 feet wide and is maintained by the State of New Jersey. Present channel depths vary between 4 and 5 feet below mean low water-. All other areas adjacent to the site and not part of an existing channel consist of mud flats or shallows with depths ranging from less than 1 to 16 feet below mean low water. These areas generally are not subject to navigation. Dredging and Siltation There are no s ediment budget computationsavailable from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for this segment of the coast. Howeverg based on discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel, the frequency of dredging in the Arthur Kill is low. The last time the Outerbridge - Port Secony Reach was dredged was in 1972. It is not likely that this reach will be dredged in the next five years. The Port Reading Reach (north of the site) was dredged in 1962. Based on this analysis, the siltation rate is not excessive and dredging frequency is on the order. of once every 10 to 20 years. Discussions with John Garofalo of the New Jersey Bureau of Coastal Engineeringindicated that the dredging frequency in Smith Creek is very low. At the time of this writing, the last available record of dredging was 1938. Erosion/Accretion Regime The area appears to be accreting slowly. The east shore of the site appears to be transgressing toward the navigation channel as evidenced by new growth of marsh vegetation. Localized areas of erosion are evident along Smith Creek. Vertical faces of marsh are slumping away and being deposited in Smith Creek. The landside portion of the site appears to be relatively stable. Utilities 2.3.7 At present, no utilities exist on the site. Contacts with the Woodbridge Engineering Department indicated that a sanitary sewer is available for tie-in at Cliff Road. The existing sewage treatment plant, located north of the site, will receive the wastes from the park. Long-range plans call for the abandonment of this treatment plant and replacement with apump station. This improvement program is contingent upon the availability of funds. In either case, there will be adequate capacity to allow a tie-in from the park. Such a tie-in.will require the following: 61, sewer (1800 linear feet) 3" twin force mains (1100 linear feet) pump station (1) manholes (6) According to the Middlesex Water Company, adequate water supply is available for the park site. A 20-inch water main exists in Central Avenue and a 6-inch main is located in Cliff Road as far as the Sewage Treatment Plant. Connection to the water supply will require the installation of 1600 feet of 8-inch pipe and appurtenant services. -12- No storm drainage exists on the site. A drainage system will be designed and installed as necessary. 2.3.8 Special Areas The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in an effort to increase the predictability of the Department's coa3tal decision-making process and ensure the enforceability of the coastal management program, published Coastal Resource and Development Policies (N.J.A.C. 7:7E - 1.1 et seq.). In defining its policies, the Department designated 44 different coastal areas (resources) which merit focused attention and special management policies. The areas are referred to as "Special Areas" and include water areas, water edge areas, and land areas. The Sewaren peninsula site and immediate surroundings contain seven of these "Special Areas", which are --------defined as follows: 1.) Filled Water's Edge Filled Water's Edge areas are existing filled areas lying between Wetlands or Water Areas, and either: (1) the upland limit of fill, or (2) the first'public road or railroad landward of the adjacent Water Area, whichever is closer to the water. Some existing or former dredge spoil and excavation fill areas are Filled Water's Edge Area. Policy - Water dependent uses are acceptable in the Filled Water's Edge.@ Non-water dependent development in the Filled Water's Ed e is conditionally acceptable provided (al it would not preempt use of the waterfront portion of the Filled Water's---Edge for potential water dependent uses, and (b) it would not prevent public access along the.water's edge. 2.) Navigation Channels - Navigation channels include water areas in tidal rivers and bays presently maintained by DEP or the Army Corps of Engineers and marked by U.S. Coast Guard with buoys or stakes, as shown on NOAA/National Ocean Surve Charts: 12214, 12304, 12311, 12312t 12313Y 12Mt 12316, 12317, 12318, 12323, 12324, 12326, 123279 123289 12330, 12331, 12332, 12333, 12334,12335t 12337, 123419 12343, 12345, 12346, and 12363. Navigation channels also include channels marked with buoys''dolphins, and stakes, and maintained by the State of New Jersey, and access channels and anchorages. Navigation channels are approximately parallel to the river bed. Access channels are spurs -13- that connect a main navigation channel to a terminal. Anchorages are locations where vessels moor within water at or near the water's edge for the purpose of transferring cargo, or awaiting high tide, better weather, or fuel and terminal availability. Policy - New or maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels, is conditionally acceptable providing that the condition under the new or maintenance dredging policy is met. Development which would cause terrestrial soil and shoreline erosion and siltation in navigation channels shall utilize appropriate mitigation measures. Development which would result in loss of navigability is prohibited. 3.) Marina Moorings - Marina moorings are areas of water that provide mooring and boat maneuvering room as well as access to land and navigational channels for recreational boats. Typically, maintenance dr edging is required to preserve water depth. Policy - Any use that would detract from existing or proposed recreational boating use in marina mooring is discouraged. Maintenance dredging in the marina mooring and access . channel is encouraged provided that turbidity is controlled and that there is an acceptable dredge spoil disposal site. 4.) Submerged Infrastructure Routes - A submerged infrastructure route is the corridor in which a pipe or cable runs on or below a submerged land surface. Policy - Any activity which would increase the likelihood of infrastructure damage or breakage, or interfere with maintenance operations is prohibited. 5.) Intertidal Flats - Intertidal Flats are extensive areas between the mean high water line and mean low water line along tidal bayshores. Intertidal flats are found along Delaware Bay in Cape May County and in other tidal bayshores. Policy - Development, filling, new dredging or other disturbance of intertidal flats is discouraged. Submerged infrastructure is conditionally acceptable, provided that (i) there is no feasible alternative route that would not disturb intertidal flats, (ii) the infrastructure is buried deeply enough to avoid exposur e or hazard, and (iii) all trenches are backfilled with naturally occurring sediment. -14- 6.) Beaches Beaches are gently sloping unvegetated areas of sand or other unconsolidated material that extend landward from the mean high water line to either: (1) the vegetation line, (2) a man-made feature generally parallel to the ocean, inlet, or bay.waters such as a retaining structure, seawall, bulkhead, road or boardwalk, except that sandy areas that extend fully under and landward of an elevated boardwalk are considered to be beach areas, or (3) the seaward or bayward foot of dunes, whichever is closest to the bay, inlet or ocean waters. Policy - Development is prohibited on be aches, except for development that has no prudent or feasible alternative in an area other than a beach, and that will not cause significant adverse long-term impacts on the natural functioning of the beach and dune system, either individually or in combination with other existing or proposed structures, land disturbances or activities. Examples of acceptable activities are: (i) Demolition and removal of paving and structures, - (n) Dune creation and related sand fending and planting of vegetation for dune stabilization, (iii) The reconstruction of existing amusement and fishing piers and boardwalks, (iv) Temporary recreation structures for public safety such as first aid and lifeguard stations, (v) Shore Protection Structures which meet the Use conditions,of Section 7:7E-7-11(e), and (vi) -Linear development which meets the Policy on Location of Linear Development (7:7E-6.1). Public access to beaches is encouraged. Coastal d.evelopment that unreasonably restricts public access to beach is prohibited. 7.) Wetlands Wetlands are areas where the substrate is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegegation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions which are subject to the Wetlands Act, or the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) or the Waterfront Development Law. Wetlands regulated under the Wetlands Act of 1970 are delineated at a scale of 1:2,400 on official maps as listed at N.J.A.C. 7:7-1.13. All coastal wetlands situated in the Raritan Basin, south along the Atlantic Ocean and north along Delaware Bay and River are subject to the Wetlands Act. The Waterfront Development Law regulates all wetlands north of the Raritan Basin, except for areas within the Hackensack Meadowlands District not now or formerly flowed by the tides, and all coastal wetlands in the Delaware River Basin and Raritan River Basin not regulated under the Wetlands Act. Policy - In general, development of all kinds is prohibited in wetlands, unless DEP can find that the proposed development meets the following four conditions. (i) Requires water access or is water oriented as a central purpose of the basic function of the activity (this policy applies only to development proposed on or adjacent to waterways), .(ii) Has no prudent or feasible alternative on a non-wetland site, (iii) Will result in minimum feasible alternation or impairment of natural tidal circulation (or natural circulation in the case of non-tidal wetlands), and (iv) Will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment of natural contour or the natural vegetation of the welands. In particular, dumping solid or 1 iquid wastes and applying or storing certain pesticides on wetlands are prohibited. _16- Both the restoration of degraded wetlands as a mitigation measure for certain types of approved wetlands development and the creation of new wetlands in non-sensitive areas are encouraged. The Division of Coastal Resources previously has required restoration of temporarily disturbed wetlands and will continue to do so on a case-by-case basis. Under the Wetlands Act, the activities of DEP, the Tidelands Resource Council, the State Mosquito Control Commission and county mosquito control commissions are exempted from the coastal wetlands policies within mapped coastal wetlands. Voluntary administrative compliance with the regulations adopted by DEP under the Act is not, however, precluded. The location and extent of these seven "Special Areas" is presented in Figure 10. 3.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 3.1 Foundation Analysis Two issues of concern are raised by the available subsurface data, (see Geology & Soils Section 2.3.2) settlement and slope stability. A stratum of saturated soil, which is of a compressible nature (such as the existing organic silt), will compress only when the load or weight of material above the soil stratum is increased. The resulting compression (change in volume) of the soil, due to this increase in load, is directly related to the volume of water forced out of the saturated soil, and is commonly referred to as consolidation. As the soil consolidates, the thickness of the compressible stratum decreases and the ground surface over the area undergoes settlement. In the case of heavy and/or rigid structures this settlement cannot be tolerated. A second consideration is slope stability. The organic silt which lies below the surface soil is not only compressible but also has low bearing capacity. It is an incompetent unit. Loading this incompetent layer at the surface, whether with a building or by filling to raise the site's elevation, increases the stresses within the unit. As a result, water pressure in the voids of the soil will become@excessive. In cases where excavations are considered in the design (such as the excavation of a harbor as proposed in this plan), removal of the soil adjacent to such structures or fill zones decreases the lateral support provided to the incompetent bed. In such cases, sloughing, slumping and other slope failures may result. -17- >) ..... A ell -- @E .813 SUBM AMW r finm 'N 41 77ON NAVIV CMAW-1 WERM L FLA 'S ;W WA '@F EDGE X K -C C L j7RE7 144MV rig 0 0 Yc 4,j 00 4U-- f b cl --- 0 . ....... .. .......... -Afl Sasaki Associates, Inc. Figure 10 Nmh Watenown, massachtisetts Sewaren Waterf ront Nrk Special Areas Cross Group Inc. Woodbridge, New Jersey Wtawan, New lersey S- $pKW a dA" h dw CamA MVIW@ r@@, AW@ "M SA N. 0278 One advantage this site offers, however, is that the existing fill overlying the organic deposits has been in place for several years. This probably has allowed the organic deposits to consolidate partially. With such partial consolidation, bearing strength of the underlying soils has been gained. The preliminary Master Plan for the waterfront park will contain the following non-marine related, structural elements which influence soil bearing capacity: 1. A restaurant facility and Harbor Master headquarters building. 2. An observation tower. 3. A double-lane boat launching ramp. 4. General filling of the site by 4 to 6 feet to raise the grade. Much of the area requiring fill will be open space with no rigid structures and will be unaffected by minor settlements. Parking lots, on the other hand, may experience some settlements creating small depressions and "bird-baths". Based on the design elements of the park and foregoing soil discussion, the following recommendations are suggested for foundation design. 1. All buildings (harbor master building, restaurant, observation tower) and ornamental structures (fountains, etc.) may require pile supported foundations to eliminate excessive settlements. 2. Based on available information, should piles be needed, they,may extend 40 to 45 feet below the surface. Concrete and/or timber piles are suggested if cost-competitive. 3. Use soft surfaces (grass, landscaping, etc.) in fill areas to reduce maintenance costs that result from settlement damage. Minimize hard surfaces. Delay paving parking areas to allow post-construction settlements to progress. 4. Provide graded edges to the shore to reduce both settlement and slope failure potential. Keep final elevations as close to existing grade as possible to reduce excessive settlements. -18- 5. Use placed rip rap on slopes within the boat basin. This is the most cost effective design solution and allows the slope structure.to be somewhat flexible in the event of differential settlement., Rip rap size should be designed to only that size necessary to protect against the wave energy anticipated and no larger. This will decrease loads on the slope. 6. Avoid filling adjacent to the harbor excavation. Keep post-construction loads at the head of slopes near pre-construction levels. This will reduce the potential of slope failure. 7. Keep cut,and fill slopes to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. 8. Make use of lightweight fill if available to decrease total loads. 9. Conduct a preliminary "reconnaissance level" subsurface boring program on the.site. This may result in modifications of the above recommendations. All recommendations are based on data obta ined from borings located off the site and from professional experience in similar types of environments. However, in order to make a complete and effective evaluation of foundation alternatives, it is imperative that a preliminary boring program be initiated on the site. For this evaluation, it is important to determine both the consolidation characteristics and strength properties of the underlying soils. A proposed boring program is described in Appendix III. Most of the buildings proposed in the Master Plan are light structures. Depending on the type and extent of subsurface soils found at the building sites, the following foundation alternatives are possible: 1. Conventional spread footings; 2. Floating mat foundation (weight of soil excavated beneath the building equals the weight of the building); 3. Pile supported-foundations. The cost of these alternatives increases from least to most expensive in the order presented. Alternative 2 requires greater design finesse and depends somewhat on building design. It is premature to,select a recommended foundation system prior to review of on-site subsurface data; however, conventional spread footings, which are expected to be feasible, probably arp most desirable.- 3.2 Marine Analysis 3.2.1 Design Criteria Wave Height The site is exposed to waves from two directions on the Arthur Kill: east northeast and south southeast. These wind directions do not coincide with prevailing wind directions (northeast,and south southwest) but are associated with storm activity. Maximum wind speed recorded from the northeast is 52 mph and a 55 mph wind is assumed from the south southeast. The wave height generated by wind is not only a function of the wind speed but also depends on fetch and water depth. Using a hindcasting technique developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the following design wave heights have been established for the eastern shore of the site. Direction Wave Height (ft) Wave Period (see) SSE 2.5 3.0 NE 2.2 2.75 Refraction, diffraction'and shoaling may either increase or decrease the height of approaching waves before they begin to break. The curved shoreline in relation to the wave trains approaching the site, and the extensive tidal flat adjacent to the site will tend to dissipate wave energy slowly and reduce the height. Therefore, the computed wave heights may be smaller. However, as a conservative approach a design wave height of 2.5 will be utilized. Unlike the Arthur Kill, Smith Creek is protected from all directions. Wind generated wave heights are expected to be less than one foot in this area and boat generated wakes may approach one foot. Flood Elevations Based on existing flood elevation data, (Section 2.3.6) landside facilities should be set at elevation +12 feet (NGVD). -20- Marina Dimensions Entrance channel widths for two-way traffic should be no less than 50 feet'wide. Freeway clearances within the basin are computed by multiplying 1.5 times the maximum boat length for each set of slips. Minimum berth sizes are computed by using the formula: W=2(bw)+3' in between +21(one foot on either side), where W is the width of the double berth and bw is the boat beam; an extra five feet is added for between boat and between dock clearance. Walkway dimensions are 8 feet wide or more, and finger piers are no less than 3 to 4 feet wide. Depths Based on a minimqm channel width of 50 feet, the maximum craft length recommended for safe navigation is 40 feet. Therefore, the minimum dredge depth recommended is -8 feet mean,low water (-9.015 NGVD). Marina Water Surface Area The marina concept has been designed to handle between 200 and 300 boats. Marina's below a 200 boat capacity are not economically justified, and a capacity greater than 300 boats requires the use of more land area than desired under the park program. The areal requirements for a 210 and 300 boat marina are 4.5 and 6.5 acres, respectively. These figures represent only the mooring basin and do not include freeway clearance or other space required for manueverability. The marina will be laid out to handle a boating mix ranging from boat lengths of 20 to 40 feet. This range will provide berths for the major portion of the recreational-boat market. Crafts less than 20 feet generally are "trailerable". Facilities and Services Administrative and supervisory facilities will be provided at a convenient location in the marina. This area will house the Dock Master, helpers and all control systems. Restaurant, chandlery, restrooms, showers and facilities containing miscellaneous supplies will be provided along the south flank of the boat basin. Parking for boat owners will be available immediately east of the marina. A fuel dock will provide diesel, gasoline, water, and ice services. Temporary dock space will be available for a maximum of five bo 'ats. In addition, pump-out facilities will be provided. Effluent from holding -21- tanks on boats will be pumped to the.sanitary sewer or to a temporary storage tank located at a convenient point on shore. Fuel tanks will be stored adjacent to the fuel dock and the Harbor Master's huilding. The Harbor Master will supervise the fueling operation. Solid waste disposal facilities will be placed at a convenient location on land where pick-up services are available. Pedestrian-access will be available along a promenade which will border, the marina on the landward side. A double lane boat launch will be provided for smaller crafts (less than 25 feet). A total of 60 parking spaces per lane will be available for cars and trailers. The boat launching facilities,are located such that they will not interfere with marina operations. Water, electricity and lighting will be provided for all marina facilties. -22- 3.2.2 Marina Alternatives Five alternatives have been examined a nd are presented in Figures 11 through 15. Three are located on Smith Creek and two on Arthur Kill. Alternati ve I (Figure 11) This concept consists of a series of berths located adjacent to Smith Creek. The marina is completely open to Smith Creek. Alternative II (Figure 1'2) This concept consists of an L-shaped harbor which is open to Smith Creek at the south end by a 130 foot entrance channel. Parking, restaurant and harbor master facilities are provided on a spit of land separating Smith Creek from the harbor. Alternative III (Figure 13) This harbor is incised into the east shore of the peninsula. A breakwater and jetty are needed to protect the harbor from waves approaching from the southeast. Alternative IV (Figure 14) Rather than being incised into the peninsula, this harbor lies within the Arthur Kill and follows the form of the shoreline. A fixed or.floating breakwater is necessary along the north and south flanks of the harbor. The east entrance is somewhat exposed to waves approaching from the east and southeast. Alternative V (Figure 15) This concept is similar to Alternative II, except the' 130 foot entrance channel is located in the center of the harbor. SUMMARY Of the five alternatives, the marina facilities located on the Arthur Kill appear to be the least desirable for the following reasons. 1. During storm conditions, 2 to 2.5 foot waves may be generated on the Arthur Kill. This will necessitate wave protection. A floating breakwater has a high annual maintenance cost; whereas,.a fixed breakwater Figure 11 SMEET NO._,YOF PROJECT NO. SASAKI ASSOCIATES, INC. OATE 64 PLEASANT STREET TITLE WATERTOWN. MA 02172 By CK'O In /Z N\ PLAN NI NG/ARCH ITECTURE/LAN DSCAPE ARCH ITECTU RE/CIVIL ENGINEERING/ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Figure 12 SHEET NO. /-",OF NO. SASAKI ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT DATE 4e@l @-/ 64 PLEASANT STREET TITLE X.A WATERTOWN. MA 02172 By CK*D Mv \4\ TV .41,4XI 14Z PLANNING/ARCHITECTURE;LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE/CIVIL ENGINEERiNG/ENVIRON MENTAL SERVICES Figure 13 SHEET NO. OF SASAKI ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO. 7,a:? OATE 64 PLEASANT STREET TITLE WATERTOWN, MA 02172 BY C K'D Z -7 -12 zo 21's- -57 Old -4. N\ mv Xcl w-e z z PLANNING/ARCHITECTURE/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE/CIVIL ENGINEERING/ENVIRON MENTAL SERVICES Figure 14 SHEET NOCf@40F PROJECT NO. 1<2 ZIT- -5/ SASAKI ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE 64 PLEASANT STREET TITLE WATERTOWN. MA 02172 By_ CWD lke , 4. PLANNING/ARCHITECTURE/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE/CIVIL ENGINEERING/ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Figure 15 EET NO. @@4F 0. SASAKI ASSOCIATES. INC. PROIECT 11 DATE 64 PLEASANT STREET CK-D TITLE WATERTOWN. MA.02172 By U @A I r Li tA ',A L /ZVI PLANNING/A RCHITECTURE/LANOSCAPE ARCHITECTURE/CIVIL ENGINEERING/ENVIRON MENTAL SERVICES has.high initial cost- This cost could be even greater if foundation conditions are poor as indicated by the existing boring data. 2. There are no existing channels available to the east shore of the site. All necessary dredging must be new dredging and a channel must be cut from the peninsula to the Arthur Kill. A basin constructed in the Arthur Kill will have a 90 degree entrance alignment with respect to the existing navigational channel and tidal currents. Both of these will pose some navigational hazard to small crafts leaving and entering the basin. In addition, sediment carried by the tidal currents will be intercepted by man-made structures at the harbor mouth, causing sediment to be deposited in the entrance channel. This will require more frequent dredging in order to maintain a navigable channel. 4. The passage of commercial vessels in the Arthu r Kill will generate large wakes. Wave amplitudes of 1 to 2 feet can be expected. This will undoubtedly cause discomfort to basin users. 5. A basin entrance orientation other than 90 degrees to the Arthur Kill will allow energy to be transmitted through the entrance during storm conditions. A marina located on Smith Creek offers advantages that the other alternatives do not. These include the following. 1. An existing navigational channel already exists in Smith Creek and is maintained by the State. This is a less costly approach because the State is responsible for keeping the channel open. 2. The Smith Creek site is completely protected during storm conditions. No breakwater or protective structures are required. This offers a substantial cost savings. 3. Navigation will not interfere with large commercial vessels. 4. Navigation in and out of Smith Creek will be parallel with channel currents, although the magnitude of the currents are expected to be much less than those in the Arthur Kill. Because of these advantages, a boat basin on Smith Creek is oreferred. -24- 3.2.3 Costs, The choice of a preferred marina layout on Smith Creek can be determined primarily on an economic basis. The greatest dollar cost in many marina designs is the edge treatment. Cost is both a function of length and type of edge treatment. Alternative I offers the least linear feet of edge and is nearly 1/2 the length of edge required under Alternatives II and V. By designing an articulated edge (as in Alternatives II and V), the cost may nearly double. Edge Treatments There are two basic types of edge construction; vertical sheet pile and sloped (Figures 16 and 17). The cost of vertical edge is About $1,500 to $2,000 per linear foot; whereas, a sloped edge is on the order of 1/3 to 1/5 the cost of vertical edge. Under certain soil conditions, vertical edges are necessary to.provide edge stability. However, at this site, a rock slope graded at 3 on 1 (horizontal to vertical) appears to be a reasonable solution. A sloped edge offers advantages over a vertical section in that waves generated within the harbor by boat movement are dissipated at the edge rather than amplified and reflected off of vertical walls. This kind of agitation can be annoying in a boat basin. Dock Systems Where water levels do not fluctuate more than 2 feet the berthing docks and slips almost universally are of fixed construction. If the normal tide range is between 2 and 5 feet the use of a floating -system is optional. For fluctuations of more than 5 feet, a floating dock system is highly recommended. Three docking systems have been examined for the marina: 1. Foam-filled pre-cast concrete system (Figure 18). 2. Aluminum decked docking system (Figure 19). 3. Wood frame over foam-filled pontoons. All of these systems were evaluated for engineering feasibility, aesthetics, and initial cost (Table 3). A ten year comparative cost analysis of wood vs. concrete docking system was conducted and is presented in Table 4. The results of the Analysis indicate that the pre-cast concrete system is the most cost-effective design. In addition, it offers better stability and durability. -25- 11-71nt@hed 6rade J Concrete Cap r*1x z' Continuous Timber Fender Pile Wale Sack 10, a-c-)- 7imber Concretr 0eadman Eat-th Fill Sheet Piles Section C-C' Bulkhead ALVIN P. WILLIAMS Project WCL 0 7 P Revisions MEMORIAL PARK Drawn By V H Mecked By SB#M Sasaki Associates, Inc. Approved By AIF 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Mass. 02172 Drawing Date/o/191V Sbedt Nu=ber Planning Architecture Landscape Architecture Da" Figure 16 Civil Engiineering Environmental Services Scale Figure 17 SHEET NO.-170F- SASAKI ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT NO. DATE 64 PLEASANT STREET TITLE WATERTOWN, MA 02172 BY C K'D Sk Xl lk MODULES WITH WALERS ATTACHED ..... ....... . . ....... .. .. ......... ......... S . ... .. R WOOD WALE UBRAIL .. ....... ....... ..............- .......... . .... .......... .... .......... .... .......... STEEL THRU RODS -SECURED CONCRETE COMPLETELY SURROUNDS WITH NUTS ON BOTH ENDS EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE CORE AND BONDS TO IT WALKWAY FLOAT END -VIEW ....... ... . ... .... .............. ... .......... ............. .......... HARDWARE WOOD ALL STEEL PARTS ARE DOUGLAS FIR TIMBER PRESSURE- HOT- DIP GALVANIZED AFTER TREATED WITH PENTACHLORAPHENOL FABRICAnON FINGER FLOAT END-VIEW A ALVIN P. WILLIAMS Project No. OA-78 nevisio" I)rsw= B7 v" MEMORIAL PARK C!iecked B-77 sbM Sasaki Associates, Inc. Am=cved =7 M"@' L N'a=bex- 64 Pleasant Street Watertown, Mass. 02172 Drz"wi=g Mate@11/10/ P!anning Architecture Landscape Architecture la=e mate Figure 18 ....... ....... . ........ .. Civil Engineering Environmental Services scale NTS NO 12, 38't MIN 12 t /0 it 014. 12 is 01A. RILE 101LE 6 20 WALK FLC24T FINGER FL 18 4FW. '7'j 71 WOOD DECK S7RUMIRE az4 r (r YP.) a SMEL ROD a 2. YEBar s"tsrEm FOR XNNEC 77NG FLoAr mrs CAP rOGErHER 90 GAL. R0L.YSrYREN6* UNIT WSONT rOLERANCE.- 700 LM PER UNIT (4'X 2) TYPICAL FLOAT SEC77ONS N. r S. ALVIN P. WILLIAMS ft0ject Na 04-78 Revisions MEMORIAL PARK Drawn By y q# Checked By -58-41 Sasaki Associates, Inc. Approved By, AfF 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Mass. 02172 Drawing Date 1-1111011 Sheet Nuznber Imme Date SUILDING Planning , Architeclure , Landscape Archilecture Figure 19 Civil Engineering Environmental Services &aIs am ow (now *a ap 's (up low TABLE 3 FLOATING DOCK EVALUATION CHART Foam Filled Precast Marine Docks Alluminum Marine Docks Wood Frame Concrete System Decked Dock System Over Foam Filled Pontoon Stability Most Stable Walking Less Stable Walking Fairly Stable Surface Surface (Hinged Joint Sections) Reaction to Waves Best (effective up Moderate Good, Spaced Pontoons but to 2V wave) Hinged Construction Debris'Collection in Some Debris Collection Less Debris because Less Debris because Water because minimum clear Pontoons are spaced Pontoons are s.paced space in between units Noise Quiet Can@be noisy because of Fair many metal moving joints Number of, Guide Piles Relatively Few Relatively Many Relatively Many Appearance Very Good Good Fair Flexibility of System Good Fair Fair to Revision of Layout Durability &Maintenance Very Good Good Fair Cost $22/sq. ft. $16.5/sq. ft. $16.5/sq. ft. TABLE 4 LIFE-CYCLE COST COMPARISON Wood vs. Concrete Floating Dock Systems ComDarison - To be based.on a present worth analysis of docking system alternatives with different life-spans and annual maintenance costs assuming 8@% annual interest (Township's borrowing rate) and no inflation for comparative purposes only. Area of Floats 29,732 s.f. Wood System First Cost 29,732 s.f. @ $16.50/s.f. = $490,578 Annual Maintenance Cost = $13,023 (est.) Anticipated life =,10 years Assume a 50 year comparison Present Worth (P.W.) = A + B + P.W.10 + ---P-W-50 Where A = initial cost B = Bond necessary for annual maintenance cost, at 84% P.W.10 = present worth of replacement cost after 10 years P*W*50 = present worth of replacement costs at 50 years P.W. $490,578 + $154,856 + $216,145 + $97,828 + $44,279 + $20,040 + $9,070 = $1,032,796 Concrete System First Cost $29,732 s.f. @ $22/s.f. $654,104 Annual maintenance = $5,000 (est.) Anticipated life 25 years P.W. $654,104 + $59,455 + $89,457 + $12,329 $815,345 3.2.4 Preferred Design Based on the foregoing eval 'uations and an assessment .of the existing site conditions, Alternative I has been selected as the preferred marina layout. The marina will have a capacity of 264 boats, and the mix will consist of the following: Craft Size Quantity 20 26 251 66 30' 80 351 68 40, 24 The area needed for boat mooring will be about 6.0 acres. The proposed marina layout is presented on the Master Plan. The docking system will be pre-cast, foam-filled, concrete floats set in place with wood timber guide pile (See Figures 18, 20-23). The section will be designed to withstand waves up to 2 feet. The edge will consist of a double layer of graded dumped rip rap. Primary layer stone will consist of 6 to 7 inch diameter stone, and the base layer will be crushed stone (Figure 17). Fuel pumping and dispensing systems will be supplied at the south end of the ha-rbor, along with other marina services (Figure 24). Sewer pumpout facilities also will be provided. A boat launching ramp is planned at the north end of the marina. 3.2.5 Dredging Construction of the harbor will require considerable excavation. From elevation +10 (existing land surface) to elevation -2 (NGVD), the removal of material will be considered excavation (above mean low water elevation). The estimated quantity of excavation is 145,000 cubic yards. Much of this material is old hydraulic fill and will be utilized to raise existing grades throughout the site. From elevation -2 to -10'(NGVD) the removal of material will be completed by dredging. Approximately 92,500 cubic yards will be removed during this operation. The initial cost of dredging is estimated at $555,000. Based on local dredging records, the frequency of maintenance dredging is estimated at no less than 15 years. -26- WALKWAY ASSEMBLY OUTER WALE (TYP) INNER WALE (TYPI Z z Z z . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..... ............... . ......... ... . . . . . . . . ........... . . ET ....... ........ ................. .......... .......... . ....... ... . .......... . .......... . ...... ........... ........ ....... .... . ......... 0S INNER WALES BUTT AT MIDPOINT OF EVERY THRU RO OTHER FLOAT, AS DO OUTER WALES ON WASHER ALTERNATING FIJATS. UNASSEMBLED PLAN VIEW x, f RUSRAIL ALONG BOTH SIDES WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER ASSEMBLY (ONLY ONE SECTION SHOWN HERE3 ASSEMBLED WALKWAY ALVIN P. WILLIAMS pmject No. 0278 Revisions MEMORIAL PARK Draw= By vNif Checked B7 55fli Sasaki Associates, Inc. Ap@oved By, /,Ic E34 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Mass. 02172 Dra-ming Data/-//f/s/ Shast Nu=ber Issue Date Planning Architecture Landscace Architecture Figure 20 Civil Engineering Environmental Services Scale NTS ATTACHMENT OF PILE GUIDES AND UTILITIES FING ma STANDARD PILE ROLLER- EQUIPPED GUIDE FOR CONCRETE OR STEEL HOOP WITH RUB - PILINGS OR FOR HARD WORKING WOOD PILE BLOCK USED :WfTH. WOOD PILE 2 -22rF 0' GALVANIZED STEEL 3&w. T" BARS TO SE-@ GALVANIZED STEEL CURE UTILITIES T STRAP 1/4" X 2Is TO HOLD UTIL- ITIES STANDARD FLOAT HIGH FREEBOARD FLOAT TOR E ELECTRIC SERVICE BOX 00 . . ... . .. SERVICE CAN BE FREE COM STANDING AT mio POINT SERVICE LINES INTO BOTTOM OF BO OF SLIPS ALVIN P. WILLIAMS Pmject lNo. ozV Revisions Drawn By vqq MEMORIAL PARK Lbecked By Sj3M Sasaki Associates, Inc. Approved By MF 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Mass. 02172 Data/0 111*7 sliget N Issue Date 7=A C Planning - Architecture Landscape Architecture Figure 21 Civil Engineering Environmental Services scaie NTS C -8ERTH.1 FAIRWAY 0-I _BERTH_-,!, 8!-0.1, il L I F I L 1i A W a. f LLI UJ CONNECTING WALKWAY--' @8' 10 0-N TOP OF PILE V. H. H.W. YP FLOATS TYP GUIDE PILE DREDGE BASIN BOTTOM CONC. OR TIMBER-J PENETRATION PILE HOOP u DEPTH TYPICAL. LAYOUT FOR FLOATING DOCKS ALVIN P. WILLIAMS Project No@ 02 78 Revisions Drawn By V1111 MEMORIAL PARK Checked BySaM Sasaki. Associates, Inc. Approved By p1je Sheet Nuxnber 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Mass. 02172 Drawing Date/O//1/8/ Issue Date Figure 22 @rT Y Planning . Architecture - Landscape Architecture Scale Civii Engineering Environmental Services -:4r -50 ELEVATION, 7-F' 1-2 we 314' WrT appo uwmrm STEEL S"61- SECTION airA wtDN WM04 BETWEEN $NOT a AIMUMUM "=$"a ' WPIUL Kamm => 130TTOM PLAN 3ALWANIZZO VEIL TYPICAL, GANGWAY CIETAIL NG-r To 3CAL& ALVIN P. WILLIAMS Project No. 0178 Revisions Drawn By V14H :MEMORIAL PARK Cbecked By .58 M Sasaki Associates, Inc. Ap ed By MC . prov 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Mass. 021,72 Drawing Data /@/Jfh/ SILGet Nu=ber Imme Date Planning Architecture Lan dscape Architecture Figure 23 Civil Engineering Environmental Services Scale NTS 1:alagrlallk 01 ALVIN P. WILLIAMS Project No. 02-78 Revisions Drawn By V114 MEMORIAL PARK Checked By SSM Sasaki Associates, Inc. Approved By Mp:: 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Mass. 02172 Drawing Date 10/11181 Shoot Nu=ber Issue Date Plarifiing . Architecture - Landscape Architecture Scale Figure 24 Civil Engineering Environmental Services The State of New Jersey recently has submitted,an application to dredge Smith Creek. Their application. is under review by the Division'of Water Resources. The State wants to remove 26,000 cubic yards from the existing channel and would like to dispose of this material on the park.site. However, Woodbridge does not want this material on this site. It may be beneficial, from both a cost and permitting standpoint, to coordinate these dredging efforts. The Division of Water Resources may allow "piggybacking" of the Sewaren, water quality' certification application with that proposed for Smith Creek by the State Bureau of Coastal Engineering. Disposal of dredge spoil may be by one of two methods, ocean or land disposal. The feasibility of one method or the other depends somewhat on the chemical constituents of the spoil. A full discussion of dredge spoil disposal including costs will be conducted in late phases of the planning process once chemical sampling and bioassays are complete. 4.0 MASTER PLAN PROGRAM The 36 acre site has been divided into three major zones: Boat Basin, Open Space/Recreation, and Nature Study. The following plan illustrates the distribution and size of these zones. .4.1 Site Access Temporary access to the Park will be required for construction and general park uses until the Sewer Treatment Plant is removed from its location. At such time, a permanent access off Cliff Road should be built as shown on the.Master Plan. Traffic improvements, such as moving the entrance-300 feet south of the intersection, widening Cliff Road and improving the Cliff Road/Central Avenue intersection, are recommended. Access to the peninsula will be via a new dike crossing at Smith Creek, on the bend near the north east boundary of the project. Circulation within park areas will be controlled with chain gates at the overflow parking lot and the Harbor Masters Building. Only Park vehicles will be allowed access into the pedestrian areas of the Park. 4.2 Boat Basin The boat basin is located on the existing Smi-'Zh Creek Channel. Modest excavation is expected in this location because the existing grade is lowest along the creek. -27- .Floating slips will provide space for 264 boats ranging from 20 to 40 feet. Facilities for fueling and for a harbor master's activities a--.e provided. Additionally, a restaurant, to be operated on a lease basis, is proposed in proximity to the best views of the basin. Parking for boat users is provided at a ratio of .75 cars per boat. Restaurant parking will accommodate 50 cars. A dual-lane boat launch raMD with 40 car/trailer spaces is proposed at the upper arm o@ the boat basin. 4.3 Open Space/Recreation The access road terminates in a parking cul-de-sac for 20 cars. A "Wave Garden", featuring nautical elements, will be developed in a manner which is interpretive, . attractive, and functional. It is the keystone-of the Park because it will establish the theme of a water oriented facility. Other open space uses are related to the location of the site on the Arthur Kill Channel. These are picnic areas, promenade, tot playground, and a general, multi-purpose, open lawn area for various events. 4.4 Nature Study Area The effects of development of the Sewaren peninsula on wildlife will be mitigated partially by enhancement of the existing habitat at the tip of the site. A nature interpretation pavillion will mark the entry to trails which will wind through reconstructed upland and lowland ha'bitats. Large areas of plantings will be retained to encourage wildlife. A trail will pass a 30 foot observation tower. This tower will become a navigational aid to boaters. Further along the trail, a marsh and mud flat habitat will be encountered. A boardwalk is proposed to minimize impacts. 4.5 Summary of Park Facilities A. Boating: Boat Basin - 264 Boats Harbor Master and Fuel Facilities (Floating Dock) Restaurant Boat Launch - 40 car/,trailers B. Open Space/Recreation: Wave Garden Tot Lot Picnic Facilities Promenade Overlook seating Multi-purpose lawn area. _28- C. Nature Study: Nature Pavillion Interpretive Trails Observation Tower Boardwalk Upland.and Lowland habitat reconstruction D. Parking: Boat Uses 190 spaces Restaurant 50 spaces Nature Study 7 25 spaces Overflow Parking- 70 spaces Total : 335 spaces 4.6 Preliminary Cost Estimate The cost estimates as projected by Sasaki Associates for the marina and park elements totals $5,450,000. A preliminary cost estimate is attached. Boat basin preparation, access roads, utilities, water edge preparation, floats, and gangways will cost an estimated $3,635,000. These elements constitute the essential items for a working marina to be estblished and put into operation. The marina is the focal point of the park development and it should be constructed and put into operation in the initial or first phases, if construction is phased. Approximately $1,825,000 are necessary for the boat launch ramp and parking, park landscaping and lighting, nature center and trails and the observation tower. These elements are not essential to the marina operation and could be added in later phases. Projected-,cost estimates do not include the restaurant2 Harbormaster building, and the fuel station. These items are to be constructed and funded by the private developer or operator. If the project must be phased, for whatever reason, it is recommended that the marina be implemented initially with the remaining elements added at a later time. This phasing schedule would allow the marina, restaurant, and harbormaster elements to commence operation initially with the park elements being added later. 4.7 Funding,Sources Funding of t'he total cost of $5,450,000 can be accomplished by a combination of N.J Green Acres funds, -29- SA Sasaki Associates, Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 0217Z * (617) 926-3-5oo Telex 92-247' 1 OB S aren Waterfront Park-COST ESTIMATE STATUS Budget DATE 9/30/81 -BY SBM E@ UNIT ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL SUB TOTAL REMARKS ILARINA BAY Slope Rock Revet. 1,865 LF 345 $ 643,425 12" of 6"-8" stone, 3:1 Floats 29,732 SF 22 654,104 Foam-filled precast conc. Guide Piles 155 EA 765 118,575 45LF Each $17/LF; 14" 0 Gangways 3 EA 8,000 24,000 UBoat Launch 230 CY 300 69,000 2 Lanes Excav. & Re-use or give Excavation 161,000 CY 4 644,000 away (No Cost SRoil) Spoil at Sea, Sandy Hook Dredge 92,500 CY 6 555,000 Mud Dump $2,708,104 ITE IMPROVEMENTS Fill (For dike cross) 11@000 CY 4 44,000 For entrance road From Smith Creek under Twin Culverts (Dike) 200 LF 225 45,000 dike crossing Larger - $350 average Trees 122 EA 300 36,600 Smaller- $250 Shrub Areas 113,132 SF 3 339,396 Some on Slopes Turf Areas 392,202 SF 0.60 235,321 Loam and Sod Wave Garden Allow 100 000 w/conc. wave sculpture Tot Lot Allow 53,000 w/timber structure Observation Tower Allow 125,000 Timber Curb (asphalt) 4,000 LF 2 8.000 Where Required Lighting Allow 5-0-1000 Main Road Timber Terrace Area Allow 167,000 Timber.earth Bit. Conc. Pavement 31.725 SY 6.90 218.903 31-," B.C. on 12" Base Trails, board walks, Nature Trail Areas Allow 217,450 natural plant materials F-dature Center 1.000 SF 50 50,000 1,689,670 SA Pag.e 2 of 2. Sasaki Associates, Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 021-77 - (617) 926@33oo Telex 92-247:L OB Sewaren Waterfront Park -COST ESTIMATE STATUS Budget -DATE 9/30/81 _BY SBM UNIT ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEMTOTAL SUBTOTAL REMARKS RTILITIES Water Allow 1$ 67,000 8" main, Hyd, service 6" main, twin 3" force, Sewer Allow 54.000 manholes, pump station Drainage Allow 25.000 $ 146.000 SUBTOTAL PUBLIC FUNDS 4,543,774 GRAND TOTAL w/20% Conting=cv & Engii S5.452.529 SAY @5,450,000 Township of Woodbridge bonding, and private developer@/operator capital. Department of Energy Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) funding, in the form of a loan, was planned originally as a funding source, but is no longer available, due to recent cutbacks in Federal spending. The following allocation of funding is suggested Funding Allocation Green Acres $29725vOOO 50% Woodbridge $2,725,000 50% TOTAL $5,45OtOOO It is beyond the scope of this analysis to allocate funding by individual marina and park elements and to identify the timing of the funding. A more detailed funding allocation must be based on the review by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Green Acres Program utilizing their criteria for eligibility for funding by element. This detailed analy*sis should be done in-the future and is incorporated as part of the Phase II work scope for this particular project. Funding Sources - Woodbrige Share of Cost The Township of Woodbridge's share of cost in the amount of $2,725,000 can be derived from a series of funding sources. Unfortunately, at the present time, because of Federal Government cutbacks, two sources of funding have been eliminated. These include grants from the HCRS Land and Water Conservation Fund, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, and loans from the CEIP Formula Grant, Section 308 (b), administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. -30- The Township's share can be derived from CDBG sources, if available, and through a Township backed bond issue. A portion of the debt service for the bond issue can be supplied by a land lease of the marina and restaurant facilities. If the marina facilities, including docks and gangways, are constructed and leased to an operator, lease payments can be based on a percentage of the gross or net income. Gasoline sales, chandlery and other retail*sales, if part of the marina operation can be included in the gross income figures. The restuarant and ancillary retail facilities are projected to be constructed and operated by private developers or operators. Land under the restuarant and retail facilities can be leased to the operator with land lease payments based on the appraised land value or a portion of the restaurant gross income. Financial analysis of land lease income for both the marina and restaurant elements are beyond the scope of this engineering cost analysis. Future studies should include a market study of both the marina and restaurant elements and the increase in these payments over time. This market and financial analysis should be done to determine the annual land lease payments.from the Park which can be used to repay the annual principal and interest payments on Township issued bonds. Preliminary analysis of marina and restaurant land lease income show these combined annual.payments being able to support between $5,50,000 and $1,000,000 of the Townships $2,725,000 share. These are preliminary estimates only and must be verified by detailed market and financial studies in the future. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5.1 Existing Conditions The proposed Sewaren Waterfront Park site, a 36+ acre peninsula located at the confluence of Smith Cr-eek and the Arthur Kill, presently is a patchily-vegetated, dredge disposal si.te. Surrounded by oil storage facilities, power stations, sewage treatment plants and residences, the site is the only remaining vacant waterfront parcel in the Sewaren area. The site is composed of four distinct cover types: upland waste area, beach, salt marsh, and mud flats'. The upland area is characterized by scattered small trees and shrubs, grasses, and waste-area species (i.e. goldenrods and Queen Anne's lace). -31- The beach is pebbly and contains a large amount of trash deposited by the rivers. The salt marsh is narrow but maintains a dense growth of Spartina alterniflora and foxtail reed grass. The mudflats are sparcely vegetated, .but extensive, particularly along the shore of the Arthur Kill. Runoff from the site is controlled by a permiter dike and exits via a single open channel into the Arthur Kill. Erosion and siltation are uncontrolled. Due to the nature of the peninsula's substrate, water quality of the runoff is expected to be poor. Although no water quality testing has been conducted, the quality of Smith Creek is expected to be poor due to the industrial nature of the surrounding land and low velocity current. 5.2 Impacts of the Proposed Project 5.2.1 Land Use Changes Construction of the proposed Sewaren Waterfront Park will change the use of the upland area from a vacant, dredge spoil site to a public park. This change in land use will result in greatly needed open space/park land and public access to the Arthur Kill. 5.2.2 Noise The proposed project will not alter significantly the existing noise levels in the vicinity of the site, except during the construction process when heavy equipment such as trucks, backhoes, pile drivers, etc., will be operated. 5.2.3 Air Quality The construction process will produce a small, temporary increase in air pollution resulting from exhaust emissions from equipment. No significant impacts to air quality are expected during the operational phase. 5.2.4 Historic and Archaeologic Resources No historic or archaeologic resources will be affected by construction of the park. However, the presence of the park in place of a vacant ' spoil site will enhance the historic features of the Woodbridge waterfront. -32- 5.2.5 Wildlife Construction of the waterfront park will,result in' the replacement of 17-34+ acres of shrub and waste-area habitat with open parkland. An additional 9.83 acres, including 2.8+ acres of salt marsh, will be replaced by the marina and associated park facilities. In addition to this loss of habitat area, the increased human use of the site will result in the displacement of sensitive species. 5.2.6 Fisheries All dredging activities will result in a temporary increase in turbidity. This in turn will have impacts on the existing shellfish and fi 'nfish. The existing shellfish are contaminated and thus, inedible; however, they are of value as a food source for' other species. The site is within the potential habitat range of three protected fish species: shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, and Atlantic Tomcod. It is highly unlikely, however, that these species actually utilize either Smith Creek or the Arthur Kill, due to the contaminated, low oxygen condition in these waterways. Safe fishing sites (i.e. structurally sound public piers, wharves, etc.) are rare along this portion of the New Jersey Coast. Construction of the marina wharves and piers will.increase access to fishing at this site. 5.2.7 Vegetation Development of the Sewaren peninsula into a waterfront park will require nearly complete alteration of the existing vegetative cover above the 10 foot contour (NGVD). All salt marsh and mud flat vegetation, with the exception of 2.8+ acres of salt marsh located across the entrance to lt@he proposed boat basin, will remain undisturbed. The completed park will be vegetated to include the following associations: hedge buffer (0.60+ acres), woodland buffer (1.68+ acres), mixed woodla-nd/thicket (5-74+ acres), and open parkland grasses and trees (17-34 acres). Therefore, post development conditions will have a greater vegetation coverage (25+ acres) than predevelopment conditions (20 + acres). Water D.2.8 Quality During the construction process, specifically when fill is placed for the access road crossing and when the entrance to the proposed boat,basin is dredged, -33- there may be a local increase in water turbidity and reduced water quality. Since the water quality of Smith Creek may be poor already, this impact may not be significant. Following construction of the park, a localized improvement in the water quality of Smith Creek may be expected. Park creation will result in stabilization of the presently unvegetated portions of the Sewaren peninsula through the use of landscape- materials; thereby reducing erosion and siltation. Furthermore, runoff from the park surfaces is expected to be of higher quality than that from exposed dredge spoils. 5.2.9 Erosion Erosion will be controlled during the construction phase through the use of a soil erosion/sediment control plan. This plan may include phasing of development to reduce the amount of---exposed area at any given time,.use of check dams and/or use of temporary, slope stabilization materials. Construction of a park on this site will reduce the potential for erosion by stabilizing all presently exposed areas with landscape materials. 5.2.10 Socioeconomics The socioeconomic impacts of the proposed waterfront park will be twofold. First, the construction process will provide jobs and a market for local materials. Second, the park will provide Woodbridge with public access to Smith Creek and the Arthur Kill, a place to fish (finfish only), and a place for enjoyment of-leisure time and cultural development. 5.3 Mitigation Measures 5.3.1 Wildlife Although development of a waterfront park will result in a loss of habitat acreage, this loss may be mitigated through the use of landscape materials which are attractive to wildlife, protection and increased maintenance of the beach areas, habitat improvement in an area designated as a nature preserve, maintenance of vegetative buffers, and marsh creation or rehabilitation.- . Vegetation which is of value to New Jersey wildlife and which may be used for landscaping on dredge spoil- sites is presented in Table 5. Many of these species -34- may be used to create a shrub buffer between the park and the beach area. This buffer will effectively limit direct human access to the beach and prevent harassment of shorebird populations. It also will provide "hedge row" habitat for songbird species. The beach area should be kept clear of trash. This should be included as part of the maintenance program for the park. A 5.74+ acre nature preserve will be created as one- of the park elements. This preserve will be vegetated with species listed in Table 5. Human access to this preserve will be limited to a loop trail system. Such a trail system will allow the public to observe wildlife species in their natural environment while, at the same time, limiting the amount of area which is subject to direct human/wildlife interaction. An additional, vegetated buffer zone will be created in the northeast portion of the site. This will be a small woodland area which will contain a large variety of vegetation species, and provide habitat for a diverse songbird community. Loss of 2.8+ acres of salt marsh, due to the constructic7n of the boat basin, may be mitigated by either creation of a new marsh or rehabilitation (improvement) of an existing marsh. In either case, such activities should be conducted in the immediate vicinity of the loss, and the following guidelines should be used: marsh elevations should be within the normal tidal range for the area (i.e. above mean low water and below mean high water); slope should be gradual, preferably one to three percent; the site must not be exposed to greater than+ moderate levels of wave energy; a thorough assessment of the substrate should be made prior to planting; the marsh should be planted with smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora); new plantings should be adequately protected until established. -35- TABLE 5. DREDGE SPOIL-TOLERANT VEGETATION OF VALUE TO NEW JERSEY WILDLIFE* Eastern Redcedar Common Filaree Black Cherry 'Marsh Pea Canadian Serviceberry Flat Pea Redstem, Dogwood Sericea Lespedeza Winterberry Black Medick Wax Myrtle Pokeberry Bayberry Pennsylvania Smartweed Common Chokecherry Sheepsorrel Dwarf Sumac American Beechgrass Smooth Sumac Smooth Crabgrass Carolina Rose Large Crabgrass Allegheny Blackberry Tall Fescue American Elderberry Red Fescue Highbush Blueberry Shoredune Paniclum, Sawbrier Switthgrass Greenbrier Reed Canary Grass Summer Grape Riverbank Grape Frost Grape Redroot Pigweed Ragweed Woolly Croton Chufa Actual plant selection must be based on an accurate and complete assessment of the existing soil conditions. 5.3.2 Fisheries Impacts to the fisheries reso Iurce and particularly the protected species (if present@, will occur during dredging operations. To reduce these impacts, dredging should be conducted using a hydraulic dredge during late November, December or January. 5.3.3 Vegetation Refer to salt marsh mitigation measures presented under Wildlife. 5.3.4 Water Quality During construction, impacts to water quality will result from dredging operations. To reduce these impapts, it is recommended that a hydraulic dredge be used. If necessary, a retention device (i.e. silt curtain or sheet piles) should be considered. During marina operation, care should be taken to ensure that oil spillage is kept at a minimum. This can be-accomplished by proper pump maintenance and operator care. 5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects Construction of the proposed waterfront park will produce the following adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided: a temporary increase in noise and air pollution levels during the construction phase of the project; loss of a land disposal site for dredged materials; a temporary decrease in site use by wildlife species during the construction phase of the project; a temporary increase in turbidity in Smith Creek during dredging operations; loss of contaminated shellfish in the areato be dredged. 5.5 Environmental Permit Requirements The following environmental permits are required before the waterfront park project may proceed. Permit Agency Waterfront Development Permit New Jersey Division of Coastal Resources Water Quality Certification New Jersey Division of Water Resources -36- mw '00 OW1.1- .1 W-1 R--- S-@tt- 101 014 A-y G.,. t f@,gj__ Fla.. 20 d.y. ki-).ding 014,14 Appti- d-V put'li, --t 1-1.4) d-V puk'au -a 164-t-.W@4 t-@tt, P.M.4) fi: Applo" u Ad" @-1-1-4 A-pt.d AWPI i-- Add 111-- Appi t-I I- f k.@t- I Rt .... 4 pt.4 A,,, Add,t,"_1 W- Appli-ti lfv-sd@j Oq-.k,4 'I @Vptfd" f 9LI ,V. (f-1.41"; Ap'a At-la d 90 d.y. L I @1-, t f.-Nx. 30.4.y ...... t- .1,4 P.M. IG-J.y f-Wj IE - ,I N-4 tis Fili'm its -Ily App'-4 Akly Avill.-d 01- bi AITI kt! 44,14- C-ditd-- A,,i 11- 0 dy. A'-Y Ollp. Wil S-ij- tQI4(A p,_,, P-1- S- 60 d.@,, JI.J..d I&M 20 ...... . d, dav to U, Section 404 Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The following critical path diagram illustrates the steps involved in obtaining these permits. The Waterfront Development Permit and the Water Quality Certification both require the filing of a CP#1 Application. This application is referred to as the 90-day Construction Permit Application. A maximum period of 90-days is required between the filing of a complete permit application and the issuance of the appropriate permit/certification. The Division of Coastal Resources and the Division of Water Resources will confer during the course of the ninety days because Water Quality Certification is a requirement for the Waterfront Development Permit. No time limitations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10/404 Permit are specified in the permit regulations. The maximum length of time elapsing between the filing of a permit application and the issuance of a permit by the Corps is dependant upon the completeness of the application, whether an Environmental Impact Statement (in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act) is required, and,the work load at the Corps at the time of filing. The Army Corps requires that all necessary state permits be obtained before it will issue a Section 10/404 Permit. Based upon the fact that some permits are prerequisites for obtaining others, it is critical that all three permit applications be completed and filed simultaneously so that interactions between the agencies can occur throughout the permitting process. -37- APPENDIX I BIBLIOGRAPHY For New Jersey in General: 1. NOAA, 1980, Local Climatological Data - Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Newark, NJ. 2. NOAA, 1965 to 1974, Airport Climatological Summary, Newark Airport, NJ. 3. Soil Conservation Service, 1978, Interim Soil Survey of Middlesex County, NJ. 4. Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, 1981, The New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Master Plan (Draft), 138 p. 5. Rutgers University,-College of Engineering, 1953, Engineering Soil Survey of New Jersey Middlesex County, Engineering Research Bulletin No. 24, Report-No. 10. 6. Owens, J.P. and Minard, J.0 1979, Upper Cenozoic Sediment's of the Lower Delaware Valley and the Northern Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware, and Maryland, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1067-D, 47 p. 7. Gill, H.E. and Farleka, G.M., 1976, Geohydrologic Maps of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System in the New Jersey Coastal Plain, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 557. 8. Thomas, D.M. and Tice, R.H., 1964, @loods on the Raritan and Millstone rivers in Somerset Coutity, New Jersey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 104. 9. Anderson, P.W. et. al., 1974, [email protected] and Streamflow character-istics, Raritan River Basin, New Jersey, Water Resources Investigations 14-74, S2 p. 10. Anderson, O.W. and Subitzky, S., 1973, Remote-Sensing Studies of Hydrologic Environments in the Lower Raritan River System, New Jersey. (open-file report) 17 p. 11. New Jersey- De partment of Environmental Prote@tion, Program. Green Acres Procedural- Guide, Local Assis ance 12. NOAA Nautical Charts-of Raritan Bay and Southern Part of Arthur Kill, 1979. 13. NOAA Nautical Chart of the Raritan River-Raritan Bay to New Brunswick, 1979. 14. U.S.G.S. 71.minute quadrangle maps Arthur Kill Keyport South Amboy Perth Amboy 15. NOAA Tide Tables, 1981, East Coast of@North America and South America. Sasaki Associates, Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02172 (6:17) 926-33oo Telex 92-2.47% 333 Alcazar Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (305) 443-2374 16.'NOAA-Tidal Current Charts for New York Harbor, Eighth Edition 1979. 17. NOAA and the Department of Defense, 1979,. Chart No.1- Nautical Chart Symbols and Abbreviations 36 p. @18. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Costal Resources and NOAA, Coastal Zone-Management, 1980, New Jersey Coastal Management Program and Final Impact Statement (CAFRA), 533. P. (On loan to SA). 19. Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1980, Report of the Interstate Sanitation Commission on.the Water Pollution Control Activities and the Interstate Air Pollution Progrnin. 20. So il Conservation Service and N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, 1980, Endangered and Threatened Species of New Jersey, 44 p. Publications 1. Soils Report for'Central Maintenance Shop Building, Sewaren Generating Station, Sew'aren, N.J., 1978. 2. Sewaren Generating Station - Units 7 and 8: Plan and Location of Borings, Boring Logs, Geologic Sections, Excavation and Fill Sections, Soundings. Hardt, W.F. and Jablonski, L.A., 1959, Results of a Pum'ping Test in the Vicinity of Woodbridge, Middlesex County, N.J.. U.S. Geological Survey open-file report, 8 P. 4 Woodbridge Township, 1978, Master Plan of Woodbridge Townships Community Facilities Plan and Land Use Element, 31 p. 5. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1973, Report to Township of Woodbridge on the Feasibility of Local Environmental Regulations, Phase-I Appendix. 6. Princeton Aqua Service, 1981, Wetlands/Floodplain Evaluations, Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County, N.J. Maps, Charts and Plans 1. 100 scale print of Existing Topography at Sewaren Peninsula (2 foot contours). Sasaki Associates, Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02%72 (6-17) 90-33oo Telex 92-247% 353 Alcazar Avenue, Coral Cables, Florida 3-33-34 (305) 443-2-574 2. 100 scale Plan of Elevations at Sewaren Peninsula 3. 100 scale Plan of Sewaren Peninsula Riparian Boundary Survey 4. Woodbridge Township Tax Maps (10/1/80) 5. 200 scale original mylar of Sewaren Peninsula and surrounding area. a. Two prints of Sewaren Peninsula and surrounding area. b. One large print of Sewaren Peninsula and surrounding area with streets labeled. 6. Woodbri-dge Township Zoning Map 7. Survey of Riparian Rights Boundary on Sewaren Peninsula one copy (Apparently there are two copies of a r-tp-arian rights boundary survey. Item Tshows' the boundaries of the small tributary streams within the fill.zone of the peninsula.) Sasaki Associates, Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02172 (6-17) 926-33oo Telex 92-247m 35-3 Alcazar Avenue, Coral Cables, Florida 3-3-134 (305) 443-2374 APPENDIX II SUBSURFACE DATA LEGEND BORINGS I - 8 Note: A - Soil Classificat" -on B - Depthat change of strata C - Sample Number D - Blows per 6" on 2" sample spoon with 140 lb. hammer falling 30 WL - Water Level Scale Vert. 1" 5' LEGEND BORINGS 5-7, 16-19, 27, 33-40 Distance Hammer Drop on Casing 24 inch on Sampler 20 inch Drive Hammer 200 lbs. Sampler Hammer 140 lbs. CA s inc-r , Size 4 inch Sampler Size 2 inch Site of Core Bit NX inch Column 1 Denotes sample or core run numbers. Column 2 Denotes elevations at top & bottom of each sample or core run. Column13 Denotes sample blows per six inches or % of core recovery. Column 4 Denotes length of sample or core recovered.' Column 5 Denotes casing blows per foot. Vertical Scale 1to 5101t GW Ground Water Level Classification of soil & rock has. been made by the driller. za 14. pr LL 14 14 4p-ax a si-7 57 13 5 Q- Ao' -7 + 7 7 -+o /Ct Z55 31 12. 40 53 Smown -M/@ SAND (//e- SA^JD 4RAV G L- s cen r-c4 v e h-o c e QP71e- SiL.7- zz s i '..@T 3. .4 ay -7 0 PI-7 C ne .50ra /0i @@Cv ce IS /9 9 4ray E 39 73 F6- . -ija 38 4-c@ 4.!' 3 p j7/ 5-4 Y r3 Ac i:> --Ct q SIZ7 r:3 tc-- Ave L- .5414 D SIL-'r @=-E A..T' ov)OJ-71C- SILT ilm 0 2j! zz 3 AN L-) 1/0 (. J/'lm 4 (ZA- --L. az 9 Z8 -78 to IT, J" 9. z 7. 78 -:5 4LL Y 4 s,4 Q 5 -@'7 ';A /-j ID 4- 9#10-,vm 7@49) @4 1 r,,j e- 'i 7 7-1. 14- 5s A 4- it xv r-3,-,',Vr7 @/c- 5Af--IC> j4- C. e Vs L- .4. iz 40- X 5A,-./L SIL-T- C W- 4m &C. L-T- F-E@ A -r C- In q -74 o-o" e+ F-aLve 14 le :s J+ L . ISA., 14. s, -J C) 2-,3, 0 L.. 40 2 Ell t`-14- L )=/Z. L - ri Ar Aj L-) 5A N 0 P-C rn 13 LA.# ;/r- do. C t L:T- < A J-4 61 5At C.) 9- ZS 78 .5 6 7 @4111.d CIAV. 2 3 4 5 34 5 2 3 4 5 Ver CUPOSI To 12 (0 vu SA 1 96. ICELLAMEOWS 17 39 @-21 0 W 13 NKC Fill( GA&VEL - FILL.. CINOCI 17 1 S 04#1 6141 SAmo Age SO _14 If T A NET 0, - Is $Mo. GRAVE11- 30mc 6116VEL@ MOIST 6 "0:! 39 I.L433 M. LOOSE 1S.0 42 G. V. go's 'NO*. -folu." AD 14.0 -22 1100 ple IN( TO COA03t S2 IS. S 31 n/ 701 Also A low( 644111, a 32 1:101111M To Fil( 121 slow. COAASI Is - is Molly 30 sea SAN*. TRACt *EOILpi To flat as r_ 21-C of SILT too -38 'An* 4 XNE [email protected]. 90-0 $1 x 1" &LAW(L i""NLIC -42 64AYCL. 10137 - 23 L 9. 1111. 5 13 4 FILL) It's -66 b.2 6 - - 14 4:00 PW -AA.L So 33 S. 1$, 25 3 A 4 q 39 -a-L 21 1-1 4:00 Pu '-S -2, JD -47 31 "170 MECILpA.-MUPACT Is -54 is -69 ALM- -26 is. Is. our. SSGJAJC 11-1 SNAT. 3ILry CLAY P 3 319 42,5 3 WERIAL 6 SILT S 21.5 1 too smi (ISLAMIC -16 vastic CLAY.. WISI GUT, ORGASIC -21 NAT121 AL. Mai IT SILT, MOIST. SOFT v .12 L"St IS-21,61 11*A _rS Lma Ir-IIIV to 79.4 It a it is .6 jtq is 7S.e list 10 190110 2S GUT %me. ritact 7%-a 97 %I 1141-SI 74-0 "A 46 u OF SILT JOS GIIAWL. I? a vaVa. MARIE To INSIST 14 13 - Flat WAD 42 I no( SMALL 11PS 70.0 S7 -- 1. 69.0 . _I u AS-0 - -62 imi3i 6 m(DIW&. WS 12 p _34 M14111'acy 57 6'.S . 1: 1 ' -"' -ALA- .30 34 among. MANSE TO 06 owicy 301-111I.S1 20 ISO sm -3111 51" 'M* so 64.0 72 IS 6%,0 -63 INLOCIS fiLs- SID 30 42 1,2110 52,S .440 Sd W-0 311 MANSE To flat 5q-0, jos 38 so Is, low %Asia. TINACE 5S.0 2, vt 4041 or SILT, rtAct Of JSG Do SI-S Mass( To $I@( 57.S ls 'm ofolum WAVEL. 10191. COWACT W-1116" ISO CWACT Sol SS.0 WICS31 A COWACT Is go 9 31 sq-11 sio 42 7. Is4I $10 is. 100 COMPACT zu 51.o Se ?S act USAL 111"T Ir Is OUT% Of 011,16 44.8, STARTED 31117/70. CDW%Cno alln" _36 Aj I '4.S SmUCI ST - J. PVKAL 1. lITM 4 It 383 11111, Ir L t 9 1 6 0 12-S . " .; C 913TASCI BAWEV "M of CAS11116 29 ONCE 08 SWL 0 aloco slow. Mikou to cetvf.vawo MO LOOS. Walubo. flar uso 40.0 - $Abmltcw MAMEN 80 LOTS, 19 CASS24 Siff Iloco a 31AL@ sot'@fv 4 Sig 44 fr &AV(LL . CaMPACT 38@5 . so uwto SIZE 2loco .13 so it- of C1111 at I is Iva Cot UWs I09011IS SAIW1.1 01 CORE *is 11"LlS.. COUPON 2!IC11101TES EL(VATIONS AT W A OTTIN of IS.* Wit SUOPU *a Cost lug. CMJNM I41110TE3 SAIdP4 OLD" PER Sit 160CS 44 0 SOS S3 is- F Coat IF(Cov COLMN 4$ENOTI% L96TO Of UWLI " Coat I(CCOOVII[S. 56 13' X.1- .70 COLMOR IMOTES CAS124 "ITS PED FROSIL * Off"tAL 39111.1 . - SIG, 111 IL (.NUSO vAlt2 LEVEL 31422-614thrX n.2_1 :9,UlolcATIOG of 301 L I 4D4Z INAS 81113 NOW IT, Flat I$ V;i @7-2^-t-rt- DEFYII Of 11011lell 7014* STARTED 3120/?�.. COBS'LETTIP 312017V taitto BY - 16 L Cv1. L MOIST $SIT. SOFT Stirs- 11FC mou says CLOT Scia$ 12 1 W OUT" Of PSING W 100 16 /7 --- 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3 is $7.7 EL tv. uWast Ta 96.9 21 In lo SAII VI rm St 1 6 '8* PIT 31 SOME SINALL GRAVEL -6 --21 airy 01.1111" -22 C.111:E rO MINN. (go we To -29 ;oo. to SAN;0 my( FI I( SA:2'T;rw UAW&. was IT ruct of GRAwcL Imumcamou'r fal. MOIST I MfOlum is COMPACT -24 -So r3 0.00 AfCAAI LAW 111410 31 81-1 :44 a W. 26 11!00 A" 54 S' oil 70 I 1 44 L 1 2 2 32- mcolum SAN** a To 34 111-11- is is, - -V *1 211 so 31I.T. Not.$? 4 "alum a" ACT S2 UA1. Fill( To I's NE0160 %me 77-7 26 76.9 TRACE OF 9@ 77- is 35 :ZO 214, -39 TRACt OF 11111! 14-1 SILTV upt A MIAMI& Swf post UAVM 6. is palsy A Volvo mmi$T a Ups( IV- cimpict -61 11, 4" 72-7 A Is. 42 -UA- - 71.2 _66 as -34 -31 H-2 .15123 H.2 -26 21 zo -ILL 16 .'s -- QA. ODIUM a Ill 14--23 &We SUG a Td :AA3f Use A jwc - x 60 ODIUM To "I I irmistes -41 WAVEL. was %I a -51 cowikcy 90151 A LOSE A'- - JV.JL 4 Malaim.-comilact X.- 39 St-I 313 camiracy FA,-Sa,qv AILS It -st 'Is -79 44 1 r III VII V or_" .34 - 99 as 9-00 tgr43AL AT 30.1. - felt 00 IIIIIING sell, Se 234, STAIRTirb $I Two. Comptirms 3il?/Yo -71 - WILLO IF - A. L CYR, J. 31&n Is C A 3f3 Le. I a evil of meses; !*Is* frAtTo I# Is/m Cooftlyu A/ M LLD W - A. L C? L 4. SZAJO 2 3 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 oo its - -RU3 31 tIlE33 Is' - It VCR - MUG Be POIC13 ll*- 92. IAMISM sArutiTED I'-#'$ "AT. OAUSIC SILT $may. ORGAINIC SILT Val By met ST 32 12 77, 1 7.1. 11 CAME TV Fill( GAAV` Sam.). rRAC! Wall To Fee( M" OF Batt APO ;Uvrt 33 -to tj or 111AT Sao. lIAcj $1 A 22 -if SIL as Q*AvIEJL 21 29 LOGSIE. q4tv 70.6 70.8 IN is IS of IMAISIE 10 fist _or am a Sao. 'Rict of of SILT. ToAct 00 gs-1 -lot Cosum M Fiat IN 36 ' 7- :RAICL . mcne 1106. -AUL 22- _61 coatill III fist 11.9 -20S SS CADVACT. moist 111001% 11400 Usto -to$ I :ct OF SILT All* Ily .12 4: VtL. 0.1 lot -0121 35 44 - SI,I 38 ji A is is to I., -as 15-1 -112 Will me $4.1 -12 -1-:,2 177 waill Is post lool3l line 111111111 IV Tsac A IF 3, Ly, 50-t )PQ3 TNAU Of CIARIC M Is 40 1 40, VIA r Off GRAVEL CM- 46 07 XT. 101 IT of .29 'A -LLL 3 29 c A BID -A.L 2. 3 to "Umes 38.9 S? 6100 SAMIS, TIUCt OF 310 #A* GRAVEJ CWUT. mats? -AIL 33.1 MA4311f 18 Fist Imn saara. From" 0 SILT. TWA Of 13 "M 4 Flat 12 WA"L. aw"T. WARS4 M Fist 23.1 So a KS Use. Tillet as SILT. TIACE of atolm 11111 fill 2L A QuIlm compacT No lei IT -J If -ALL -Aa n 111116 Bill I IT 29 -j so" of Mots AN ITIATED COPOPLICID 3/31/70 mou.0 III J. FOODS, a. It TENS POPTIll of wall$ 4141113* 17"Ttoo 3/2170. commeowto "out& IN - J. FOVCIS. 11. 1110fill 27 33 34 t 2 3 4 5 2 EL EV. 1 2 3 4 ".1 1 2 3 4 5 ".1 REV. If Flat TO COARSI SI t 1 LOOSE. " 0SAllob TRACE ILACx A WIN -III it FSILT AM "A El 1: ts.1 CDA BE L 3X Div 00 100 t"I T: To 1116 IQ 1 go AN SAN8. U M E SILT. 11:00 AN, In(, us ;'AChC( a U24/70 LI!TLE REDIUM 70 0S Lt. 1 04 fist. GRAM S* Fiat "ATIL 12.7 bier GRAY. 01401C SIL I DAW 0-.1161 not 37 S-4161 12 falls? 6-4,41 - 14 *1- IIA 09.2 26 33 a 13 -ALL 93 it MIT. SACS. ".a I 71 17 So FT. UACs. cosmic SILT. 111.01, 1:01TUR"Act 612 C SILT A a IRAC[ of FINE OF SILT. Least .24 TUCE Of UAVCL' No, motsT 12, t U "am L. K.. wEr is 14 W -.JLL -L. .- . casest To FINE 11 figs. "a SILT WOO So BID m ?7.2 Act 1 11 76.9 CLAT. L. FL.. YET 3 l IE06.11 17.6 0 ,It it i IL11016COP01 .2- - 34 Pilot is 12 77.2 77.7 5 54.1 Mal 51 IS -St - -I? 1111 *FT, LACK. - CLITIFY SILT. TRACE Loosr. 4 of- $lfft Sao, Is Comm To fix: 102 86 PL.. W? 73.9 .1, LIT" 810. Se Lt rTLE DIAIM To flat To INT allas sa "1 $6 IQ 'a. 36 FINE Ga'ICL. WT ?2.7 -17 Iowa SANG. TAACI 3, 17' '11 ILS - - :$ 3ILT, COWACT is- 40 "DIST 76.0 UPON. 1110, $Ian a? 69-2 Coal$( TO list 0.1. $4 SANG, 3001 SILT. S? 61.4 3, ir- 46 INS#, @to. etas. 67.7 72 flat of Its( - 44 =&ftst TO. flat sat WASEL. vp 114 AMD Idiloolita M Flat 0 FAAVEL. Visit BILL 47 64.2 aw so W-44 MANSE TO $lot 130 1"* SUB IF jay SI.t ItAgO, TRACE Its SILT. TRACE fit GRAVEL. cawkel C I A me setsT 21 a qr SIR S7.7 IS 21 $7.4 30. 7 1 S3.5 --2.62- Is Is 21 slow. LOOK. 10 IAL 31.4 is -.1 is COARSE To FINE sm USK. Role. JIM I ACE Or SILT. COARst is fist T:AC1 OF FINE 2 usis. Llru ULI. KY "A -b Uact of Fill 44-9 to --236 IfI to- -2 Fist Is '$IDIOM V-1 .21 111 L 61 ISO 0-7 -Z Novel woo. ?tact $11 31 IQ* :I SILT. TIACI OF so 6&Avn@ WWACT. INSIST It 22.9 C 12 43.1 S12 i's -I. a A -as sit 4 VA to. a %7. t it - C. 42. a at C 39.2 20 -a Ali 77 3 -30 13 30 1 r6 37. 7' 313 2 37's A IIIA 204PACT" REV. COWACT. to. COARSE 10 Boom, wAAU To 33-t 111107SAMO. 33011111 at USE It Flat its F:At $A". ROME SILT; 30141: 111:1114011 %1* Is. c:06121 Me SAIN - ILI. mot mcoim I11% to Fist 6ANCL, till S71 TRACE OF SLY. tl-q _?a - to #%BE 4lt6VQ. UST TRACE OF "(glum fu GRAVEL. wwicy MOIST 21.1 woft 111flisk at is S 154 '7.. oupr" OF Battles a-$- A Sil 27 1 J. I Slagle 3123M. COWLEIto VZW?O JCp1% as SMS4 71-6- WIN OF 02196 71'5* belf.i.to IT - J. POKM a. RIVERS STARTED 312*170. CDNWLMO A/zW?o STARTED &J23170, ODMIPLETILD 3/24179 DRILLto BY - J. SZAN, C. ILLLT PRILLED,11 - J. 2&0, r- AELLf 36 1 2 3 4 5 35 f ".-? 10( 2 3 4 5 1- 19-1 .2 - -.6 I 110 1 :00 PIS LOOSE. 11LACX, Fiat 4 LOOSE. 1ILACz, Fiat 3AND Of SILT, KT 36116 00 SILT . VIET Ill.'s 3 Is 34110. TRACE of 310 Is KACII. @FT. as 2 OR* 6 TRACE of list 311 ULI, WT -U.L . a - GNIVEL, virl 1 4 0.0 33 2011, SLAW 34 4 OAGASOIC SOLT, W? JUL IIIA a 35 ULL. 'it is7 --11 .%L -V -2-L -it LOOSL 64AT. No.. 34 1 a. A IUM 70 Fiat SAPD. -61 TRACE OF SOLT, WY -641 I as I V t u 14 9 T14206 &OLT, NEI ?f,Q I J* ST 06.5 2S v JG2 67-9 76 U-0 121 - . 0 iv_" JIS -AIA- .0' % -19 76 a 29 Se RED. Mm. CEO*. COMPACT. to pis PACT. coals[ 70 0, caust To 61.4 A File Some, sowt 116 26 c 11, Same. LITTILE so MEDIUM. TO I'M 61.0 A COME To Fiat GsAvEL. ROME SILT SIT -6 3 WAVE1. KI NEI SPOON 21EFUSAL AT IA. as C UMM REFUSAL AT WTI of 11104116 4410, 47-1- 1 :TASTE& 1419170. CMIKETIM 446110 31 39j, 04ILLED SO - J. SLABO. r- SILLY swo. 9 %6 Sa- %Ma- it 117110 OF 802126 %?*1* ITARTO 6/7/70. COMPLrito ql?f?g COOLL111 IT - j. SIAM. C. RIELLY INS$ 60CRIPTION SASO Of Tot '%AM'. 0 I LILU Lt' &4`95 100 37 38 1 2 3 4 5 a- Jr. 31 1?.% 13 2 3 4 5 sloo ft . . 6 3 so a, 70 3 24.1 file 30 SOLT. WT 4 U163c ILAcs % Fill 24410 Age t3.9 ULT. NET 32 1 2 91-1 zS 52 Is. 91.1 0.00 saj 44 13 0 3 NIAN LOV 6070 LOOSE. IW" -ALL -25 $3 Xj- S U110. "AC I SILT. TRACE Of 26 Fill. SUM. 11177 34 11 3. is 22-9 is $off. ILso 01401C Mt. NET 14 Pon if, Z". W.Aft -ZLL 19 IS ORGANIC <, NET ss 1 2' -mJ- 5 -16 a u a is -XUL 34 2s ILI 36 Is x it, -$6 so Loll. OUT. WED. 0 LOOSE. GIRT. N(P. ?s ism 70 flat SAN 0. 93 low TO Flat SAND, -?I TRACT of SILT, wr $7 10. SO TRACE Of SILT. WE C7.# J24 -A" 27- IF -75 12-1 -IS$ _fss pt Is v 310 CDWVACT fee, 'I., 60 flow. 6"m To C $#at udo. SON( A :Eovlz To IM opo"T. Sea. is s7--1 a 12, C NA so( 11 LT $7.6 co"21 To - VIET 38 WAD. LIME "'T. Lt rru ca"ll is fill -JJ*L . 31 3pm ttpjsaL AT j2j 12-ISI 211 1 : CPT% OF 104126 %'S' T"Tts 'In /79. ewtim Q 1617111 a - J. UAIS. C. EMT st -.Q. ST ANT 41 /ft. COWLCM 416/ye IN SIA111. L ItUT 39 40 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 SAND A 6 G. FLY Asp Ano um , 31 14. @AAYIW BROWN 12- SILT ORGANIC nAlfRIAL I AL.L. z - & uJID a FLY $Swm )0 YET *,-P6, -all I A Loan 0, 11 1; 00 pit III __j WAY. emmic WAY. oft"IC ".a 12 WAT(sik me AUSIAL Vol IN" 6 VIGUAINO a ILL- -12 %OtXT ALOW A.. -16 IT & LOOSE S'- -10 14 X.&_ it I.IW - . - I 14 to : X-L - 8, is Is - is to -to 36 116.0 if so :-, is- 14 21 it 7%.7% ILI n 7S.* BMAY. CLATCY ULT 6 WOE OIGANIC Ss qj 14, GRAT, To 7S.S KA?tml&L -Is lum ung. 00157 -28 it -a lei If I It as It'. to - A$ DO 30.6. 70.0 . 5 _" IF 51 0 it a? 74 - 14 26 -4 22 - AS a 74 4 Sol a v ff 21 COAR31 111) 43-1 is coly"-flif was is a SNAICL. WI$T. _1141 :42 NEDIUWCWACT 1111 me. COARSE Tvi *(filin fist 111160, HAVEL, 00021 31111 to- -?I 16011101-00WACT % so C A S4,7S s Its serivills" wit( "falum IS FINE 12 a. $4.0 UN16 lei ST A COMPACT as $0 C sic 34 is SLL_ -42 *17TV OF will*& 4616' STAR? to /3/70. COMPLETES 111411"( 14ILLED ff- L L CT11. ff. 1113S a%. No S.S SAII* BOULDERS. sit m OAK 4 &119%1 ErrwTs .2 cawfic? USED ANIS U. NAIdP411111 I" LAP Sit lNX(S 0 OEFT11 as SORT 52'% 3ANKIE 9. VA11,10 6/si ETD 410170 WILLED IT - 4. 4. CYR. IL actil rws I(FUPL AT $Vol - too SLO" - 90 acwvfwr. CENTRAL MAINTENANCE SHOP BUILDING SEWAREN GENERATING STATION SEWAREN, N.J. AUTHORIZATION U-50917 SOILS REPORT SUBMITTED TO: PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY 60-PARK-PL., RM.#716.MP., NEWARK, N.J. SUBMITTED BY: .JOHNSON SOILS ENGINEERING COMPANY PALISADES PARK,-N.J. OCTOBER 1978 JoqhC. Mahle, P.E. JOHNSON SOILS E'NGINVIE.R ING CWII)ANY, CENTRAL MAINTENANCE SHOP BUILDING AT SEWAREN GENERATING STATION GENERAL: Subsurface exploration was undertaken at the subject site in order to determine the type and condition of the underlying soil formations as well as their suitability for supporting the proposed structure. A series of eight borings were made commencing on 26 September 1978 and con- cluding on 28 September 1978. The borings were made using a hollow stem auger and split barrel sample spoons, 2 inches in diameter. Samples were taken continuously for the first 12-feet and at intervals of five feet thereafter. The borings were made at the locations shown on the "Boring Location Plan and Log of Borings", figure #1. The site of the proposed structure lies in geologically termed marine terminal marsh. It has been.covered over the years with man-made fill. LABORATORY TESTING: In the laboratory all samples 'were visually classified and grain size analysis-and water content tests.were made JOHNSON SOILS ENGUNFERING COMPAN' 2 on representative samples. The results of these tests are shown on figures 2 through 5. FINDINGS: The investigation, examination and testing of the samples reveal the fol- lowing:* A) A layer of.fill was encountercd at all boring locations. The fill consisted of fly ash, sand, silt, gravel, wood, bricks, wire and other miscellaneous man-made materials. The fly ash, sand and gravel was the major component. The fill extended from the.surface.to 12',. 12rp. 81@ 12'o 10', 9.5',-15' and 8' in holes 1 through 8 respectively. The compaction of this layer varies from very loose to very dense, however -11 due to the composition of the fi material, it is unsuitable as a bearing layer. Sand or sand and gravel with vary- ing amounts of Silt is-encountered from 12' to 18', 121 to 171, 81 to 15', 121 to 151, 10' to 15.51., 9.5' to 141 and 8' to 10.5' in holes I through 6 re- spectively and #8. Bearing capacity on thi's layer also varies widely, from 0.'5 TSF to 3.0 TSFO JOHN50N SOILS ENGINEERING COMPANY 3 Below this layer organic materials are enqcountered to depths of 28.5', 28', 25',30', 25.5', 28', 27.5' and 26.5' In 1 through 8 respectively. This layer consists mainly of organic SILT with peat and traces of clay. It is soft and subject to settlement under'super- imposed loading. Under the organic layer,granular formations are encountered to the limits of exploration. These formations are composed of silty SAND or sandy SILT with trace to some gravel and are very compact having an allowable bearing capacity of at least 2.5 TSF. At 33 in hole #1, 38' in #4, 35' in #6 and 31' in #8, the material be- comes SAND & GRAVEL with traces of silt and clay. It is very dense with allow- able bearing capacity of at least 5 TSF. B) Water was encountered in all borings and these levels are marked on the Boring Log,figure #1, The level varied from 8' to 10.5' below the ground surface and some variations will occur due to tidal fluctuation. JOHNSON SOILS ENGINEERING COMPANY 4 IV. COMMENTS: Based on the examinationof the site, the samples and all other data we would make the following recommendations: A) The concept of conventional footings for this project should be eliminated. The miscellaneous fill and the deep organic layer will cause excessive settlements to any superimposed struc- @ture. Utilization of a surcharge.pro- gram.is not recommended because of t1-.e. probable time involved and the l1keli- hood of differential settlements after c-ompletion of the structure due to the wide variation in live loading, Floor, loading as high as 1,000 PSF is an- ticipated and h.igh 'column or machine. loads of 400 - 500 K plus dynamic loading make spread footings unsuitable. B) It is, recommended that the structure be pile supported with the piles driven to depths ranging from.35 to 45 feet. The loads involved in the proposed structure precludethe use o f timber. piles for column support,,however, ec- onomic analysis may make it desirable to utilize timber piles for slab support. If this choice be made, the piles should be creo-soted 8'inch tip.piles driven to 25 ton capacity based on the.Engineering News formula. JOHNSON SOILS EENGIt"41"I'M ING COMPANY For column support, we recommend steel pipe piles, concrete filled, approximately 40 to 45 feet in length. With piles in the order of 10 inch diameter, capacities of 60 tons.can be developed based on the'Engineering News formula%driving criteria. If steel H-piles were used it is likely that the piles would penetrate to rock,., The depth torock was not determined in the investigation since the deep till formations were so dense and compact, that in our opinion addi- tional depth was not warranted. V. SUMMARY: The following summarizes our findings and conclusions: A) Conventional footings for'Llie proposed structure should not be used. B) Support the proposed structure on deep foundations using steel pipe piles, con- crete filled for column support. C) For'slab support use either timber or -pipe piles depending on economic feas- ibility determined by designing struc- tural engineer, U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING. IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIM NUMURS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1 Va I 2A % % 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 AO 50 70 100 140 200 too to .20 70 30 60--- 40 u F 1-50 on M 5 z 0 u 60 z u AOL 30- -70 20 to 90 0 100 500 too so 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0:001 T ON CLAY SAMPU No fLIV Odt Dfrf" CLASSIFICATION lk"T W% u pt "Oita lance_ Shop sil t: Bldg. Sewaren Gen. Station Sew N.J aren, "w4G NO. GRADAMN CURVES ],AM October 17,1978 tim, Low LM km ..M,m "m "m m,: U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE Mmefts HYDROMETER 100 6 4 3 2 1 1 3A % % 3 A 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 1100 140 200 90-- t 10 0 20 .30 60--- 40 3: T- uj w fin z 50 I 0 u 40--- u 60 u 30 u' 70 20--- so 10 90 01 HUT 1100 Soo 100 50 10 5 �dlt 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 MILLIMETERS GRAVEI. SAND SRI ON CtAY F--cobl' LOAM WE t c-o-,i SAMPLE NO.. ILEV 00 D(m CLASSWICAMM NAT W% Lt -4 61-81 . gray SILT, tr. f . 26-j- noma Central Maintenance Shop @and Bldg,..Sewaren Gen. Station AREA Sew ren, N.J. @KXWNG "NO. 3 GRADATION CURVES DATI October 17,1978 JOHNSON SOILS ENGINEERING LABORATORY m, 'go, Am M im) M me. Im, U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS - HYDROMETER 100 6 4 3 2 1% 1 3A % % 3 4 6 8 10 1A 16 20 30 AO 50 70 100 140 200 90 10 80 120 70 x IT- 0 uj 60 40 U) U, z 50 50 cc 0 u rj 40 60 Z at AU Lu u 30 uj 70 j 20 80 10 90 0 i I T -- 100 Soo 100 50 10. 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS COSUES GRAVEL T- 5ANQ SILT OR CLAY I COA"F FINE I COARSE MMUM I I SAAFLE HO FaV Olt D(FrrH CLASSWICAWN HAT v1% Ff Central Maintenance Shop ----s 9(11-991 gr- organic STIN 9 - Bldg. Sewaren Gen. Station -- little r-LAV W/Ppat f i 11prs AREA Sewaren, N.J. "*4G No. 7 GRADATION CURVES DAII October 17,1978 Aw On. on' U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 1 Yj i 3A % % 3 A 6 a 10 14 16 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 100 1 0 go- 10 80--- 20 70- 30 X: su 60 40 cc Lu 50--- -50 z 0 u u A 60 'z Lu u CL ac 30-. Lu -70 20- so 90 0 too 500 too 5@ 10 5 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 GRAIN SIZE MILLIMETERS C045LIS GRAVEL SAND -- SILT 09 CLAY COAASI I - L F*4[- co;zf-@ MEDIUM sAmplif No. WV ON M"H CLASSWICATIO" P"T %V% tt c, Central Maintenance Shop '101-19, -hrown f/c SAND, qnmp 9.6 P.t0if g-rq ve 1-r- silt Bldg.Sewaren Gen. Stat.ion Sewaren, N.J. WaNG INIO H4 *4G "0 8 October 17,1 GRAIDAMN CURVES rDA U 978 JOHNSON SOILS ENGINEERING LABORATORY APPENDIX III PROPOSED BORING PROGRAM -SA -Ass-o-ciates.. Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02-172 ' (617) 926-3-;,co Telex oz-Z47-1 RE: Woodbridge Subsurface Borings/SA #0278 MEMORANDUM: i3y: S. Mabee DATE: 14 September 1981 TO: M.. Freedman, M. Holland, L. Carr, E. Chagnon, D. Mittelstadt, V. Hagopian, B. Buttner I called Warren George, Inc. (James McErlean - 201-433-9797) a drilling outfit and Johnson Soil Engineering to-obtain price information on subsurface drilling and soil testing. Johnson Soil Testing did.all the work for the Sewaren Generating Station Central Maintenance Shop, Drilling costs are*based on the following assumptions: 1. Average boring depth 60'. 2. Split-spoon samples every 5 feet for the first 25 feet, every 10 feet thereafter. 3. Access to the site can be made with an all terrain rig. 4. Observation.wells will be installed in selected borings. Drillinp2 Costs Mobilization $500 Soil Boring $12/LF Rock Coring $16/LF Observation Wells $ 4/LF Undisturbed Samples $65/EA Soil testing focuses on obtaining general data necessary for determining the following: 1w 1. Unconfined compressive strength. 2. Cohesion. 3. Consolidation characteristics. 4. '4oisture characteristics and bearing data. Soil Testing Costs Mechanical Sieve Analysis $20/EA Mechanical and Hydrometer Analysis $40/EA Unconfined Compression $55/EA Consolidation Tests T and e log p curves $300/EA 90 ?-,;, Moisture Contents $2/EA (except if part of normal test) Triaxial Testing (consolidated-undrained) (most expensive test) $100/lateral pressure (usually 3) SA Sasaki Associates, Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, \14assachusetts C12-172 * (617) oz6-74-,oc Telex 0-2-z-171 RE: Woodbridge Subsurface Borings/ SA #0278 MEMORANDUM: BY: S. Mabee DATE: 14 September 1981 TO: Page Two After talking with Mike Holland, Bruce Buttner and looking at, the Preliminary Master Plan, I have devised a preliminary boring program. Boring locations have been provided on a sepia and is on record in the flat file. I propose that a minimum of & borings be taken, 5 in the harbor area and at harbor related structures and 3 others at key locations (observation tower, nature pavillion, and fill zone) throughout the peninsula. The following is a summary of the boring program: 1. All borings will-be carried to bedrock, or to 10 blow/foot material in cohesive soils and 30 blow/foot material in cohesionless soils, whichever is shallower. 2. For budget purposes an estimated 60 linear feet per @ole will be necessary. 3. A minimum of one undisturbed sample shall be taken of cohesive soils from each stratum encountered for each boring. 4- A minimum of one gradation analysis shall be made of soil obtained from each stratum encountered per boring. 5. A minimum of 3 consolidation tests will be conducted. These will be concentrated in areas of proposed filling and structures. 6. A minimum of 3 ground water wells wil.1 be installed to monitor.ground water fluctuations. 7. Two to three pound grab samples will be collected from the proposed harbor area for bioassay testing related to Corps permitting. 8. Split spoon samples to be taken every 5 feet for the first 25 feet. and every 10 feet thereafter or at a change in stratum. For-drilling services we should budget $7,000 to $10,000. An additional allocation of $2,500 to $3,000 should be made for lab testing. Analysis of the data collected during this program can be made by SA personnel. This includes settlement (both magnitude and time rate), strength parameters of soils2establishing SA Sasaki Associates, Inc., 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts Oz'72 - (6-17) gz6-33oo Telex 92-2471 RE: Woodbridge - Subsurface Borings/SA #0278 MEMORANDUM: BY: S. Mabee DATE; 14 September 1981 TO: Page Three design criteria. One area where expertise may be needed includes slope stability particularly of sediments located underwater in the area of the harbor edge. It may be to our advantage to hire a local geotechnical firm to oversee the work. The drilling will require constant supervision. The estimated-cost for SA to oversee the-work--is about $6,000. If a local geotechnical firm conducts the work to our specification I estimate that the analysis and report work can .be accomplished at a cost which is 50% of the field work costs or about $5,600. Total costs are in the order of $15,000 to $20,000. emc/0278 Planning Architecture Landscape Architecture Urban Design Civil Engineering Environmental Services DATE DUE GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRIMED IN USA. 3 6668 14106 7928 64 Pleasant Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02172 617/926 3300 Telex 92/2471 353 Alcazar Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 305/4432374 2910 M Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20007 202/362 9167