[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Dewberry & Davis Final Report Potomac Riverfront Park Environmenta1 Study WASHINGTON D.C. VIRGINIA MARYLAND QUANTICO Town of Quantico Prince William county, Virginia In Cooperation with: Northern Virginia Planning district Commission SB 483 .Q36 D49 1989 mber 1989 U - S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 POTOMAC RIVERFRONT PARK ENVIROMENTAL STUDY Final Report December 28, 1989 r Property of CO-- Library Prepared by: DEWBERRY & DAVIS 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, Virginia 22031 (703) 849-0100 In Cooperation with: NORTHERN VIRGINIA PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 7630 Little River Turnpike Suite 400 Annandale, Virginia 22003 C ,a, CA Prepared for: TOWN OF QUANTICO P.O. Box 152 Quantico, Virginia This report was produced, in part, through financial support from the Council on the Environment pursuant to Coastal Resources Program Grant No. NA88AA-D-CZ091 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, TOWN OF OUANTICO POTOMAC RIVERFRONT PARK ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS x LIST OF APPENDICES xi LIST OF EXHIBITS xii I. INTRODUCTION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION B. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK SCOPE 1-6 C. HISTORICAL NOTES 1-7 II. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS II-1 A. GENERAL II-1 B. SITE AND AREA GEOLOGY 11-2 C. TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES 11-6 D. LAND AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS 11-7 E. ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS 11-8 F. TIDAL ELEVATIONS l1-10 G. CURRENTS 11-11 H. WINDS 11-14 I. WAVES 11-15 J. RIVER WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS 11-20 K. SHORELINE EROSION AND BASIN FLOW CHARACTERISTICS 11-22 L. WATER QUALITY 11-28 M. PRELIMINARY WETIAND ASSESSMENT 11-30 N. SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION 11-33 0. SEDIMENTS 11-41 III. PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES III-1 A. GENERAL III-1 B. OVERALL FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 111-2 C. ALTERNATIVES 111-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES IV-1 A. SEAWALL IMPROVEMENTS IV-1 B. BREAKWATER STRUCTURE IV-3 C. PIER STRUCTURES IV-6 D. MARINA BASIN IV-7 V. SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS V-1 A. GENERAL V-1 B. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS V-1 C. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS V-3 D. LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS v-4 E. SUMMARY V-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Quantico is approximately 45 acres in size with an estimated population of approximately 700 people. Prior to 1986, the Town was completely surrounded by the Quantico Marine Corps Base which encompasses approximately 60,000 acres of land area with 15,000 to 20,000 militaky personnel and civilians. In 1986, the federal government deeded a 4.21-acre parcel along the Potomac River to the Town for public park use subject to specific conditions. This sudden substantial increase in land area (10%) provides the Town an opportunity for direct waterfront access and economic growth. Essential to these goals are the stabilization of the existing shoreline and the selection of an overall project that is consistent with all environmental requirements. The information summarized in this report is intended to provide a sound basis for further pursuing the accomplishment of these goals and objectives. The significant findings during the performance of the environmental and engineering evaluations are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs. The natural environmental setting of the subject site has been altered by manmade activities since at least the early 1900s. Initially, the Quantico Company, an early commercial enterprise, benefitted by using the area as a seaport with its excellent access to the Potomac River. By 1925, the United States Marine Corps had established their presence totally surrounding the Town and constructing the present-day dock and marina. Ocean-worthy military vessels would frequently visit using the available facilities. Additionally, the channel of Little Creek which naturally flowed directly into the Potomac River along the northern limits of the subject site was diverted to the north adjacent the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac (RF&P) Railroad and into Quantico Creek. This diversion probably benefitted the RF&P, the Town, and the U.S. Marine Corps Base at the time by reducing the flood damage potential. Seawalls to stabilize the shoreline were also constructed during at least two (2) different periods. The most recent structure can be seen today while the earlier structure has been filled. Within the shoreline and open water area adjacent the site, the following characteristics prevail: 0 Mean Low Water (MLW) is elevation -0.23 foot. 0 Mean High Water (MHW) is elevation 1.14 feet. 0 Tide Range is 1.37 feet. Basin depth gradually increases from 0 foot at the shoreline to 6 feet approximately 600 feet away. Average currents are less than 1.0 knot with varying directions dependent on the tide condition. Critical design wind direction for shore stabilization is from the north-northeast. Shoreline area is classified as a nonvegetated tidal wetland with evidence of local erosion. The Potomac River in the area is classified as an estuary within the tidal freshwater salinity zone. Water Quality within the basin is good to excellent based on Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Total Suspende d Solids (TSS) levels. Heavy metal concentrations in the bottom sediments of the basin area are within the expected range. No toxic substances appear to be present. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) was present this past summer throughout the basin area. The predominant species were watermilfoil, wild celery, and hydrilla. ii The proposed project primarily consists of a public park, with possible restroom facilities and a free-standing restaurant, and a marina with 130 to 140 boat slips. Shoreline stabilization is proposed which involves repairing some portions of the existing seawall with stone reinforcement while completely replacing other portions with a full section riprap revetment structure. A breakwater structure to provide shoreline protection while ensuring a safe harbor within the new marina is also proposed. The proposed project was presented to federal, state, and local agency representatives on August 21 and 22, 1989, at the site to solicit comments and to determine jurisdictional responsibilities. In attendance were representatives of the following agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) Virginia Institute of Marina Sciences (VIMS) Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Prince William County Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service (SEAS) of Virginia The single most significant comment among all federal and state agencies was that impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) are highly undesirable and must be avoided to the extent practical. As of the date this report was finalized, both Maryland DNR and VIMS provided written comments further stressing this concern and indicating that favorable recommendations for permit approval would require design compromises resulting in lesser environmental impacts. Maryland DNR also clarified that at this time the same policies and procedures will be invoked for a wetlands license application regardless of whether or not the project originates from the Virginia or Maryland shoreline. The same regulatory position is expected from the Maryland Department of Environmental Resources, who must issue a Section 401 water quality certificate since the Potomac River below mean low water is within the State of Maryland. In view of the comments provided, alternatives to the proposed project were investigated to determine the general feasibility of satisfying the proposed project goals and objectives while minimizing impacts to SAVs. Based on the iii alternatives evaluated, it appears that impacts to SAVs can be reduced from approximately 5.0 acres to 2.5 acres while still providing a soundly designed public marina for as many as 60 to 70 boat slips. Further reductions or changes in the size or the configuration of the marina are on the verge of being impractical or cost-prohibitive. The condition of the existing shoreline and seawall warrants some level of repair and additional stabilization regardless of whether or not a marina is constructed. The level of protection and associated cost to construct would increase as improvements to the park area are added. If no shoreline improvements are provided, the shoreline would likely continue to erode and the existing seawall will eventually collapse. Minimum improvements in the form of seawall repairs and riprap protection along the northern portion of the site would reduce the potential for loss of shoreline under frequent storm conditions. More significant repairs should be considered by weighing the costs of initial construction against the potential for property damages (land and/or marina) and emergency maintenance. In addition to the environmental issues involved with obtaining all of the necessary federal and state approvals to construct the proposed project or any feasible alternatives, a number of other issues must be overcome. These obstacles and the order in which it is recommended that the Town initiate their solution are summarized below: Possible parking lot locations for the proposed project need to be investigated in greater detail. Comments from the public and the appropriate representa-tives of the U.S. Marine Corps Base should be solicited. Impacts to existing residences and Base operations need to be minimized while providing ample parking spaces and functional layout. The proposed breakwater structure encroaches into waters where the adjacent shoreline is within the Marine Corps Base. Traditionally, iv such an encroachment. would likely be unacceptable without permission from the landowner. It is suggested that the Town coordinate with the appropriate representative (s) of Marine Corps Base to obtain the necessary permission prior to preparing any permit applications. In order to satisfy the conditions imposed by the federal government when the land was donated, an environmental assessment (EA) appears to be necessary. A scoping meeting with the U.S. Department of Interior is recommended to present the proposed project and to determine the desired format and content of the lead federal agency. The alternatives to be further studied and presented should also be determined. Additional coordination with representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maryland DOE, and Maryland DNR during the preparation of the EA is recommended. Probable disposal sites for 5,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of dredged material need to be identified through coordination with Marine Corps Base personnel and subsequent discussions with the appropriate agencies. The availability of a disposal site will likely dictate the construction schedule. Funding alternatives that consider construction costs and estimated revenues from the selected project need to be investigated. Compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations will be required within the next year. Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) and Resource Management Areas (RHAs) will need to be designated by the Town through coordination with representatives of Prince William County and the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. It is recommended that the appropriate representative(s) of the Town contact Prince William County in the near future to establish the lines of communication and to discuss the specific criteria for designating RPAs and RMAs. v Subject to determining the extent of SAVs that can be impacted given the Town's rather unique circumstances, it appears that a marina with a breakwater structure will provide substantial shoreline protection. Additional stabilization measures include replacing and repairing the existing seawall using riprap. The use of wetland vegetation along the shoreline should also be considered during the preparation of an environmental assessment and future discussions with the agencies. Creating a vegetated wetland compatible with the SAVs could be offered as mitigation for the unavoidable impacts. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The environmental and engineering evaluations performed for this project involved substantial participation on the part of Ms. Beth Topol of the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. The contributions of Mr. Mitchel P. Raftelis, the Chairman of the Town Council; and Mayor Howard Golognese, the Mayor of the Town; and Mr. Rusty Arcuni, the Harbor Master of the Quantico Marine Corps Base, also assisted in the gathering of information relative to the project. Additionally, representatives from the various federal, state, and local agencies that were contacted over the past year provided invaluable comments and information that will need to be further considered in subsequent phases. vii LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map and Topographic Map 1-2 FIGURE 2 Marine Barracks Plan of 1919 1-10 FIGURE 3 Photograph of Project Area dated May 25, 1925 1-11 FIGURE 4 Site and Area Geology 11-4&5 FIGURE 5 Approximate Locations of Field Measurements Performed by D&D on June 22, 1989 11-9 FIGURE 6 Predicted Times and Heights of Tides at Quantico (NOS Station No. 2309) 11-12 FIGURE 7 Fastest-Mile Wind Speed Chart for 25-Year Return Period 11-16 FIGURE 8 Wind-Generated Wave Height Predictions for Varying Fetches and Average Depths 11-18 FIGURE 9 Wind-Generated Wave Height Predictions for Fetch 12.4 miles and Varying Average Depths 11-19 FIGURE 10 National Wetland Inventory Information 11-32 FIGURE 11 Approximate Limits of Wetlands within Project Area 11-34 FIGURE 12 Approximate Regions of Observed Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) 11-37 FIGURE 13 Typical Section of Proposed Breakwater 111-3 FIGURE 14 Typical Sections of Stone Revetment and Stone Reinforcement 111-5 viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 - Time Differences and Height Factors for Quantico Creek II-10 Table 2 - Time and Height Predictions of Tides II-10 Table 3 - Time Differences and Speed Ratios for Quantico 11-13 Table 4 - Time and Velocity Predictions for Currents 11-13 Table 5 - Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 11-35 Table 6 - Heavy Metal Concentrations in Composite Sediment Sample 11-41 Table 7 - Sediment Data 11-42 Table 8 - List of Review Agencies V-6&7 Table 9 - List of Permit Processes and Agency Remarks V-9&10 ix LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Pave View of the Proposed Marina Basin (Looking North) 1-4 View of the Shoreline and Riverfront Park Area (Looking South) 1-4 Deteriorated Seawall with Washe&off Backfill 1-5 Deteriorated Seawall with Washed-off Backfill 1-5 Debris Accumulated in the Southwest Corner of the Existing Basin 11-39 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs) in the Existing Basin and View of the Existing Marine Corps Base Dock (Looking Southeast) 11-39 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs) in the Existing Basin (Looking Southwest) 11-40 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs) in the Existing Basin in the Vicinity of of the Marine Corps Base Dock 11-40 x LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I Coastal Resources Management Grant and Relevant Documents APPENDIX 2 Town of Quantico's Request for Proposals 1989 APPENDIX 3 List of Sources of Information and Selected Bibliography APPENDIX 4 Personal Interview Summaries, Records of Correspondence APPENDIX 5 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Inquiry and Tidal Data Sheet APPENDIX 6 Tabulation of Field Measurements for Currents and Water Quality on June 22, 1989 APPENDIX 7 Predicted Tidal and Current Data at Quantico for June 1989 APPENDIX 8 Tabulation of Published Wind Speed Records at Quantico (1960- 1978) APPENDIX 9 Shallow Water Wave Forecasts APPENDIX 10 Summary of Relevant Tidal Cage Records APPENDIX 11 Historical Maps Depicting Topographic, Hydrographic and (A through H) Boundary Features from 1903 to 1975 APPENDIX 12 Nontidal Wetland Data Form APPENDIX 13 Laboratory Analysis Data Sheet on Composite Sediment Sample APPENDIX 14 Gradation Analysis Results on Sediment Samples from Samples No. 3, 5A, and 5B APPENDIX 15 Additional Engineering Considerations and Analysis (A through F) xi LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Existing Topography and Bathymetry Field Survey by D&D, May 1989 Exhibit 2 -,Digital Map of Study Area and Vicinity Showing Existing Environmental Features Exhibit 3 Proposed Project Including Upland Park and Shoreline Improvements, Breakwater and Marina xii INTRODUCTION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Town of Quantico is located in Prince William County, Virginia, approximately 30 miles south of Washington, D.C. A Vicinity Map is shown on Figure 1. Except for approximately 500 feet of riverfront property along the Potomac River, the Town is surrounded by the U.S. Marine Corps Base. The work performed under this contract for the Potomac Ri-verfront Park Project is based on a "Coastal Resources Management Grant Contract" awarded to the Town of Quantico through the Virginia Council on the Environment. The description of the work scope is specified in the "Request for Proposal 1989" publicly announced by the Town of Quantico. Copies of the grant contract and the public announcement are provided in Appendices 1 and 2. The riverfront property that is the subject of this project covers a total land area of 4.21 acres, and was deeded to the Town of Quantico in 1986 by the Federal Government. Copies of some of the relevant documents containing various details of this transaction are also included in Appendix 1. The following conditions of property use are significant for the purposes of the present project: the property shall be used and maintained exclusively for public purposes; the property shall not be sold, leased, assigned, etc., except to another government agency. However, concession agreements to third parties may be allowed with written approval of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior; I-1 TON VIRGMU MARYLAND QUANnCO 'Su TA, Ale., OWE= s Point /J Light 0, ght Poiht- s L14 7/ dds g Ba -ANY 0 7 0 J7 Approximate Scale: 111=2000-1 FIGURE 1 vicinity Map And Topographical Map the property will be subject to various public laws and provisions, including the National Environmental Act of 1969, as amended, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1969, as amended, the Architectural Barrier Act of 1968, Public Laws 90-480, 91-205 and 93-112 (for the physically handicapped), and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 concern- ing floodplain management and protection of wetlands. In conjunction with the above, the Town of Quantico proposes to develop the land as a public park. The principal elements of the proposed park project are a marina consisting of a breakwater and piers, and restoration of the shoreline for recreational use including the repair and replacement of the deteriorated portion of the existing seawall. The combined park and marina project, referred to hereafter as the proposed project, will provide-the Town of Quantico a means for limited economic expansion while greatly improving access to the Potomac River for the general public, both boating and nonboating, and the Marine Corps Base personnel and their families. Thus, the proposed project is also consistent with the State's Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan which idenrified a significant need for boater access to the Potomac below the Occoquan River. Prior to the engineering design of the proposed project, it was determined that it would be appropriate to conduct an environmen- tal study to identify environmentally sound strategies for stabilization and management of the shoreline so as to prevent adverse environmental impacts in the future. As mentioned in the application for the grant by the Town of Quantico to the Virginia Council on the Environment, the primary objectives of the first phase of the work represented by this environmental study are: 1-3 View Of The Proposed Marina Basin (Looking North) el 7 View Of The Shoreline And Riverfront Park Area (Looking South) Ask Vk 77 Deteriorated Seawall With Washed-off Backfill 4W py Deteriorated Seawall With Washed-off Backfill to eliminate the present adverse conditions, including prevention of the collection of the unsightly debris along the southern end of the shoreline, to make recommendations for the restoration of the deteri- orated portion of the existing seawall, and to otherwise recommend improvements to the shoreline conditions for public access and recreation purposes, to ensure that the proposed improvements will not create adverse environmental impacts, to create an environmentally sound, economically feasible and aesthetically pleasant waterfront facility. It is also mentioned in the Town's application for the grant, that the subsequent phases of the project, not included in the present scope, will incorporate the findings of the present study for performing detailed designs, estimating construction costs, obtaining all applicable federal', state and local approvals apd permits, and preparing construction plans, and specifications. B. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND WORK SCOPE The objectives of this study were specified in the public an- nouncement by the Town of Quantico as follows: to identify environmental sensitivities and make recommenda- tions to protect portions of the Potomac Shoreline, -to convert this riverfront area into a recreational park and marina in an environmentally sound manner. The elements of the study's work scope were also identified by the Town with the assistance of the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) and are listed below: 1-6 1. Identification of permits for shoreline stabilization and marina development. 2. A bathymetric survey. 3. Evaluation of shoreline erosion and sedimentation. 4. Sediment analysis. 5. Identification of all dredging needs. 6. Tidal and flood elevation identification. 7. Wind and wave climate assessment. Additional tasks prescribed by the Town and NVPDC further iden- tifying the deliverables include the following: 1. Listing of environmental constraints and shoreline stabil- ization needs. 2. Identifying effective angles and design requirements for structures needed to protect shoreline areas. 3. Listing required permits for shoreline stabilization and marina development activities. 4. Identifying all required dredging and possible locations for dredge spoils. 5. Providing a bathymetric map of the study area. Dewberry & Davis (D&D) performed the work referred to above and in accordance with the study proposal accepted by the Town of Quantico. Notice to Proceed was issued on May 3, 1989. C. HISTORICAL NOTES The Town of Quantico is the outgrowth of a small fishing village that was also a railroad siding for the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad serving Dumfries and towns to the west. Among the important milestones in the development of the Town of Quantico were the formation of the Quantico Company and the arrival of the U.S. Marines. 1-7 The following summary of the Town's early history is excerpted from "Quantico: Crossroads of the Marine Corps," pp. 18-19. "The Quantico Company was formed after the turn of the century and took up the task of building a town where the Potomac Land and Improvement Company had failed. Although still officially listed as "Potomac," the village soon came to be called "Quantico" because of its location on Quantico Creek and because of the promotional efforts of the Quantico Company." "A big enterprise of the Quantico Company was to promote the town as a tourist and "excursion" center. Picnic areas were set up, the Potomac river bank wa,s turned into pleasant beaches complete with dressing rooms and refreshment stands, and a flotilla of boats and launches were available for visitors." "The steamer St. Johns regularly stopped at Quantico, bringing picnickers and tourists from Washington, D.C., to the north and Richmond to the south. In one week alone during the summer of 1916, an estimated 2,600 visitors came to Quantico by launch, steamer, and train, with greater numbers predicted for the following tourist season." "The Quanti'co Company advertised Quantico as "The New Industrial City" and offered lots 25 by 110 feet, and villa sites from 5 to 10 acres and laid out one street complete with sewers. At the same time, the company pushed for industry to come into the area." "Early in 1916 work began on the Quantico Shipyards located near Shipping Point on land now occupied by the Naval Hospital. By mid-1916 railroad sidings had been extended to the site and foundations for three ste'el- framed buildings had been laid. Reports indicate that that enough ships had been contracted for by that time to keep the plants busy for more than a year. The company planned to build ocean freighters and tankers, with passenger ship construction predicted for the future. The yard was advertised as one of the largest shipyards in the Western Hemisphere." "In addition, growing United States concern with the war in Europe prompted shipbuilding officials to report that they would soon be bidding for construction of U.S. Navy ships as well." 1-8 "As a fishing village, excursion center, and now a shipbuilding center, Quantico was still not very large or significant, but it was here to stay. Within a year, the U.S. Marines would arrive and permanently put "Quantico" on the map and make its name known around the world." According to the historical maps, the pier referred to as the Marine Corps Base dock was constructed around 1903-1904. It is clear from a Marine Barracks Plan reproduced in Figure 2 that the dock was in existence at its present-day size and configuration as early as 1919. The size and historical significance of the dock is again illustrated by the 1925 photograph of the ship USS Henderson reproduced in Figure 3. The photograph also shows that the marina on the south side of the pier was fully in place by 1925. Until the 4.21-acre shoreline segment north of the Marine Base dock was deeded in 1986 by the U.S. Government to the Town of Quantico, the Town had been completely surrounded by Federal property occupied by the Quantico Marine Base. The Town's land access towards the west is by Fuller Road through the Base. The only water access to the Potomac River is along the shoreline segment defining the subject site of the proposed project. The proposed shoreline improvement, riverfront park and marina development project is aimed to bring'substantial improvement to these limited access conditions. 1-9 @ \4e MARINE BARRACKS QLJANTICO, VIRGINIA -A, 1919 @ilb 76' 0 A V E R FIGURE 2 Marine Barracks Plan Of 1919 (Reproduced from, "Quantico: Crossroads of The Marine Corps", History And Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.) r tk' 0.1 ,;@4,m . . ......... ........... ...... ........ The town of Quantico as seen from an aircraft over the Potomac River on 25 MaY 1925. The USS Henderson is 'lorked at the pier. The ship is named after Archibald Henderson, 5,,h Commandant oi the Marine Corps. Visible in the upper left of he ph@tograph is the Post Headquar,ers, IUSMC Photo 51.3,1921. FIGURE 3 - Photograph Of Project Area, May 25, 1925 (Reproduced from, "Quantico: Crossroads Of The Marine Corps", History And Museums Division, Headquarters, U.@S. Marine Corps, Washington. D.C.) 6, ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS A. GENERAL This phase of the study consisted of gathering and evaluating primarily three types of data and information. These were: Published information including maps, plans, books, news- paper articles, official documents, and similar other documents. Narrated and written comments based on personal interviews, telephone conversations, and meetings with knowledgeable individuals and representatives of local, state, and federal governments. These included Mr. Rusty Arcuni, the Harbor master of the Quantico Marine Base Dock/Marina, and Mr. Mitchel P. Raftelis, the Chairman of the Town Council and long-time resident of the Town of Quantico. Field investigations performed by D&D. These included land and bathymetric surveys; tidal and nontidal wetlands delineation and preliminary assessment; preliminary inven- tory of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV); sediment sampling and testing; and environmental field measurements that included currents, salinity, total suspended solids, pH and dissolved oxygen, performed at five representative locations during a 14-hour full tidal cycle. A complete list of the sources of published data and information gathered is provided in Appendix 3. Summaries of interviews and relevant telephone conversations are provided in Appendix 4. Coordination with agency representatives is further described in Section IV. II-1 Field investigations were conducted to compliment the available data and information in order to perform the necessary environmen- tal evaluations. Depth of water adjacent to a shoreline and the rate and manner in which it fluctuates during a given time period directly affect the erosion and deposition trends of any shore- line. Attack of water on a shoreline may be in the form of waves generated by winds and boats, currents, and the rapid rise and fall of water-surface elevations from tidal forces and storm events. Waves initiate the movement of sediment particles otherwise at rest. Such sediment is then carried in a suspended state in the water or along the bottom by currents until-favorable conditions for deposition are encountered. Deeper waters promote higher waves and stronger currents which have greater potential for erosion and sediment transport. Accordingly, deeper waters adjacent to a shoreline imply greater chances of shoreline erosion and instability. The following subsections describe the manner in which available information and site specific field investigations were used to establish site characteristics. These characteristics were then used to assess shoreline stability (Subsection II-.K.) and to also identify adverse environmental impacts from the proposed project (Section IV). The following sections and subsections further describe the scope and findings of the various office and field investigations for collecting and evaluating site specific information. B. SITE AND AREA GEOLOGY The site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Coastal Plan consists mainly of marine sediments which were deposited during successive periods of fluctuating sea level and moving shoreline. The formations dip slightly seaward. Many beds 11-2 exist only as fragmental erosional remnants sandwiched between more continuous strata above and below. The soils in this province are typical of those laid down in a shallow sloping sea bottom: sands, silts, and clays with ir- regular deposits of shells. Some of the existing formations contain predominately plastic clays interbedded with strata of sands, while others contain predominately sands interbedded with plastic clays. Figure 4 depicts the area and site geology. This illustration was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Quantico Quadrangle, Prince William and Stafford Counties, Virginia, published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Based upon the published USGS mapping, the proposed basin area contains alluvium from Little Creek and Terrace deposits of the Potomac River. The alluvium, consisting of mud, sand, and gravel, would most likely be found overlying the Terrace deposits, in those areas where the alluvium exists. The Terrace deposits are expected to include, from bottom to top, (1) medium to coarse light gray to white sand, thickly bedded (up to 15 feet thick), (2) fine to medium clay sand, thin bedded, interbedded with thin silt and clay beds, (3) light gray or greenish gray sandy clay and silt in units 5 to 10 feet thick, containing scatte red pebbles (up to 3" in mean diameter) and cobbles (greater than 3" in mean diameter), and (4) fine to coarse massive orange brown sand, as much as 6 feet thick. The Potomac Group formation of Cretaceous geologic age underlies the Terrace deposits. The depth to the Potomac formation is not known at this time, although it is not expected to be within the depth of concern for this project. The Potomac Group formation 11-3 Pe, %Ib 14 6 23 KP sum oint Power St ti )ion 27 ssurn P 'nt 5 2), 1?7 P ipping Point 30 P2 %Y 28 6 S OUCI as 37 33 19 21 3 23 15 26 7 IN @5 _ Oaf Cho c TIT FIGURE'4 - Site And Area Geology Quantico Riverfront, Park Quantico, Virginia (See Next Page For Explanation of Symbols) EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS ON FIGURE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS Alluvium Mud, sand, and gravel forming flood plains of minor streams and swamp and marsh land bordering tidal tributaries of Potomac River Qt4 Qt3 Qt2 Qti Terrace deposits bordering tidal Terrace deposits of Potomac River creeks and minor streams QP2,sequence generally includes,from bottom mostly sand and pebble to cobble to top, at least three of the following sedi- gravel. Qt3 is correlative, with ment types: (1) medium to coarse, light-gray QP2. to white sand, commonly oxidized bright yellow or orange, thick bedded and coarsely cross-stratified, in units as much as 15ft thick; (2) fine to medium, gray sand, thin bedded, interbedded with thin silt and clay beds which locally contain abundant wood fragments; unit weathers yellowish brown to pale red, thin beds of limonite common; (3) massive light-gray or greenish-gray sandy clay and silt in units 5 to 10ft thick, contains scattered pebbles, cobbles, and li- monite-filled root tubes; weathers pale red andform verticalfaces in natural expo- sures; and (4) fine to coarse, massive orange-brown sand as much as 6ft thick which locally forms uppermost part of ter- race. Pebble to cobble gravel, including unntable rock types, exposed along bone of wave-cut cliffs about 1 mile north of Possum Point. Base of unit irregular and extends below sea level. Top of unit forms a fairly flat plain at an altitude of 35- 40 ft; in southeast corner of map area unitoverlain, locally, by dune sand 13-20 ft thick. Cor- responds to Talbot terrace of Shattuck (1906) and Chowan terrace of Went- worth(1930) qp,. Sand,generally highly ozidized; lenticular units of light grey sandy clay which weather pale red; and lesser amounts of gravel. Basal 5 or 6 ft consists of sand, cobbles, and boulders as as 5ft marimum dimesnsion; rock types include gneiss, schist, amphibolite, redsand stone, and quartzite. Top of terrace is at an allitude of 85- 90 ft; base of deposits ranges from 35-50 ft in altitude. Corresponds to Wicomico terrace of Shattuck(1906) and Wentworth(1930) consists of light gray to gray quartz sand and highly plastic clay. C. TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES The overland portion of the project area consists of the river- front park that slopes from River Road towards the shoreline. Existing grade elevations along the eastern edge of River Road vary from elevation 6.8 in the northern end to elevation 18.5 in the south. The ground slope from west to east is gentle in the northern segments, and becomes steeper in the south. The existing seawall provides a barrier along the shoreline with varying heights and effectiveness. Portions of the wall are in relatively good condition providing protection up to elevation 4 feet along the middle segment of the shoreline. Other segments of the wall are not in as good a shape, however. The beach that occupies approximately 200 feet of the shoreline in the south reduces the local height of the wall to less than 1 foot, with evidence of-subsidence behind and scour in front of the wall in the extreme south section. Along the northern end of the shore- line, the majority of the wall is totally deteriorated with major subsidence, sink holes and otherwise wash-off of the backfill soil from behind the wall causing exposure of the roots of three large trees of 101, to 12" in diameter. The underwater topography of the basin is represented by a relatively uniform slope from the shoreline towards the channel of the Potomac River. This gentle slope continues until the bottom elevation reaches elevations -6.0 to -8.0 feet along a section that is nearly normal to the alignment of the Marine Corps Base dock. The water depth then increases abruptly and drastically over a short distance, with bottom elevations dropping to eleva- tions -25.0 to -40.0 within about 50 to 100 feet, down to the 11-6 channel section of the Potomac River. This channel extends along the River just outboard of the Marine Base dock, and it is evident from the available historic maps and charts that it has maintained its basic configuration and range of depths. Thus, the basin consists of a gently sloping shelf landward of the threshold section referred to above that runs along a projection drawn from the end of the Marine Base dock towards the north, roughly parallel to the shoreline. General topographic features are shown in Figure 1. The existing topographic features of the project area are best depicted on the detailed topographic map at a scale of 1"=50' prepared for this study (refer to Exhibit 1). D. LAND AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS Field surveys were conducted by a D&D field survey crew using the appropriate field equipment and drafted originally to a scale of 1"-50'. This original stable-base field topographic map was subsequently digitized using the AutoCad software for reproducing at multiple scales and presenting the findings (refer to Exhibits 1 and 2). Vertical and horizontal control data for the field surveys were obtained from published monument and bench mark data. Bench mark data were also confirmed by an official inquiry through the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) regarding reference datum values and any revisions that must be applied to the published data due to changes in the mean sea levels or recent observations. Unless stated otherwise, all elevations referred to in this report are referenced to National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD). All relevant details on the bench mar ks and datum are provided on both the original and digitized versions of the topographic maps. 11-7 Copies of.the USC&GSI response to our inquiry including tidal data sheet are shown in Appendix 5. E. ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS Environmental field measurements for currents and water quality parameters were conducted during a 14-hour period, between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on June 22, 1989. This date and time slot were selected based on the tidal and current evaluations performed for the project site using the 1989 Tide Tables and Tidal Current Tables published by the National Ocean Survey (NOS). It-was considered desirable to conduct the field measurements on a day that would provide: (a) Large differences between tidal eleva- tions and currents; and (b) daylight coverage of a full tidal cycle. Included in the environmental field measurements were the following: Currents (direction and velocity) a Salinity 6 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 0 pH 0 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Measurements were periodically taken at five (5) stations through- out the project area for the entire 14-hour period. The ap- proximate locations of these field measurements are shown in Figure 5. The actual measured values obtained during this field program have been tabulated and are presented in Appendix 6. The results are summarized and discussed in the appropriate sections that follow. 11-8 [E-1 : Environmental Measurement Statio QUANTICO MARINE BASE APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" 200' H 3i4000 ;P % E-5. POTOMAC E-3 E-4 RIVER A* 'E-2 FIGURE 5 Approximate Locations of Environmental Field Measurements - by Dewberry & Davis, June 22,1989 F. TIDAL ELEVATIONS Tidal data was obtained from tide tables and information obtained from the USC&GS. Data for Quantico was generated using the data on the times and heights of high and low waters given for Washington, D.C. After appropriate conversion to daylight savings times, the following table shows the time differences and height factors which were applied to the Washington, D.C., data. Table 1 - Time Differences and Height Factors for Quantico Creek (Station No. 2309) Time Difference Height (Hr) (Min) Factor High Water -1 * 04 0.51 Low Water -1 59 0.47 A transposition resulted in the following data at Quantico for June 22, 1989: Table 2 - Time and Heizht Predictions of Tides Washington, D.C, Quantico Time Height Time Height Hr Min (ft) Hr Min (ft) 5 24 0.6 3 25 0.3 10 32 3.5 9 28 1.8 18 13 0.4 16 14 0.2 23 11 3.1 22 7 1.6 II-10 The actual selection of the date (June 22, 1989) for performing field measurements was based on an evaluation of tidal data predictions at Quantico for a number of consecutive days. These data predictions are tabulated in Appendix 7 for the period of June 1, 1989 through June 30, 1989 for the tidal elevations, and June 16, 1989 through June 30, 1989 for the tidal currents. Figure 6 illustrates the variation of tidal elevations estimated for Quantico as described previously. It is clear from the tidal elevation differences indicated on this schematic representation that the 14-hour period between 6:00 a4m. and 8:00 p.m. on June 22, 1989, was chosen appropriately to carry out a representative series of environmental field measurements as planned. Based on the information provided in the 1989 Tide Tables pub- lished by the NOS, the elevations for mean low water (MLW) and mean high water at the project site have been determined to be 0.0 foot and 1.4 feet, respectively. G. CURRENTS Published information was obtained from the NOS, which provides guidance on normal tidal currents. The NOS predictions for the Potomac River's maximum currents are 0.7 knot flood (upstream) and 0.9 knot ebb (downstream) at the location defined by the map coor- dinates 38-31.3 N and 77-16.6 W. This location is approximately 2700 feet due east of the Marine Corps Base dock, and the dif- ference between these maximum ebb and flood currents is consistent with the average River discharge at this section, which approxi- mates to slightly less than a 0.1 knot section-averaged current velocity. M m m w m = m m m m m m m m m PREDICTED TIMES/HEIGHTS OF TIDES at Quantico (Station No. 2309) Tide Elevation (ft; MLWmO ft) 2.0 1.0- 0.6- 1 0.0 0 6 10 16 20 26 30 Days (June 1989) FIGURE e fill 1, 11,k100 Till The data on tidal current measurements reported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station indicates a maximum value of 0.8 knots for Quantico. Similar to the tidal elevation evaluations, tidal current data for Quantico were also estimated based on the 1989 Tidal Current Tables predictions tabulated for "Baltimore Harbor Approach - Off Sandy Point" gage station. To these data, the following time differences and speed ratios were applied: Table 3 - Time Differences and Speed Ratios for Ouantico (Station No. 5796) Tidal Current Time Difference Speed Condition Hr Min Ratio Minimum before flood -0 54 1.0 Flood -1 04 0.9 Minimum before ebb -1 32 1.0 Ebb -1 09 1.1 A transposition resulted in the following data at Quantico for June 22, 1989: Table 4 - Time and Velocity Predictions for Currents Sandy Point - Quantico Time Vel. Time Vel. Tide Hr Min Knots Hr Min Knots Ebb 1 45 0.5 0 36 0.6 Min 4 13 0.0 3 19 0.0 Flood 8 00 1.0 6 56 0.9 Min 11 25 0.0 9 53 0.0 Ebb 14 49 1.0 13 40 1.1 Min 18 33 0.0 17 39 0.0 Flood 21 07 0.5 20 03 0.5 As a part of the field measurements conducted on June 22, 1989, current measurements were taken by D&D at the five specified locations previously described. The measurements were taken at 11-13 various depths and time intervals for a full tidal cycle. For this purpose, a propeller-type current meter was used. Inspection of the actual current measurement data indicate that all measured current speeds, including those in deep waters just outboard from the Marine Corps Base dock, remained less than 1.0 knot (1.7 ft/sec) and thus appear to agree well with the NOS data and the D&D predictions. Consequently, based on the preceding data and reported data on other locations along the Potomac River, it appears appropriate to assume that the currents will generally not exceed 1.0 knot (1.7 ft/sec or 1.1 mph) in the vicinity of the project area, including in the deeper channel sections. Comments that were offered during an interview with Mr. Rusty Arcuni, the Harbor Master, indicate that currents as high as 3 knots have been observed. Such comments do not necessarily imply discrepancy, but may be at- tributed to maintaining sail boat speeds against maximum tidal currents and winds in the opposite direction. H. WINDS A summary of the published information by the National Weather Service (NWS) for wind speeds recorded every 3 hours at Quantico during the 1960-1978 period is presented in a tabular format in Appendix 8. These data were recorded with an anemometer 4.0 meters (13.12 feet) above ground mast and need to be increased by 12.8% to conform to the 10-meter (32.81 ft) standard elevation in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Shore Protection Manual. The data indicates that: the strongest winds were 10 m/sec (= 22.4 mph = 32.8 ft/sec) 11-14 the most significant fetch direction for wave generation is towards NNE Extreme NNE winds at a given speed are about 1/20 as likely as that speed from all directions The smooth probability distribution of extreme wind speeds permits extrapolation to this estimate: NNE winds at 35 mph have a likely duration of about 1 hour once in every 20 years. Also consulted for the effective wind velocity for the site was the "fastest-mile wind speed" chart shown in Figure 7. It appears that fastest-mile wind speeds as high as 70 mph can be expected in the general area for a 25-year return period. For actual design purposes, however, this value should be adjusted considering such effects as the wind duration, shoaling (decrease in water depth) of the waves approaching the project site and nonuniformity of the water depth along the fetch. Such additional detailed analysis is considered beyond the present scope. WAVES No records of wave measurements were available for the vicinity of Quantico. Consequently, significant wave conditions needed for preliminary design of shoreline stabilization measures and marina structures were estimated based on a wave forecasting procedure described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' publication "Shore Protection Manual." This procedure employs empirical equations to estimate the height and frequency of the wind-generated "shallow water" waves based on three parameters. These parameters are the unobstructed fetch length, the average water depth along the fetch, and the effective wind velocity. According to these equations, the significant wave height in- creases as the fetch length, average depth and effective wind speed increase. In many cases, the longest fetch may not be 11-15 10 7 0 70 0 0 ._70 8 80 . . ........ 6 0 100 ........... .7 00 0 50 0 1 ......... 0 0 100 70 8 90 1 10 90 0 1 96 [After Thom (1968)lj FIGURE 7 Fastest-Mile Wind Speeds: 25-Year Return Period (Reproduced From, "Low Cost Shore Protection... A Guide For Engineers And Contractors", 1981) coupled with the largest average depth or the fastest and most frequent wind speed. Hence, several possible fetch-depth-wind speed combinations were evaluated to determine the most severe design wave conditions for the site. The fetch and the water depth were determined using depth charts. The prevailing fetch directions were determined to be in the south-east and north-north-east directions with average depths varying between 15 and 30 feet. The sensitivity of the wave height to the fetch length, wind speed and average water depth is illustrated in Figures 8 and 9, based on the extended analysis of shallow-water wave forecasts presented in Appendix 9. These calculations indicate the effects of the applicable fetch lengths and the average depths are rather small, remaining in the order of 0.5 foot for the maximum ranges of variation for both parameters. On the other hand, for the range of 25 mph to 50 mph applied to the wind speed, the variation of the wave height would be 1 to 1.5 feet. As pointed out previously, the major exposure of the project area is to waves generated by the NNE winds. Inspection of the depth charts provides an effective fetch length of approximately 55,000 feet and an average depth of 20 feet for wave generation in NNE direction. Extreme NNE winds appear most likely to occur in April. Since local air temperature at this time of year nearly equals Potomac River water temperature, the possible temperature dif- ferences need not be considered. Use of the wave forecasting procedures specified in Shore Protection Manual and specifically Eq. (3-28b) and Fig. (3-30) results in the following estimates: Wind Speed (mph] Wave Height Wave Period Minimum Wave (Quantico Anemo.) [fti fsecl Duration rhrsl 35 3.5 4.1 1.25 40 4.0 4.0 1.10 11-17 M M w M. so M so so do 111110, go, M Mw as Am, 4" w WIND-GENERATED WAVE HEIGHT PREDICTION for Varying Fetches & Average Depths Wind Wave Height (feet) 4- Fetch Length: 10.6 to 13.0 miles 3- 2- Fetch Length: 10.6 to 13.0 miles Wind Speed 25 mph + Wind Speed 60 mph 0 1 1 1 1 10 16 20 25 30 36 Fetch-Average Depth (feet) FIGURE 19 WIND-GENERATED WAVE HEIGHT PREDICTION for Fetch=12.4 miles & Average Depths Wind Wave Height (feet) 4- + 3- 0 0 0 2- 0 0 Wind Speed 25 mph + Wind Speed 60 mph 01 1 1 1 1 1 10 is 20 26 30 36 Fetch-Average Depth (feet) FIGURE 9 Based on the above considerations, an appropriate significant design wave condition appears to be a wave height of 4.5 feet, and a wave period of 4.0 sec. It must be remarked, however, that these values may warrant further adjustments for various actual design purposes involving structures such as breakwaters, groins, piers, bulkheads, revetments and other shoreline protection structures. Additional factors that will need to be considered during design phases are the flood elevations and acceptable levels of risk for overtopping of structures. J. RIVER WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS Data available on flood water surface elevations recorded at NOS Station 8634689 at River Mile 68 near Quantico cover the period from October 1970 to October 1972. This site is located between NOS Station 8635150 at Colonial Beach and 8594900 at Washington, D.C., which are longer-term gage stations. There are ten other NOS Stations with short- and medium-term gage records along the tidal portion of the Potomac River downstream of Washington, D.C. Data for the various flood frequencies and extreme events recorded at these gage stations are summarized in Appendix 10. Analysis of all these data indicate that the flooding climate in the uppermost reach of the tidal Potomac, north of River Mile 85, is markedly.different from the entire lower reach. Only the record at Station 8634214, Alexandria, River Mile 91, correlates with the Washington, D.C., record. On the other hand, all records an the Lower Potomac, between River Miles 7 and 82, show strong correlations. In particular, the short-term record at Quantico matches very well with the medium-term record at Colonial Beach (River Mile 34). The gage records for the Lower Potomac cover 1960 to 1988 with slight intermittence, which corresponds to approximately the 11-20 second half of the 1931-1988 Washington record, during which period 4 of the 9 highest local floods occurred. These events clearly lie on the extreme limb of the Washington flood curve, and represent flooding due to both wind stress and riverine runoff effects. The same flood events are nowhere near as extreme on the Lower Potomac, and the record highs on the Lower Potomac area conversely not truly extreme events at Washington. Notably, in almost half these years, the record event for the three Lower Potomac gages does not match the record event at Washington. For Quantico, the gage record.at Colonial Beach appears to provide firm estimates of flood elevations for recurrence intervals of up to about 10 years. However, most Lower Potomac gages show signs of recorded extremes being unrepresentatively low, where the highest water level is not much above other measured levels. Thus, rare flood elevations, such as 20-year, 50-year levels, are not at all well defined for the Lower Potomac from direct evi- dence. The most definitive-information appears to be the results from a numerical study of record elevations in Chesapeake Bay by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). Although river-mouth flood elevations developed by VIMS are evidently too low according to the gage data, a curve shift provides apparently appropriate extension from moderately rare elevations to the 500-year event. This smooth curve for extreme water elevations suggests 5 feet to be an appropriate design elevation at Quantico for a return period of approximately 60 years. The 100-year flood elevation is estimated to be between 8 and 10 feet. It should be noted that the procedure for estimating flood elevations presented above is not intended to replace or supersede published flood elevations and floodplain information by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the National 11-21 Flood Insurance Program. Changes to regulatory 100- and 500- year flood elevations and floodplain would require more detailed analysis throughout the entire reach of the Potomac River. The design flood elevation of 5 feet is for a somewhat reasonable level of protection for non-essential (i.e., not related to flood control or flood protection) structures associated with water- dependent uses. K. SHORELINE EROSION A14D BASIN FLOW CHARACTERISTICS The coastal zone falling within the Town of Quantico corporate limits has several unique shoreline erosion and coastal flow characteristics. Most of these characteristics are attributable to the Quantico Marine Corps Base dock, which has been in place since 1904, if not earlier. Among the other significant factors are the tidal and current flow regimes of the Potomac River, winds and waves, the bottom geomorphology and movable sediments, and the geometric alignment of the shoreline relative to the adjoining Potomac River channel. The Marine Corps Base dock extends approximately 600 feet into the River. The water depth immediately outboard from the dock varies between 25 and 35 feet. This deep channel extends approximately parallel to the shoreline along a projection drawn from the end of the dock. Landward of this channel segment, the bottom north of the Marine Corps Base dock fairly abruptly rises to an elevation of -6 to -8, and subsequently forms a gently shoaling "plateau" or "shelf" towards the shoreline. Apparently, there are no "dunes" or "sink holes" throughout the basin according to the recent bathymetric survey performed by D&D, and the historic "hydro- graphic charts" and USGS quads. Contained in Appendix 11 (A through H) are reproductions from several historical maps dating back to 1903 that were available. 11-22 Several distances were "scaled" between various points of interest on these maps in an effort to evaluate past migration tendencies of the shoreline in the project area. The most reliable reference is clearly the Marine Corps Base's dock. The dock was constructed around 1904, with no significant changes to its configuration according to the available records. Another possible reference feature is the RF&P Railroad passing through the Town somewhat parallel to the shoreline. It should be noted that the railroad tracks are not depicted on the historic maps as clearly as the Marine Corps Base dock. Three shoreline positions were considered to best represent the shoreline alignment within the basin area as depicted by points Alp B1, Cl, A2, B2, and C2 on the historic map segments reproduced in Appendix 11 (A through D). Point Al is the intersection of the shoreline and the northern wall of the Marine Corps Base's dock at the western end. The distance from Al to the eastern end of the dock (A2) measured along the northern edge of the dock was used for reference purposes. For the second and third shoreline locations (Points Bl and Cl), a reference axis was defined by a straight line from the eastern end of the dock (A2) and perpendicular to the northern edge of the dock. The second shoreline position (Cl) was selected as the "Hospital" point in the northern edge of the basin, and the third location (Bl) lies nearly half-way between the previous two locations. The-associated reference distances were then obtained by the lengths of straight lines drawn parallel to the Marine Corps Base's dock between these points and the reference axis. The variation of the distances between these reference positions was inspected within the reasonable limits of accuracy depicted by the historical maps, USGS Quads and D&D's recent bathymetric survey. It appears that the basin area north of Marine Corps Base 11-23 dock has not experienced substantial shoreline migration over the last 80 years. However, there is evidence that local erosion has occurred. The evidence includes significant deterioration of an approximately 100-ft portion of the seawall in its northern end, several sink holes created and large tree roots exposed behind the seawall due to backfill material that washed off, and the riprap stone and concrete blocks placed around the point. The photo- graphs provided in Subsection I.A. clearly illustrate these existing shoreline conditions. Also featured along the shoreline is the narrow beach in-the southern portion. The information exhibited by the available documents, maps and charts does not allow for a reasonably accurate historic assessment of this beach segment. The history of the Quantico Marine Corps Base as told and illustrated in the book "Quantico: Crossroads of the Marine Corps," documents with photographs the shoreline protection function that the dock has served. It also refers to the efforts of "Quantico Company" to develop the area for tourists, including fishing, picnic and other recreation activities. (Refer to historical notes'in Subsection I.C.) The Quantico Marine Corps Base Dock clearly provides a very effective physical barrier for the shoreline and the adjacent coastal area protecting the basin against storms, tides, currents, winds and waves directed from the south and southeast. Conse- quently, any adverse conditions that may be generated along the Potomac River in the upstream direction do not have noticeable effect on the project basin's environment. This assessment is confirmed by recorded data, field observations provided by the Harbor Master regarding various historical storms, and D&D's inspection of the "very calm" water surface conditions in the basin providing "safe harbor" to the anchored boats during periods with strong southerly winds. 11-24 On the other hand, the basin is totally exposed to the winds originating from north and northeast. The longest and deepest effective fetch along the River for wind-generated waves approach- ing Quantico is towards the North-North-East (NNE). Superposing the River's natural downstream flow and the outgoing tide to these waves will create the most severe conditions for the shoreline and the basin area. This results in a flow pattern that can be described as a counter-clock-wise swirl, entering the basin from the north-north-east at a small angle to the shoreline and leaving the basin along the northern edge of the Marine Corps Base Dock in an easterly direction. This flow pattern in the basin for the ebb cycle has been confirmed with the general orientation of the boats anchored in the area, and by the trends of the-D&D current measurements performed at four locations. It appears likely that the existing shoreline between the Marine Corps Base dock in the south and the Hospital Point in the north may not entirely be the result of a natural process. Based on information gathered during interviews, field observations, and inspection of the existing nontidal wetlands west of River Road, and the review of various historic maps and photographs, several additional features were discovered, as described subsequently. A second wall exists behind the current visible seawall, running nearly midway between the current shoreline and River Road. This wall was apparently built several decades ago for the purpose of protecting the residential buildings and River Road from the Potomac River's floods. It is now entirely buried under the existing grade of the riverfront park. As illustrated in Appendix 11H, reproduced partially from the 1966 Quad, Little Creek is a small stream flowing east, which turns north along the west side of the RF&P tracks and 11-25 joins the Quantico Creek northwest of the Naval Hospital area. Evidently, this is the result of a man-made diversion west of the tracks. In fact, this stream once emptied directly into the Potomac River through its mouth within the basin south of the Hospital Point. The 1940 map, reproduced partially in Appendix 11A, exhibits the stream's alignment prior to its diversion, with its mouth clearly indicated to be in the basin area. Based on the information presented in Subsection II.B (Site and Area Geology) and by reviewing the topographic-condi- tions illustrated on the Vicinity Map, portions of the current riverfront park area were apparently filled and reclaimed. These areas include the mouth of Little Greek before it was diverted to the north and the park area behind the existing seawall. The nontidal wetland area between the RF&P tracks and River Road is still in place and covers sub-stantially the same area as it probably did before the diversion of the stream. However, no wetlands exist between River Road and the current shoreline in the area that was apparently filled and reclaimed. In addition, the influence of the tide that appears to have been present within the Little Creek channel prior to the diversion is no longer present. In view of the preceding discussions, the strip of land immedi- ately behind the currently visible seawall appears to be entirely comprised of fill material. This may be a major contributing factor to the erosion tendencies along the current shoreline, particularly where portions of the seawall are deteriorated. The backfill material in these areas has subsided and washed off, creating sink holes and exposing the roots of large trees. A high erosion tendency is also apparent in the area with the riprap and 11-26 concrete rubble around the point just north of the deteriorated segment of the wall. It is suggested by the overland and under- water contours that this area was once the mouth of the Little Creek, where the fill material used is more susceptible to erosion than the natural shoreline material. The existing shoreline clearly needs stabilization which can be achieved through various levels of protective.measures. This conclusion is based primarily on the overall evaluation of the conditions and alignments of the existing shoreline, the visible seawall with its washed-off backfill and otherwise deteriorated segments, the presence of fill material behind the existing seawall extending towards the north, and the full exposure of wind and wave attack from the north-northeast. This conclusion is further supported by the evaluations performed to determine expected wave heights, storm surge elevations, and current directions and velocities. The type of protective measure for the stabilization of the shoreline should be commensurate with the level of riverfront facilities that will eventually be constructed. The basic levels of protection that need to be considered are described below. If the current riverfront park is to remain without further development, the objective should be to avoid fre@quent shoreline maintenance and minimize shoreline erosion under frequent storm conditions. This would involve the repair of the existing seawall, placing riprap for toe protection along the northern portion of the shoreline for approxi- mately 200 feet, and minor grading including the removal of trees with exposed roots in the fill area behind the existing wall. Less frequent maintenance of a similar nature would be required as damage is caused by less frequent floods and high waves. Further structural and 11-27 cost-related details commensurate with this type of protec- tion are provided in Subsection 15.D of Appendix 15. If the riverfront park is to be developed consisting of added features which will increase property values on the land portion but with no major facilities in the marina basin, the seawall warrants more substantial improvements. The top elevation of the seawall should be raised by 2 to 4 feet along its entire length to a top-of-wall elevation of +5.0 or +6.0 ft. Depending on the actual layout of the land facilities, this level of improvement would provide protec- tion against shoreline erosion and flooding due to less frequent attack of waves, floods, currents and tides generated along the predominant fetch. Again, additional details for this level of improvements are provided in Subsection 15.D of Appendix 15. If the riverfront park is to be developed as a commercial marina facility with increased property values on land, more substantial and reliable protection is justified and likely required. It seems inevitable that a breakwater will be the essential element of the required improvements in this case. Various scenarios for this level of improvement is also discussed in Appendix 15 along with the major structural and cost-related details. WATER QUALITY The Potomac River at Quantico, Virginia, is part of an estuarine system, influenced by the daily ebb and flow of the tides, as well as the mixing that occurs between fresh water from upstream and the more saline waters of the Chesapeake Bay. The salinity gradient is variable, depending both on precipitation differences associated with the time of year and water depth. At Quantico, 11-28 the River cari be classified as tidal fresh (salinity less than 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt]) or oligohaline (salinity between 0.5 and 5.0 ppt). During the wettest months of the year the tidal fresh zone can extend nearly to Maryland Point, or approximately 10 miles downstream. According to average monthly salinity profiles, salinities reach their highest levels in October, when surface salinity reaches 1.0 ppt and bottom salinity is 2.0 ppt. Ex- tremely wet or dry conditions can alter these monthly averages significantly. Salinity levels recorded during the 1-day field program were less than 0.5 ppt, which would be expected for the month of June and especially so considering the above nofmal precipitation for the area in the spring of 1989. During the field analyses undertaken on June 22, 1989, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were recorded at the five sampling locations throughout the day. In general, concentrations in- creased during the day, as would be expected with the increase in photosynthesis and oxygen production throughout the daylight hours. The lowest concentration, 5.9 milligram per liter (mg/L) was recorded at stations 2 and 3 at 10:00 a.m. The highest concentrations, r.;inging from 11.2 to 20.0 mg/L, were recorded at stations 4 and 5 late in the afternoon. This represents super- saturation, and is indicative of the higher densities of submerged aquatic vegetation in those areas. In general, DO concentrations are rated good to excellent based on values recognized by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the "Environmen- tal Atlas of the Potomac Estuary" (1981). Water quality guide- lines provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment further indicate that DO levels above 5.0 mg/l are desirable. It should also be noted that these DO concentrations exceed Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) standards for both minimum and daily average values. 11-29 Water samples were also obtained at all five locations and at three different times during the day for later analysis in the laboratory to determine pH and total suspended solids (TSS). Samples were obtained at mid-depth in the shallower areas (sta- tions 3, 4, and 5) and 7 to 8 feet from the surface at stations 1 and 2. The three times at which samples were collected repre- sented ebb, flood, and slack tides. The pH values ranged from a low of 6.7 to a high of 7.3. While there was no significant difference between stations, average pH values for the five stations at each sampling interval did show an increase throughout the day. The lowest average value of pH was found in the morning, while the highest average value was measured late in the afternoon. This reflects the increase in photo- synthesis through the day with an increasing uptake of carbon dioxide and resultant lowering of carbonic acid. All pH values are classified as good to excellent based on information from the Maryland DNR and would be well within the limits specified by the VWCB. Total suspended solids for June 22, 1989 were very low, ranging from a low value of 2 mg/L to a high of 28 mg/L. Only in two of the 15 samples was the level 20 mg/L or greater, the cutoff between good and excellent classifications, based on Maryland DNR recommendations. In general, lower TSS levels result in less turbidity, thus indicating better water quality. M. PRELIMINARY WETLAND ASSESSMENT D&D conducted a preliminary tidal and nontidal wetland assessment focusing on the shoreline area (tidal) and the old Little Creek ravine (nontidal) located near the northern corporate limits. The purpose of this assessment was to identify the approximate 11-30 location and extent of wetlands for planning purposes and to assess potential impacts. Prior to conducting a field investigation, relevant wetland information was examined. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map as prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classifies the ravine along old Little Creek as a lower perennial, open water riverine system (R20WH). The NWI maps depict the Potomac River as oligihaline, subtidal, open water estuarine system (ElOWL6). Oligihaline describes the range in salinity concentrations while subtidal means that water levels are present at low tide: The NWI map and information is reproduced on Figure 10. A field investigation was performed on July 20, 1989, based on the three-parameter approach as outlined in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Soils were examined with a soil probe, and qualitatively identified with regard to hydric properties by comparison with Munsell color charts. Additionally, dominant plant species were inventoried and hydrologic conditions noted. The nontidal area along old Little Creek can be described as a ravine with 40- to 50-foot-high banks. The banks appear to be partially composed of fill material. Two smaller ravines with associated swales drain from the south. Both have well-defined banks and appear to handle runoff during storm events. The first swale, located along wetland sample points 1 and 2, contains a small flow and a partially exposed concrete storm sewer pipe. The second swale at wetland sample point 4 begins at a concrete storm sewer pipe opening; however, there was no flow present. The majority of the tidal shoreline area within the project can be described as nonvegetated wetlands as defined by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The area between mean low water and mean high water 11-31 k0it P*.,t J PF@@e 2EMN6 um NW6 ETFMWr. EZEMM E2EMP6 L) A PFOIFi yy P*M A Pmsum Poont E2EMNQb 5 lp EZ F%I* F_1OWL6 e E2EM h.PP..1 Point Moss Po.@ 20WN F uAntl L_r F" .48 S�P G@ say NE PFCIE: E2-EmPr. PFOt P_ @1-. dr Approximate Scale: 11.1=3000 FIGURE 10 National Wetlands Inventory Information (Reproduced from "National Wetland Inventory Map" - Quantico, Virginia.) primarily consists of a sand and/or cobble beach with no apparent wetland vegetation species present. Approximate tidal and nontidal wetland boundaries as determined during the field investigation and the locations of wetland sample points are shown on Figure 11. Copies of data forms are furnished in Appendix 12. N. SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION During the field work for the water quality analyses undertaken in June 1989, some colonization of hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and wild celery (Vallisneria americana) was observed in the protected 'area north of the Marine Corps Base dock. A site visit on August 21, 1989, revealed that extensive growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) had occurred over the course of the summer. The Harbormaster at the Marine Corps Base dock indicated that this was the first summer that SAV had been established to any extent and that hydrilla was causing small craft operation problems within the Marine Corps Base's marina basin, where depths are at least 6 feet at low water. Representatives of D&D and the NVPDC conducted a survey on September 1, 1989 to visually estimate the types, extent, and dispersion of the SAV throughout the project area. The site was thoroughly traversed by boat to identify the species present and their relative abundance. With regard to the total area, Eurasion watermilfoil, (gyriophyllum sRicat ); wild celery; and hydrilla were the most common species observed. Patches of coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) and water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia) were more scattered. Only a few patches of curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) were identified and the greater duckweed (Spirodela Polyrhiza) was confined to the most protected areas 11-33 QUANTICO HONTICAL MARINE BASE QUANTICO WMMDS %% MARINE BASE APPROXIMATE W I W -2 W- N09nDAL VIWDS \% TOWN of QUAINTICO NowEr.ETATED WETLANDS NONVEGETATED IT WEkAIiD--S QUANTICO MARINE BASE FIGURE 11 Approximate Limits of Wetlands within the Project Area along the Marine Corps Base dock. Table 5 lists the species encountered and summarizes their ecologic importance. Table 5 - Submerged-Aguatic Vegetatio Common Name Scientific Name Ecologic Importance Eurasian Watermilfoil MyrioRhyllum spicatum Provides cover and spawning habitat for fish and invertebrates. Foliage consumed by some waterfowl. May crowd out other useful species. Introduced. Wild Celery Vallisneria americana A preferred food of many waterfowl, notably mallards, canvasbacks, and goldeneyes, also consumed by mammals. Provides spawning substrate and habitat for fish and invertebrates. Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata. Forms large mats, iTpeding recreational uses and potentially crowding out other species in an afflicted area. Introduced to Potomac River (Dyke Marsh) in 1980 by accident. Coontail Ceratophyll demersum Provides good habitat for fish, and small invertebrates consumed by fish and waterfowl. Foliage is consumed,by waterfowl and other wildlife. Water Stargrass Heteranthera dubia Cover for many fish species and habitat for invertebrate's consumed by fish and wildfowl, including black ducks, canvas- backs, and scaup. urly Pondweed Potamogeto crisRus Provides spawning substrate for fish and cover for fish and invertebrates. Introduced. Greater Duckweed Spirodela polyrhiza Consumed by some waterfowl. The above descriptions were taken from the following sources: Reid, George K., Ph.D.; Pond Life, A Guide to Common Plants and Animals of North American Ponds and Lakes; Golden Press, New York; 1987. 11-35 Schloesser, Donald W.; A Field Guide to Valuable Underwater Aquatic Plants of the Great Lakes; Contribution 644, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1986. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin; Potomac Basin ReRorter; Volume 39, No. 9, November 1983; Volume 40, No. 3, March 1984. Figure 12 divides the study area into approximate regions as determined appropriate during the SAV survey. Generally, regions were delineated based on the differences in species encountered and the approximate extent of vegetative cover. Region 1: The corner where the existing stone seawall and the Marine.Corps Base dock meet is 90-100% covered with floating plant material and debris which has blown in, and with rooted aquatic plants, hydrilla and Eurasian watermilfoil in particular. Region 2: The approximate boundary extends to 75 to 100 feet from shore. The region is 60-80% covered, very predominantly with wild celery. Region 3: An area of 80-90% vegetative coverage extends the length of the pier and curves around along the edge of the shallow water area. The average depth increases towards the end of the pier. Flora is mixed; it includes large stands of wild celery, coontail, watermilfoil, and some hydrilla, water stargrass and duckweed. The hydrilla becomes more prevalent in the deeper water towards the end of the Marine Corps Base dock. Region 4: An intermediate zone containing populations of the same floral components as were identified in Region 3 but in lesser numbers, and the few noted specimens of curly pondweed. Total vegetative coverage in the region is approximately 75%. Watermil 11-36 REGION ID NUMBER (See text for descriptions) QUANTICO MARINE BASE APPROXIMATE SCALE: 200, TOWN of QUANTICO Z@@ % POTOMAC RIVER E- 5 0 01 E-3 + \4 r E-4 N E-2 POTOMAC RIVER E-1 FIGURE 12 Approximate Regions of Observed Submerged Aquatic Vegetation foil (dominant), hydrilla, and coontail appear in large mixed stands, all together comprising two-thirds of the total vegeta- tion. Water stargrass contributes approximately 10% of the vegetative cover, and homogeneous clumps of wild celery comprise account for approximately 20% of the cover. Region 5: The major portion of the site is predominantly open. Total vegetative coverage in the central region is approximately 10-20%; most of this is composed of well-dispersed patches of wild celery. A few stands of water stargrass and watermilfoil also appear. Hydrilla is more evident along the far edge of this area as water depths increase beyond 4 to 5 feet. In summary, a fairly diverse community of SAV has been established in the protected area formed by the Marine Corps Base dock. The value of this area as fish and wildlife habitat was evident during our site visit. Numerous schools of forage fish were noted, as well as several larger individuals (believed to be the large-mouth bass) likely attracted by the abundance of prey. Great Blue Herons and Green Herons were also noted, while Canada Geese and Mute Swans have been reported by the Harbor Master to frequent the area. As mentioned earlier, this degree of colonization appears to be a very recent phenomenon. Based on the manner in which SAV has reappeared in the Potomac River in recent years it is expected that the more competitive species (especially hydrilla and watermilfoil) will constitute a larger percentage of the vegeta- tive cover in the future. The implication of the type and extent of SAV present is that dredging activities may displace and/or adversely impact existing habitat for fish and wildlife. Impacts to SAVs may also reduce water quality in the project area. 11-38 --77@ Debris Accumulated In Southwest Corner of The Existing Basin Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs) In The Existing Basin And View Of The Existing Marine Corps Base Dock (Looking Southeast) haft aLA& Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs) In The Existing Basin (Looking Southwest) Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAVs) In The Existng Basin In The Vicinity Of The Marine Corps Base Dock 0. SEDIMENTS On June 21, 1989, D&D gathered sediment samples at the same five locations that environmental measurements were taken (see Figure 5 for locations). The purpose of the sampling was to provide preliminary information regarding sediment composition within possible dredging areas and to perform limited laboratory analysis on a composite sample from the entire project area. The method of obtaining the samples varied dependent on the depth of water. At sampling points 1 and 2, water depths were recorded at approxi- mately thirty (30) feet. At these points, a Penske sediment/ bottom sampler was used for collecting a small surface sample. At point 3, a 6-foot-long, 1-inch-diameter steel pipe was driven into the sediments to a depth of approximately 2 feet using a sledge hammer. The depth of water prevented further penetration. At sampling points 4 and 5, a shovel auger was used since the water depth was less than 3 feet. The penetration depth approached 18 inches. All samples were placed in plastic bags and sent to the environmental laboratory for preparing a composite sample using equal parts from each sample location. The results of the laboratory analysis are shown in Table 6. Table 6 - Heayy Metal Concentrations in Comy9site Sediment Sample Parameter Tested Results (mg/kg) Arsenic < 0.5 Barium <50. Cadmium < 2. Chromium < 8. Lead 10. Mercury < 0.5 Selenium < 0.1 Silver < 4.0 All results except lead fell below the detection levels for the test methods used. These levels are within the expected range and 11-41 do not indicate a problem with regard to disposal of dredged material regarding toxic substances. The laboratory data sheet is included in Appendix 13. A visual inspection of each sample was also performed. The sampling depth and the visual classification for each sample are shown in Table 7. Table 7 - Sediment Data Sample No. Sampling Depth Descriptio S-1 Surface Brown clayey sand with shells & gravel S-2 Surface Shells S-3 0-18 inches Brown clayey sand with shells S-4 0-18 inches Tan-gray fine to medium sand with silt S-5A 0-6 inches Sandy gravel S-5B 6-12 inches Sandy gravel Sieve analyses to determine soil classification were conducted on samples S-3, S-5A, and S-5B since they correspond to the possible dredging area. The gradation results are shown in Appendix 14. Based on the material properties observed, dredging difficulties are not anticipated within the basin. It should be noted that available geologic maps indicate a potential for cobbly material which could complicate dredging activities, dependent on the type of dredging proposed. Further evaluations on the proposed dredging activities are presented in Appendix 15. 11-42 III. PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES A. GENERAL The proposed project as discussed in the remaining sections of this report is generally based on a conceptual plan developed for the Town in 1986 identifying a "Town Marina" with floating piers and a breakwater designed to provide safe harbor for a reasonable number of boats. An additional advantage of the "Town Marina" concept is that it serves the dual function of protecting and stabilizing the majority of the Town's newly acquired shoreline. Using the available conceptual plan as a guide, additional engineering analyses were performed by D&D to further investigate the degree to which the dual objectives are satisfied and to be able to better assess the associated environmental impacts. Based on the evaluations described in Section II and generally considering cost-effective design and construction practices, each component of the proposed project has been further developed. The structures presented in this section represent suggested engineer- ing schemes that enable the assessment of environmental impacts and the comparison of alternatives. Alternatives involving refinements and, in some cases, substantial modifications have also been' developed for further consideration. The primary intent of identifying alternatives is to assess on a preliminary basis the environmental impacts of scaled-down versions of the project. This cursory alternatives analysis is warranted in view of the unavoidable impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation resulting from the proposed project. For additional information including assumptions that were made in the development of the proposed project and the alternatives as presented in the following sections, refer to Appendix 15 - Additional Engineering Considerations and Analysis. The following subsections summarize the overall features of the proposed project and alternatives. B. OVERALL FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The features of the proposed project as further developed by D&D consist of the following: Breakwater Structure Floating Piers and Slips Shoreline Improvements Upland Park Area The water portion of the proposed project is conceptualized in plan view as essentially a 11mirror image" of the breakwater associated with the existing Marine Corps Base dock and marina. The proposed breakwater will protect the basin from northerly and northeasterly storms, while the existing Marine Corps Base dock will provide the protection from the southerly storms as it has effectively done so to date. As depicted by the typical cross section shown in Figure 13, the outer side of the breakwater will be protected from erosion at the toe (channelward portion of the structure) by means of quarry- stone riprap. The vertical wall on the marina side will accom- modate a number of slips by means of a floating dock and finger piers (catwalks) which may or may not be attached directly to the breakwater itself. Additional details on the proposed breakwater are presented in Appendix 15, Section 15.C. Also part of the proposed project are two main floating piers, with maximum anticipated lengths of nearly 410 and 530 feet. Various slip configurations along these floating piers and along 111-2 MARINA (NOT TO SCALE) POTOMAC 6' RIVER 7.0 41 Z@: 6.0 5.0 - r T T -1 PRECAST CONCRETE SLAB 5" 200 LB. - 800 LB. ARMOR STONE RIPRAP PLACED AND CHINKED FOR SCOUR PROTECTION MLW=O.o 1 2 -2 0 3' I PRECAST REINFORCED 2 (-2.0) to (-7.0) CONCRETE PILE PIPE) I4.0'-DIA (O.D.) 1 (-3.0) to (-8.0) 30' LONG DREDGE LEVEL (PRELIM) 4 *0) to 9. 0) FILTER CLOTH EXCAVATE 1' MIN. TIP EL FOR TOE PLACEMENT (-10.0) to (-22.0) 5' to 15' L Z2 FIGURE 13 Typical Cross-Section of the Proposed Breakwater the inner side of the breakwater may be designed to accommodate differing numbers of boats by varying the types and sizes. The proposed marina configuration is shown on Exhibit 3 and provides approximately 130 to 140 slips for boats ranging from 25 to 60 feet in length. Additional details on the marina facilities are also presented in Appendix 15, Section 15.C. Inherent in the proposed project are repairs to the existing seawall, where practical, and a replacement structure using a full-section quarry-stone revetment where necessary. The repairs will likely include a wedge-shaped stone reinforcement at the toe of the existing seawall. The proposed improvements along the shoreline assume that the breakwater and the piers associated with the marina will be constructed. Hence, the primary function of the seawall under the proposed project concept will be shifted from directly protecting the shoreline from storms to forming a water frontage that is safe for public use, stable, and aesthet- ically conforming with the proposed upland park area and the proposed marina. Typical sections of both shoreline stabilization structures are shown on Figure 14. Additional details of the proposed seawall improvements are presented in Appendix 15, Section 15.D. The upland park portion of the proposed project will involve incorporation of a parking area adequate for the proposed marina purposes, concession facilities and other amenities. The entire park area is currently in good condition. Preliminary determina- tions indicate that the space on the west side of River Road is capable of providing the majority, if not all, of the parking spaces required for the proposed project (park and marina) and should not involve environmental or otherwise major problems. Parking in this area will likely require local site plan approvals and public participation regarding traffic patterns and the use of public streets for parallel parking. More detailed evaluations 111-4 (a) FULL-SECTION STONE REVETMENT 51 10 (TYP) I 4'(TYP) Clean Backfill Armor-Stone Trucked-in 600-lb to 1600-lb Apron (200-lb to 600-lb 5.01 with Breakwater) r 1.5'(TYP) 1 2 1 4 1.4' (MHW Existiny Grade 3' MIN -- AD LW) (typica ) Deteriorated L - - - - Segment of Existing -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Seawall (typical) Trucked-in Clean Backfill -(-2.0') 3" t o 8" 1 Bedding Wove.. I lastic (NOT TO SCALE) Stone Filter Cloth Min 1' Excavation for Toe Placement (b) WEDGE-SHAPED STONE REINFORCEMENT Existing Grade (typical) 2' 4'(TYP) 4'(TYP) 7 4'(TYP) I 200-lb to 600-lb Quarry Stone Existing Masonry Seawall in Good 1 2 Condition (typical) 0.0' (MLW) (NOT JO SCALE) Woven Plastic Min 1' Excavation Filter Cloth for Toe Placement L uar' To e FIGURE 14 Typical Sections of Stone Revetment and Stone Reinforcement regarding parking-related improvements are presented in Appendix 15, Section 15.A. C. ALTERNATIVES Four (4) alternatives have been considered to the proposed project presented in the preceding subsection. Alternative 1 - Approximately 60- to 70-slip marina with break- water and floating piers. Dredging has been avoided in shallow water areas (less than 2 feet below mean low water). Alternative 2 - Approximately 15- to 20-slip marina without breakwater. Uses a tee section at the end of a single dock and involves minimum dredging. Alternative 3 - No marina or breakwater with a repaired seawall providing minimum shoreline protection. Alternative 4 - No marina or breakwater with a new seawall providing substantial shoreline protection. Each alternative is further discussed in Appendix 15, Section 15.G. 111-6 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES The environmental impacts and inherent mitigation measures associated with the proposed project and the various alternatives are discussed in the following subsections. Each element that may be involved in the realization of a selected project is presented separately. These elements are: Seawall improvements for shoreline protection and stabilization Breakwater structure Pier structures Marina basin A. SEAWALL IMPROVEMENTS Regardless of whether a breakwater is constructed, the proposed shoreline stabilization activities within the project limits are not expected to create any long-term adverse impact on the environment including adjacent shoreline areas. The environmental conditions created by stone riprap as proposed along the shoreline will, in essence, create a shallow water habitat that otherwise would not exist. The absence of vegetated wetlands along the shoreline and the relatively inactive position of the shoreline within the project limits relative to the adjacent shoreline in the north and south further justify the type and extent of improvements proposed. Being itself very effectively sheltered by the Marine Corps Base dock, proposed shoreline stabilization measures within the project area are not expected to cause any adverse impact to the shoreline in the north due to southerly winds and currents. With regard to northerly winds and currents, the adjacent shoreline in the north is not likely to be adversely impacted by way of reflected waves or otherwise. Considering the general shoreline alignment in the IV-1 project area including the existing and proposed structures, long- shore flow patterns should not impose adverse impacts owing to the proposed riprap seawall improvements. It is also evident that the presence of the Marine Corps Base dock completely eliminates any risk of adverse impact from the proposed stabilization activities along the shoreline south of the Marine Corps Base dock. Except for short-term impacts during construction which will be confined to the existing shallow water habitat immediately adjacent the shoreline, the proposed shoreline stabilization activities are expected to be a positive environmental ir%fluence in the area. Stone riprap is environmentally superior to the other structural measures that are used today to stabilize a shoreline because of the desirable aquatic environment it will create with its sloping face and numerous openings. Vertical seawalls or bulkheads, on the 'other hand, whether constructed with masonry, concrete, timber or steel, will promote standing waves and local scour, thus causing greater impacts to the shallow water environment. In order to diminish adverse conditions from existing vertical wall structures, a stone riprap toe protection is commonly proposed where practical. It should also be pointed out that protective coatings such as C.C.A. (chromated copper arsenate) and Coal-Tar-Creosote used to help preserve timber and steel bulkhead material in marine environments are undesirable by most agencies because of impacts to shallow water habitat and overall water quality. Use of stone riprap along the shoreline is not expected to alter the external conditions promoting debris accumulation in the southwest corner of the basin. The Marine Corps Base dock is the primary reason for the manner in which debris collects. A conceivable effect of the stone protection along the shoreline may be to slow down any long-shore motion of such debris towards the IV-2 south which may result in spreading the debris accumulation somewhat more evenly along the shoreline. Periodic maintenance will continue to be required. In any event, debris accumulation should not be considered as an impact to the natural environment. Major variations should not be expected in any of the environmen- tal aspects discussed herein with respect to the size and extent of the stone riprap proposed for this project, due primarily to the fact that the resultant changes in the alignment of the shoreline will be virtually negligible. The proposed use of stone riprap for the proposed project and the alternatives is the environmentally superior method for shoreline stabilization in the project area. B. BREAKWATER STRUCTURE The breakwater structure recommended for the proposed project and Alternative 1 has the-potential to impact three regions. These regions are: (1) within the proposed marina basin; (2) outside of the basin; and, (3) on the Potomac River itself. These impacts will be generated by the proposed configuration of the breakwater, the construction material and the construction methods. The, short-term impacts resulting from the construction activities are considered to be temporary and minor while the long-term expected impacts are discussed below. Since Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 do not warrant the use of a breakwater structure, no impacts are discussed under this subsection. Impacts Within the Proposed Basin The obvious purpose of the proposed breakwater is that it will protect the marina basin and its entire shoreline from the tides, waves, and currents originating from the north-northeast. Since the Marine Corps Base dock already blocks the southerly storms, IV-3 the addition of the proposed.breakwater north of the existing dock will create a safe harbor basin for the marina under the proposed project and Alternative 1. In addition to displacing a minimal amount of shallow water area and the associated SAV, some impact caused by the proposed breakwater on the submerged aquatic vegetation within the basin area may be expected due to the retardation of the ebb cycle and river flows currently entering the basin to create the counter- clockwise circulation. Hence, any interaction that may exist between this type of circulation and the existing SAV will be altered. The effect of these new circulation patterns by them- selves is not expected to significantly impact the existing SAV. On the other hand, it is also conceivable that the presence of the breakwater by itself may create more favorable conditions for the SAV within the basin by virtue of the calmer waters provided even during the ebb flows down the River. It is anticipated that the impact of the proposed breakwater on the conditions of debris accumulation will be quite favorable. The breakwater will virtually eliminate the periodic import of debris migrating along the shore by the northerly currents. Additionally, any debris brought along by the southerly currents will likely continue to be deflected by the Marine Corps Base dock past the inlet section of the breakwater towards the north based on the proposed alignment of the offshore segment of the break- water. An adverse effect may also be expected because of the augmentation of the normal import pattern of water and sediments into the basin along the shoreline from the north. However, such adverse impacts should be minimized due to the width of the inlet section recom- mended for the basin. A reasonable circulation within the basin will be maintained with the proposed breakwater structure. IV-4 Thus, the proposed breakwater by itself is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts within the basin and the as- sociated shoreline. On the contrary, owing primarily to the protection it provides from the northerly storms, the proposed breakwater will improve shoreline stability within the basin, by way of creating considerably calmer waters while allowing for effective basin flushing by tidal action. Impacts Outside the Proposed Basin The proposed breakwater structure using quarry-stone ripfap protection at the toe on the outboard side of the wall along the entire length of the breakwater minimizes adverse impacts to the shallow water areas. The alignment of the shore-attached segment of the proposed breakwater was chosen to be approximately perpen- dicular to the north-northeast direction and the adjacent shore- line, while the remaining offshore segment follows along the end of the basin "shelf" before the deep channel is reached. It is anticipated-that the riprap protection and this configuratio n of the proposed breakwater will provide the following functions: adequately dissipate the energy from waves; reflect waves and currents nearly parallel to the shoreline north of the breakwater, thereby minimizing shoreline erosion due to these reflections; direct waves and currents along the outboard segment of the breakwater following the deep channel past the end section of the Marine Corps Base dock and down the river, thereby not creating additional circumstances for local erosion; and avoid creating adverse conditions, environmental or other- wise, to the shoreline south of the existing Marine Corps Base dock and marina. IV-5 There is the likelihood that some of the debris presently observed to periodically accumulate in the southwest corner of the Town's basin will be cut off and directed by the breakwater towards the shore offsite just north of the breakwater or accumulated along the riprap outer wall of the breakwater itself. However, because of the surface roughness, retardation of currents along the wall and overall wave energy dissipation provided by the same stone riprap along the outer wall, any debris brought in contact with the breakwater would likely tend to accumulate locally rather than be moved along the breakwater. Impacts on the Potomac River Normally calm waters in the basin area defined by the proposed breakwater structure and other adjacent shallow regions provide sufficient evidence that only a very small quantity of the Potomac River ordinarily flows through the shallow near-shore areas. These conditions will not likely be affected by the-presence of the proposed breakwater. The entire breakwater will be placed on the shallow "shelf" section of the River, sufficiently away from the deep "channel" section which conveys the major bulk of the River's flow. Thus, the breakwater with the proposed alignment is not likely to cause any adverse effects on low flow, flood flow, or navigation within the Potomac River. C. PIER STRUCTURES The floating piers associated with the marina for the proposed project and Alternative I will be supported by a minimum number of piles to limit the lateral motion of the deck sections created by mooring forces and hydrodynamic forces from waves and currents in the basin. These piles will be relatively small in size with the depth of penetration not excessive, and hence will not involve any major disturbance during construction. IV-6 With minor wakes due to boating and otherwise calm conditions existing throughout the proposed marina basin, the piles of these piers will not effect or increase local sedimentation activities. Using environmentally inert plastics or otherwise appropriate coating material for protection of the timber piles in the marine environment, and employing appropriate driving techniques, the subsequent interaction of these piles with the surrounding environment will be insignificant. Piers in general, and floating piers in particular, are generally not considered to have sig- nificant potential for environmental degradation. The floating pier system would likely inhibit the growth of SAV within the marina basin because of shading. Areas that would only be partially shaded would likely support SAV, but not necessarily the type of SAV that presently exists. However, it should be noted that under the displacement of existing SAV from dredging activities would render the significance of impacts from the floating pier system inconsequential.. Such impacts are discussed in the following subsection. D. MARINA BASIN Impacts to the existing environment within the proposed marina basin are divided into three categories: Dredging Activities Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Displacement Water Quality Degradation Dredging Activities The two phases defining dredging activities are the actual dredging and the disposal operations. Both of these phases will affect the environmental, technical, and economic feasibility of IV-7 the project. Practic ally speaking, there are two methods of dredging available for the type of project proposed. These are: (a) mechanical dredging, and (b) hydraulic dredging. In mechanical dredging, the excavation process is performed by equipment such as bulldozers, draglines, and clamshells. The excavated material is then loaded onto barges or trucks and hauled away to a designated disposal site. Hydraulic dredging, on the other hand, is performed by a cutter operating on the bottom and a dredge pump which hydraulically transports the dredged material through a pipe to the shoreline and beyond. Hydraulic dfedging tends to be the more feasible method when an environmentally acceptable site for dredge disposal is available near the dredge site. The possible presence of cobbles in layers in the basin may complicate hydraulic dredging. Nevertheless, dredging can be performed using either method in a manner that would be acceptable to environmental agencies. The options for upland disposal of the dredged material are either onsite within the park area or offsite preferably within the Marine Corps Base. The proposed project will involve approxi- mately 30,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Unless the entire upland park area can be substantially regraded and used to dry dredged material, onsite disposal is not practical. The low-lying area along the northern project limits has been identified as nontidal wetlands and disposal in this area would be highly objectionable by all agency representatives.- Offsite disposal appears to be more practical. Preliminary discussions among representatives of the Marine Corps Base indicate a possibility that an acceptable disposal site may be available. Additional discussions will be required in order to coordinate construction schedules and available sites. At this time, it seems premature to make any definite plans or to expect unconditional commitments. The primary requirement of any upland disposal site is that it is IV-8 not located in a wetland or bottomland area and that the dredged material be prevented from reentry to any stream. The feasibility of disposal within the Potomac River was not pursued to any significant extent with the agencies since it is generally not preferred. Nevertheless, this option could be further considered in the event an upland disposal site cannot be identified or is not available when needed. -This type of disposal could be used to create replacement shallow water habitat. Whether or not SAV could be provided would require site specific studies. Additional discussions with the appropriate agencies during the next phase of the project should be considered. It may be possible to identify a spoil area within the Potomac River that may be suitable for a number of similar projects in the area as well as for maintenance dredging requirements in the future. Alternative 1, which will require approximately 5,000 cubic yards of dredging, would still be difficult to achiev e onsite without substantial regrading of the park area. Offsite disposal again appears to be more practical, if a site is available. Dredge disposal for Alternative 2 which involves minimal dredging can likely be integrated into the site work for the park. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation The submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) present in the proposed 0 marina basin that will be displaced during dredging activities is the significant environmental issue facing the proposed project. SAVs in the dredged parts of the basin will be permanently removed in order to provide safe boating within the marina basin. The navigated portions of the marina basin will probably also require periodic maintenance dredging in the future. Any such impacts can be minimized or entirely prevented with strict application of the IV-9 appropriate disturbance control measures during both the initial and the subsequent maintenance dredging operations. The proposed project will directly impact approximately 5.0 acres of SAVs. Alternative 1 is an attempt to reduce impacts to SAVs, especially those in shallow water areas, while providing a reasonable area with sufficient depths for safe navigation. The dredging opera- tions are concentrated within the relatively deeper portions of the basin (depth greater than 2 feet) and the marina area is confined to the northernmost portion of the basin. Approximately 2.5 acres of SAVs are displaced by this alternative. Alternative 2, which proposes spanning the SAVs with a pier system and constructing a tee section for approximately 15 to 20 slips, minimizes impacts to SAVs to the maximum extent practical. Minor localized impacts because of shading and pier construction are considered unavoidable. However, safe harbor is not afforded since construction of the breakwater is considered to be cost- prohibitive given the reduced number of slips. Mitigation sites to recreate SAVs do not appear practical or feasible. The Town of Quantico does not have water frontage on any other portion of the Potomac River. It appears that Alterna- tive 1 avoids impacts to SAVs to the extent practical considering costs and the need to provide improved waterfront access to the Town. Additional information supporting the alternatives analysis are provided in Appendix 15. Water Quality Degradation The natural cleansing process of a basin by tidal action is widely referred to as "tidal flushing" and is an environmental require- ment that must be satisfied by proposed marinas. The relevant evaluations for the marina basin were made according to the IV-10 procedures described in the publication entitled "Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook," published by the U.S. EPA. Based on the calculations presented in Appendix 15, Section 15.F, the proposed marina will satisfy the general tidal flushing requirements. To further support this conclusion, the following general remarks are also offered. The local cross section of the Potomac River is nearly 7,300 feet, with a channel approximately 35 feet deep adjacent to the basin along the western shore. The average depth for a large portion of the remainder of this.cross section is nearly 20 feet. The water depth in the existing basin, on the other hand, gradually in- creases from zero to nearly 8 feet at about 600 feet from the shoreline. Therefore, the basin forms a relatively shallow shelf gently tapered towards the River. The overall good to excellent water quality observed within the basin indicates the presence of an effective tidal flushing action for the existing conditions. Based on any scenario of dredging proposed, the proposed marina basin will continue to allow for free tidal movement into and out of the basin. A positive slope in the offshore direction and the generously wide inlet section will ensure that water quality within the marina basin remains within the good range. The proposed project and Alternatives 1 and 2 have these characteris- tics. IV-11 V. SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS A. GENERAL Regulations to protect the natural environment including water quality exist at all levels of government. In view of the- heightened awareness and concerns associated with the Chesapeake Bay, the States of Virginia and Maryland have also more recently promulgated regulations consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Agreement signed by the Governors of Virginia, ..Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the Mayor of Washington, D.C.., in December 1987. The key environmental regulations including the administering agencies are presented in this section. The specific areas of jurisdiction and the permit application proce- dures envisioned for the proposed project are also summarized. B. FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 including am endments mandates that it is unlawful to add any pollutant to the waters of the United States, including navigable waters and wetlands, without a permit. Section 404 of the CWA requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials. Section 401 requires that any applicant for a federal permit obtain a certification from the state that any discharge will comply with the state's water quality and effluent standards. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended requires that any non-federal' applicant for a federal permit within a state's coastal zone furnish a certification that the V-1 proposed activity will comply with the state's coastal zone management program. Generally, no federal permit will be issued until the state has concurred with the applicant's certification. The lead federal agency involved in the issuance of permits for the proposed project is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The permit requirements under Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers (33 CFR Parts 320 through 330), are outlined in detail for Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. D&D has been advised that the authority for ad- ministering the regulatory program relative to the proposed project has been delegated to the district engineer in the Norfolk District. Representatives from' both the Baltimore District and the Norfolk District have confirmed that an agreement between the Districts exists that specifies that the Norfolk District issues permits for projects associated with Virginia lands. The USACOE's decision to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest. In evaluating the proposed project's impacts the USACOE will likely consult with the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), the Regional Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Regional Administration of the Environmental Protecti6n Agency (EPA), and the heads of the appropriate state agencies. Under the CWA, EPA can veto a Section 404 permit issued by the USACOE. This veto authority has been seldom used but tends to influence the USACOE's administration of the 404 process and an applicant's willingness to incorporate agency comments to further avoid and/or mitigate impacts to wetlands and water quality. V-2 C. STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS The proposed project is rather unique in terms of state agency jurisdiction in that the Virginia-Maryland state line is coinci- dent with the Virginia shoreline. The Potomac River itself is within the State of Maryland from the West Virginia boundary to its mouth at the Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, portions of the proposed project below mean low water are within Charles County, Maryland, where areas landward of mean low water are within Prince William County, Virginia. Hence, a combination of Maryland and Virginia state laws are applicable. For the purpose of further discussing the likely areas that each state will claim jurisdic- tion, the key laws and regulations in each state are identified below without regard to jurisdiction. Jurisdictional areas as determined through discussion with federal, state, and local officials are summarized at the end of this section. In Virginia, regulations exist that require permits for construc- tion activities that affect the following: subaqueous lands; vegetated and nonvegetated tidal wetlands as defined by the Virginia Code of Regulations; water quality in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA; and the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay in particular, in accordance with the recently adopted Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. Additionally, Virginia has regulations regarding siting criteria and adequate provisions for sewerage facilities at marinas. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) is responsible for issuing subaqueous bed permits which will include a comprehensive siting review process for a proposed marina. VMRC also provides technical assistance to the local wetlands board regarding impacts to tidal wetlands as defined by Virginia law. The Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) advises Virginia's regulatory V-3 bodies on marine environmental matters. The Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) administers the Section 401 water quality certification program and the Virginia Council on the Environment is responsible for administering the Coastal Zone Management Program. The Bureau of Wastewater Engineering is designated by the State Board of Health in Virginia to issue a certificate attesting to the adequacy of the sewerage facilities to serve marinas and to notify VMRC of issuance or denial of individual applications. The State of Maryland has similar regulations that require permits for construction activities that affect any wetlands (tidal and/or nontidal), Maryland waters and subaqueous lands, water quality in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, and water quality of the Chesapeake Bay in accordance with the Critical Areas Legislation and Criteria. Maryland also has siting criteria and sewerage regulations related to marinas. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for issuing a wetlands license which would involve a review of all activities and impacts associated with shoreline stabilization and marina construction. The Maryland Department of the Environment (DOE) administers the Section 401 water quality certification program in accordance with the CWA. DNR and DOE both advise local governments regarding natural resources and water quality impacts from proposed projects in Maryland waters. D. LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS Prince William County has a wetland ordinance that requires a permit for any project impacting vegetated and/or nonvegetated wetlands. Floodplain ordinances in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program have also been adopted by the Town of Quantico. Over the next year, the Town is required to designate V-4 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas and to adopt the necessary ordinances and criteria in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay. Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. The key elements that will affect the Town of Quantico involve the following: Designating Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) Designating Resource Management Areas (RMAs) Identifying and Designating Intensely Developed Areas (IDAs) where exemptions to the general criteria are permissible. Additionally, a full management program within the next 24 months including revisions to comprehensive plans, policies relative to appropriate densities for docks and piers, waterfront access (public and private) and affect on water quality, and potential water quality improvements through the eventual redevelopment of IDAs are to be established. Critical Areas in Maryland are the counterpart of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas in Virginia. Charles County is responsible for administering the critical areas regulations, and has desig- nated critical areas and adopted the necessary ordinances in accordance with Maryland regulations. E. SUMMARY Discussions with representatives of federal, state, and local agencies were conducted by key staff from D&D throughout the preparation of this report. Copies of telephone and written correspondence are included in Appendix 4. Site inspections were held to further solicit comments relative to the proposed project on August 21 and 22, 1989. Table 8 lists the agencies and individuals that have been contacted. V-5 Table 8 - List of Review Agencies Name and Address of Agency Contact Person(s) Attended Site Name, Phone No. Inspection Regulatory Authority Reference(s) -------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------- --------------------------------- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ms. Julie Steete No 33CFR Parts 320 through 330 Norfolk District Mr. Bruce Williams No III Front Street (804) 441-7652 Norfolk, VA 23510 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mr. James Brogdon Yes 33CFR Parts 320 through 330 Norfolk District (804) 441-7652 Northern Yirgina Field Office Plaza South, Suite 102 138 Graham Park Road Dusphries, VA 22026 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Larry Eastman No 33CFR Parts 320 through 330 Baltimore District Ms. Cheryl Smith P.O. Box 1715, NABOP-R (301) 962-3478 Baltimore, MD 21203-1715 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mr. Gary Frazer No Advisory Capacity to US Army Whitesarsh, VA (804) 693-6694 Corps of Engineers U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Mr. Robert Rubleman No Advisory Capacity to US Army Oxford, MD (301) 226-5771 Corps of Engineers Virginia Marine Resources Commission Mr. Charles Roadley Yes Section 62.1-3 of the Habitat Management Division (804) 247-2200 Code of Virginia 2600 Washington Ave., P.O. Box 756 VR 450-01-0047 Newport News, YA 23607 Virginia State Water Control Board Mr. Les Balderson No 33CFR Parts 320 through 330 P.O. Box 11143 (804) 367-6319 Richmond, VA 23230-1143 (804) 367-0062 Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences Ms. Julie Bradshaw Yes Advisory Capacity to Gloucester Point, VA 23062 (804) 642-7395 YMRC and VWCB Virginia Council on the Environment Mr. Charles Ellis No Coastal Zone Management Program (804) 786-4500 Concurrence under 33CFR Parts 320 through 330 Table 0 - List of Review Agencies (Cont'd) Name and Address of Agency Contact Person(s) Attended Site Name, Phone No. Inspection Regulatory Authority Reference -------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------- ------------------------------ Virginia Department of Health Mr. Al Golding No Section 32.1-246 of the 1804) 786-1761 Code of Virginia, Title 32.1, Chapter 6, Article 10 YA Dept. of Conservation & Recreation Mr. Lee Hill Yes Advisory Capacity to Virginia Division of Soil I later Conservation (804) 642-7121 Agencies Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service P.O. Box 1024 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 VA Dept. of Conservation I Recreation Mr. Ned Burger Yes Advisory Capacity to Various Division of Soil & Water Conservation (804) 443-6752 Virginia Agencies P.O. Box 1425 Tappahannock, VA 22560 Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Mr. Doldon Moore, Jr. Yes Annotated Code of Maryland Tidal Wetlands Division (301) 974-3871 Natural Resources Articles Tawes State Office Building 0-4 8-203, and 801 through 814. Annapolis, RD 21401 Maryland Dept. of the Environment Mr. Sean Smith No 33CFR Parts 320 through 330 Standards and Certifications Division (301) 631-3609 2100 Iro,nin, Highway Baltimore, RD 21224 Maryland Critical Areas Commission Mr. Ren Surry No Annotated Code of Maryland 275 West Street, Suite 320 (301) 9114-2426 Natural Resources Article Annapolis, RD 21401 Section 8-1814. Prince William County Mr. Maurice Foushee Yes Prince William County Code Planning Office (703) 335-6030 and Ordinances I County Complex Court Prince William, VA 22192-9201 Based an the information gathered and assuming existing regula- tions and administrative procedures remain unchanged, permits from the USACOE, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Bureau of Wastewater Engineering), the State of Maryland (DNR and DOE), and Prince William County will be required prior to construction of the proposed project. Numerous other federal and state government agencies will also be involved in an advisory capacity. Table 9 summarizes the specific comments and outlines the likely permit processing procedures. Officials from Maryland have advised, in writing, that DNR will conduct the same type of review and enact the same policies and procedures for marinas and shoreline stabilization projects regardless of the location along the Potomac River. It is anticipated that DOE will have the same position regarding the issuance of a Section 401 water quality certificate. Virginia officials have advised verbally that VMRC's jurisdiction will likely be confined to assisting the local wetlands board in Prince William County. Additionally, the VWCB has verbally indicated they may offer comments or be requested to concur with any decision by Maryland DOE. However, Maryland is responsible for issuing all 401 certificates on the Potomac River in this area. Maryland and Charles County officials have advised that the critical areas legislation has been interpreted to not apply to projects along the Virginia shoreline. However, the Chesapeake Bay Area Designation and Management Regulations to be adopted by Prince William County in cooperation with the Town of Quantico will eventually apply to the proposed project. Following selection of the proposed project including appropriate refinements based on agency comments and directives from the Town, the necessary permit applications will need to be prepared. A Joint Permit Application as furnished by the VMRC will satisfy the V-8 Table 9 - List of Permit Processes and Agency Remarks Name of Agency General Permit Process Procedures Summary of Remarks ---- -- ------ ------- ------ ------- ---------- ------- -- ------- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Review the project under the Joint According to Ms. Steele, only military Norfolk District Permit Application, issue public projects are under Baltimore District's notice if necessary, coordinate jurisdiction; all other projects are other federal agency review and the Norfolk District's responsibility consents, issue Section 404 permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Review the project under the Joint SAY beds are primary concern regarding Norfolk District Permit Application, issue public proposed dredging for the marina. Stone Northern Virgina Field Office notice if necessary, coordinate shoreline stabilization, floating piers other federal agency review and and concrete breakwater with riprap toe comments, issue Section 404 permit area generally acceptable to USACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Will not be involved According to Mr. Eastman, Norfolk District Baltimore District is responsible for projects 'originating' above MLW in Virginia, including dredging activities with disposal in Virginia U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Review and provide comments SAY beds are the main concern; would help Whitemarsh, VA to USACDE to determine history, coverage and species composition. Hydrilla is not a nuissance for US F&WS. Less concern regarding marina, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Review and provide comments is probably flushed well. There would be Service, Oxford, NO to USACBE restrictions an time of dredging. No problem with anadromous and commercial shell fish. Virginia Marine Resources Commission Will receive and process the Joint Similar concern as Md/DNR and USACOE. Permit Application for all Virginia Shoreline area is generally classified approvals and permits. Will.serve in as nonvegetated wetlands. a coordinating and advisory capacity. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Not a regulatory agency VINS will advise an wetlands and other environmental aspects of the project. VINS concurs with the Md1DNR's concerns regarding SAY beds and VMRC's assessment that shoreline is primarily nonvegetated. VA Dept. of Conservation & Recreation Not a regulatory agency Recommends 'riprap' structure to replace Division of Soil & Water Conservation existing deteriorated concrete wall and Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service offered technical details; suggested that the undercut trees should be removed. Table 9 - List of Permit Processes and Agency Remarks (Cont'd) Name of Agency General Permit Process Procedures Summary of Remarks ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources Issue 'Wetlands License' for all SAYs in the basin a major concern; Tidal Wetlands Division activities outboard of MLW line; mitigation discouraged; dredging in review dredging/disposal, filling, shallow areas highly objectionable; marina pumpout, tidal flushing, breakwater riprap and shoreline stone tidal wetlands and SAY impacts and improvements would present no problem Coastal Zone Management Consistency. SAY bed delineation would be helpful; Average processing time 6 months. economics is only one of the criteria. Maryland Dept. of the Environment Issue 'Water guality Certification' A new law introduced regarding pumpout Standards and Certifications Div. for activities outboard of MLW line facilities, to be administered by ONR's review dredging/disposal, filling, Boating Regulation group. marina pumpout, tidal flushing, other water quality impacts. Maryland Critical Areas Commission Not applicable to proposed project. According to Ren Surry, neither Maryland Chesapeake Day Critical Areas Commission nor Charles County will be involved in this project. Maryland's interests would be covered by Md/DoE and DNR. Prince William County Local Wetland Board will issue Requires public hearing. permit in conjunction with the Joint Permit Application general requirements of the USACOE, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Prince William County Wetlands Board. A separate applica- tion for a certificate of approval of sanitary or sewerage facilities must be made on a form supplied by the local health department in Virginia. A wetlands license from Maryland DNR and a 401 water quality certificate from Maryland DOE also require separate applications. V-11 APPENDIX 1 Coastal Resources Management Grant and Relevant Documents COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GRANT-CONTRACT This agreement is made this day of 1988, by and between the Council on the Envi'ronment (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") and the Town of Quantico (hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee"). The parties to this agreement, in consideration of the -mutual covenants and stipulations set out herein, agree as follows: 1. Project: The Grantee shall carry out the project as set forth in Attachment A. All aspects of this project shall be consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987, and.with the Commonwealth's Coastal Resources Management Programi The project, in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Actt shall incorporate general water quality protection measures into any comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and subdivision ordinances-resulting therefrom. 2. Time of Performance:. The project shall commence on January 1, la89 and shall terminate on Sept. 30, 1989 the period of performance being 9 months. 3. Payidents: The Council shall pay the Grantee quarterly on a reimbursement basisr not to exceed $ 14,000 for the project. The said sumr together with the matching funds provided as set forth in Attachment At shall include the cost of all personnelt all overheadt and all other expenses of the project. Payment shall be made upon submission of invoices and progress reports and their acceptance by the Council. Such invoices shall be submitted within ten (10) days following the end of each calendar quarter and shall be detailed in accordance with Attachment A to show what tasks have been completed and to compare the time of completion with the proposed time of completion. Progress reports shall be submitted on forms provided by the Council within ten (10) days following the end of each calendar quarter. 4. Terms and Conditions: Grantee shall comply with the Standard Terms and Conditions of the U. S. Department of Commerce set forth in Attachment B. 5. Liability: The Grantee shall take out and maintain, during the life of this agreement,, such bodily injury liability and property damage liability insurance as will protect it from claims.of damages for personal injury, including deathr as well as from claims for property damager which may arise from its activities under this agreement. If the Grantee has a self- insurance programf it may self-insure-the risks associated with this Agreement in lieu of the-commercial insurance required herein. 6. During-the performance of this contract,, the Grantee agrees as follows: a. The Grantee will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for.employment because of race, religion, colorr sex or national origin, except where religion, sex or national oTigin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the-Grantee. The Grantee agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for 2 employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. b. The Grantee, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on its behalf, will state that such Grantee is an equal opportunity employer.:' c. Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section. The Grantee will include the provisions of 'the foregoing paragraphs a, b and c in every subcontract or purchase order of over $10,000, so that-the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. 7. Use of Grant Funds: Grant funds shall only be used for the purposes and activities covered in Attachment A. 8. Fiscal Control: The Grantee shall establish fiscal control and fund accounting procedures which assure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, grant funds and any required non-federal expenditures. 9. P-rior-Written Approval of Changes: The Grantee must obtain prior.written approval from the Council for changes to the project, including, but not limited tor changes of substance in program activities, designs, or plans set forth in the approved application and changes in the approved project budget. 10. Termination-for Cause: The Council reserves the right to terminate the grant in whole,.or in part, at any time before the date of completion, upon written notice to the Grantee that 3 it has failed to comply with the conditions of the-grant. 'In connection with such termination, payments made to the Grantee or recoveries by the Council shall be in accord with the legal rights and liabilities of the parties. 11. Termination for Convenience: The Council may terminate the grant if its funding is terminated. The Council or the Grantee may terminate the grant in whole, or in part, if both parties agree that the continuation of the grant program will not produce.beneficial results commensurate with further expenditure of funds. The Council and the Grantee shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and, in the case of partial terminations, the portion to be terminated. The Grantee shall not incur new obligations for the terminated portion after the effective date, and shall cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible. The Council shall allow full credit to the Grantee for the federal share of the noncancellable obligations properly incurred by the Grantee prior td termination. 12. Maintenance of Records and Audit: The Grantee shall maintain all required records and provide the Council an audit performed in accordance with 014B Circular A-128f Audits of State and Local Governments. That audit will be reviewed by the Council for compliance with federal laws and regulations. Grantee will ensure that appropriatecorrective action is taken within six months after receipt of the audit report in instances of noncompliance with federal laws and regulations. 4 13. There are no"third party beneficiaries to this contract. COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT Date: B Administrator Grantee Date: By Title: 6:3/307Fconl S Attachment Cover Sheet 1988 Grant Application Form Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program L Legal Applicant (Name, Organization. and Address) Town of Quantico 507 C Street Quantico, vA 22134 2. Project Title Environmental Investigation of Shoreline Stabilization 3. Area of Project Impact Town of Quantico 4. Project Starting Date and Ending Data November 1, 1988 to September 30, 1989 5. Project Duration (In months) 11 Months 6. Proposed Funding a. Federal (CZM) 0 b. State $14,000 c. Local $ 6,000 d. Other 0 e. Total $20,000 7. Brief Description of Applicant's Project A thorough investigation of all environmental factors as they relate to the implementation of measures necessary to stabilize shoreline areas will be performed. 8. Products The results of the environmental investigation will be a report summarizing the various components described within this proposal, and the identification of strategies necessary to stabilize shoreline areas. 9. Individual Authorized to Make Application a. Typed Name and Title b. Signature and Date Signed Howard Bolognese Mayor of Quantico November 13, 1988 Project contact is Mitchel P. Raftelis, Town Councilman Environmental Investigation of-Shoreline and Proposed Marina COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT NEED DescAptid in 1985 the Town of Quantico received 4.21 acres of prime Potomac riverfront property from the Federal doveirnment. The remainder of the Town is bounded by the Quantico Marine Bass. the riverfront property was given to the Town with the uhderstanding that it was to be obtained as a public area for recreational use. The site, which provides the Town's only direct access to the river, currently has no appropriate public access to the river,and Is bounded by a deteriorating sea wall. Because the river turns at this location, debris from the upper river is often washed in along the shore, where it is trapped, effectively preventing use of this section of the river for recreational activities. The Town of Quantico proposes developing the land area as a public park and constructing a marina which extends some distance into the rivet. A conceptual- plan for the integrated development of a marina and a public park, with a riverwalk providing pedestrian access to the riverfront from the Town's main street, has been prepared. The key elements of this plan are the construction of a breakwater and piers and the restoration of the deteriorating seawall. However, before the marina and other amenities are designed and constructed, existing shoreline erosion must be properly managed and these areas stabilized. Also, appropriate enviroratental research must be completed to ensure that the proposed piers, breakwater, and seawall are compatiblewith the existing adjacent uses and to ensure that the improvements to the riverfront preserve the shoreline, maintain optimal water circulation, and enhance public.. access to.the river. I=aet The waterfront area encompassed in this proposal represents the only access the Town of Quantico has to the river and also the only area readily available for tax bass expansion. Proper planning for the-seawall, the breakwater, and the piers will allow the Town to go forward with a limited economic expansion, through the development of the marina and auxiliary marine services, while maintaining the ecological integrity of this portion of the Potomac River. Careful environmental research should provide the information.necassary to develop and implement shoreline stabilization measures, and design a breakwater and piers which will prevent the continual accumulation of debris in the cove'' of the river. When completed the total riverfront project will result in greatly improved river access for both the boating and non-boating public. a reduction in the amount of debris at the shoreline, protection and/or enhancement of water quality, a stabilized shoreline, a more diversified tax base for the Town of Quantico. and improved recreational opportunities for both the residents of the Town of Quantico and the military personnel and their families stationed at the Quantico Marine Base. Ymmediacy, Quantico is a town of approximately 600 people and is surrounded, on all sides except the riverfront, by the Quantico Marine Base. Its economic base is derived solely from real estate tax collections. The Town wishes to fulfill the terms of the gift of land it has received from the Federal Government by planning a public use facility along the riverfrone. However, because of its size and its small tax bass, the Town has no planning staff and does not. have the resources available to conduct the environmental research necessary to plan an environmentally sound waterfront project. Additionally, failure .to dwvelop the waterfront may well result in a decrease of the environmental quality of the area as the seawall area continues to deteriorate, shoreline erosion becomes more prevalent, and debris continues to accumulate along the shoreline. Benefita ! / The State 6mprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan has identified a significant need for boater access.to the Potomac below the Occoquan Riv--,r. This- project will result in the creation of a 111-slip marina as wall as a boat launch ramp, significantly increasing boater access to the Potomac. The park's path system will run along the seawall and will be designed to include river outlook areas, providing waterfront access for those who wish to enjoy the river, but who do not own boats. A well designed marina, along with the development of support services such as a marine store and a restaurant, will offer the Town an opportunity to expand its economic tax base by drawing visito;s and boaters to the aesthetically pleasing watarfzout area, while providing Increased recreational- opportunities to the Town's residents. A well conducted environmental investigation will ensure that the marina will function properly over the years and continue to attract visitors to the Town. RelationshiD Of P1020291 The proposed activities are intended to enable the Town of Quanticb to plan an ecologically sound waterfront park and marina and to restore a deteriorating seawall within the Town. The Town of Quantico has been given the waterfront' property, which provides its only access to the Potomac Liver, by the Federal Government on the condition the land be developed for public recreational use. It is the Town's wish to plan and develop a top quality marina and riverfront recreational area. However, the Town lacks the capacity to undertake an in-depth study -of the environmental issues involved with the design of the marina and the seawall. Adequate funding of the environmental research is a necessary prerequisite to any further development of the site. PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY Objec The objective of this proposal is to secure funds to perform an in-depth study of the environmental issues involved with the protection of shoreline areas, and the design of a marina and seawall for the Town of Quantico. If the grant is awarded, the -Town's Marina Committee will meet to develop a request for proposals to be sent to coastal and marine engineering firms and othec. appropriate agencies. After a group is selected, it will begin producing results as described below. When the job is completed, the Town will be prepared to embark on the next stage of development of the--marina which is to obtain from an engineering firm final approved construction plans, specifications, cost estimates and all applicable permits. .3- Previous Studies A preliminary planning study for the integrated park and marina an thO. riverfront.parcel of land was prepared for the Town of Quantico in the summer of 1996. Two professors, Dr. James Hall and Dr. Ernest Morant, from Hampton University performed the study using funds that were provided from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The products of the study include d a two-page narrative, a cost estimate ar@ a conceptual layout of the park and marina. A copy. of these results is attached to this proposal. The results of this study will be used as a point.of departure for the in-depth environmental investigation associated with this proposal. Descril2tion The.purpose of the project is to thoroughly investigate the waterfront area' in terms of environmental factors so that the Town of Quantico can ensure that shoreline areas are preserved and adequate information is developed so that proposed development programs can proceed without impacting shoreline areas. Also this program will help determine the effects on water quality due to poor circulation; and effects of wind and waves on shoreline areas. Specifically, the Town will engage an environmental consultant to provide the services described below.- The Town Treasurer and the Town Clerk for the Town of Quantico will manage the project and be the contacts with the environmental consultant. Below are described the tasks to be performed by the consultant. 0 A list of permits that the Town will be required to apply.for will be provided. 0 A bathymotric survey of the proposed marina area from the existing Marine Corps dock to the upstream property line will be performed such that a contour map of the area is produced.e 0 Shoreline changes will be investigated by reviewing old photographs and ma@s of the area to predict the amount of erosion and sedimentation and to allow a design of the breakwaters, piers and seawalls that take this into account. I 0 Sediments will be sampled and analyzed to determine kny environmental sensitivities and to specify methods of dredging.,-,, 0 An Luvestigation of the amount of dredging to be done during construction of the marina will be performed. Factors to be considered in the investigation include the type of boats-that are expected to use the marina and their associated drafts; the rate of sedimentation; and the life of the project. Possible locations of where the dredged material can be placed will be determined. 0 Various tidal and flooding elevations will be investigated to establish nooded'shoralLne protection measures, and the final elevations of piers and seawall. .4- A study of the wind and wave climates will be performed to deze'rmine the requtred strength of.tbe breakwater and seawall, and neeaed shoreline stabilization measures. Consistm= A thorough study of the environme:ptal and physical factors involved in shoreline stabilization needs will be uiilized by the Town of Quantico so that riverfront development programs do not* adversely impact shoreline area. Also, this effort is with the design of a water front park area, and is consistent with the Town's wishes of developing the riverfront area in ar-manner such that the Town citizens and tourists can safely enjoy the recreational benefits that their Town has to offer. The terms of the proposal are also consistent with the stipulations that the Federal Government required when the land was given as a gift. This proposal is clearly consistent with the goals' of the Coastal Resources Management Program that state its purpose Is "to assist local governments . . . to address issues such as protection and enhancement of water quality and living aquatic resources, the protection and management of shoreline areas, and the accommodation of growth and development in an environmentally sound manner." Costs Personnel Costs - Salaries and fringe benefits Total Funding Local Gov't Request Match Town of Quantico Treasurer (9%) $ 2,400 $ 2,400) in-k: Contracted Services $17,400 $14@000 (2 3.40g) cash Subtotal $19,800 ..$14,000 ($ 5,800) Direct Costs - Postage, Supplies and Reproduction $ 2QO S (S 200) $20,000 $14,000 ($ 6,000) Duration The project vill commence on November 1, 1988 and be completed by September 30, 1989 allowing eleven months to perform the desired tasks. Product The Tovn of Quantico wMects to receive a report illustrating environmental constraints and shoreline stabilization needs. This report will Include the most effective angle of the outer jetty to protect the shoreline area and design requirements of the seawall to prevent shoreline erosion. This report will be further utilized by the Town of Quantico to revise the layout of the marina and modify previous design requirements of the breakwater, piers and seawall which take into account the findings of this environmental investigation of the riverfront area. LAw OFFICES TURNER, BRICE & HORTON EXECUTIVE iNTERPRISES BUILOING 236 SOUTH FRALEY BOULEVARD OUMFRIES. VIRGINIA 22026 JAMES S. G. TURNER May 3, 19 85 t7031 221-1131 JANICE JBRICE Mrrwo 385-8460 ROSS G. MORTON Mr. James Coleman, Regional Director National Parks Service, Mid Atlantic Region United States Department of the Interior 143 South Third Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Re: (Portion) Parcel No. 8 Marine Corps Development Command Quantico, Prince William County, Virginia GSA Control No. 4-N-VA-493-M Dear Mr. Coleman: On behalf of the Town of Quantico, Virginia, I am pleased to transmit an original and four copies of an application by the Town to acquire the above -referenced property located within the Town for development for park and recreation purposes. The area in question includes six parcels containing a total -of 4.21 fee acres. Please be advised that the Town of Quantico is willing to take immediate possession of the subject property upon approval. Much of the property can be put to immediate use since it is already used @for park and recreation purposes. The proposed development of park and recreational facilities on the site can be accomplished in harmony with the housing area located in the Town adjacent to the site and in harmony with the surrounding military base. ThiS park will. be an asset not only-to the Town but also to the surrounding community including personnel stationed at the Marine Corps facility at Quantico. If there are any questions concerning this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. On behalf of the Town, I would like to thank you for your assistance in this important matte r. Very truly yours, Ross G. Horton RGH/pde encls. cc: Town 4Council, Town of Quantico Geopral St-@r vicot- Auinini,,ii. c1tion. Region 4 75S pring Street SW. Atlinta. GA 30303 J6-'L July 10, 1985 L Mr. James W. Coleman, Jr. .1-101 77"" Regional Director U. S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Mid-Atlantic Region 143 South Third Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 A-is Dear.Mr. Coleman: Reference is made to your letter of May 10, 1985, to Mr. Donald F. Layfield requesting that the property identified below be assigned to the Secretary of the Interior for conveyance at 100 percent public discount to the Town of Quantico, Virginia, for public park or recreational purposes. Property Identification Reporting Agency Description 4-N-VA-493-M Marine Corps-Develop- (P) Parcel No. 8, ment and Education Marine Corps Develop- Command ment Command, Quantico, Quantico, VA 22134 Prince William County, Virginia (4,21 A -) Pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator of the General Services Administration,by the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 63 Statute 3771 as amended, and a delegation of that authority by him, I hereby assign the above-mentioned property to the Secretary of Interior for disposal for public park and recreational purposes as outlined above, in accordance with the provisions of Section 203(k)(2) of said Act, subject to the terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions, if any, contained in the Report of Excess Real Property. We transfer this property subject to your compliance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, subject: FlQodpl.ain Management and Protection of Wetlands; and other appropr ia te guidelines, regulations, laws, and executive orders pertaining to the future use of this property. Mr. James W. Coleman, Jr* -2- July 10, 1985 No objection is interposed to the proposed conveyance of the property at 100 percent public benefit allowance, subject to the usual terms and conditions in transfers of property for on- site use. The responsibility for custody and accountability of the property and the protection and maintenance thereof, pending disposition,. will be governed by the provisions of Federal Property Management Regulation 101-47.402. Enclosed is a copy of Standard Form 118 covering the property. If you need additional information, please.,let us know. Sincerely, B. C. TBY Ac in irector Disposal Division Enclosure C. TB r @Ici'nq@@i e' DESCRIPTION OF EXCESS PROPERTY ADJOINING TOWN OF QUANTICO This is the division of a parcel of land located at the Marine Corps Development and Education Command, Quantico, Virginia in the County of Prince William. The division is as a result by-the Command to excess six parcels of land containing. 4.21 acres of an original 4.38 acre parcel acquired in 1942 for an improved access to the US Naval Hospital. Said parcel of land is shown on the Real Estate Summary Map 1309517, in the Plat Description as Item No 6, containing 4.38 acres and was the civil deed of taking No 473 dtd 10-13-42 and on the Composite Property Map, PW Dwg No 1739 and is listed as Parcel No 8. The said parcel will be divided into 7 parcels of land and will be identified as Parcels "A" through "G". Parcel "A" Said parcel begins at a point which is located N 670 25' 00" W 53.33' froll, US Mon No 134, and is located on the west edge of the right-of-way leading to the Naval Regional Medical Clinic and the north edge of Potomac Avenue. Thence continuing along the right-of-way of Potomac Avenue N 67* 25' 00" W 88.03' to an iron pipe set in concrete; thence N 220 35' 00' E 120.00' to a point; thence S 670 25' 00" E 88.03' to a point in the edge of the right-of-way leading to Naval Regional Medical Clinic; thence along the edge of the said right-of-way S 22'0 35' 00" W 120.00' to the point of beginning containing an area of .243 acre. Parcel "B" Said parcel is located on the west edge of the Naval Regional Medical Clinic right-of-way and is N 22* 35' 00" E 116.00' along the said right-of-way from Parcel "A". Thence N 670 25' 00" W 88.03' to a point; thence N 220 35, 00" E 50.00' to a point; thence S 67* 25' 00" E 88.03' to a point in the above mentioned right-of-way; thence S 220 35' 00" W 50.00 ' to the point of @eginning containing .101 acre. Said parcel is a continuation of Fourth Avenue in the Town of Quantico. Parcel "C" Parcel "C" begins at a point which is located on the west edge of the Naval Regional Medical Clinic right-of-way and is a common corner with Parcel "B". Running N 67* 25' 00" W 88.03' to a point; thence N 220 35' 00" E 230.00, to a point which is a common corner with Third Avenue; thence S 670 251 00" E 88.03' to a point in the said right-of-way; thence S 220 35' 00" W 230.00' alony the right-of-way to the point of beginning containing .465 acre. Parcel "D" Said parcel begins at a point that is a common corner to Parcel "C", and the Naval Regional Medical Clinic right-of-way. Running N 670 25' 00" W 88.03' to a point; thence N 220 35' 00" E 40.00' to a point; thence S 670 25' 00" E 88.03' to a point in the said right-of-way; thence S 220 35' 00" W 40.00' along the right of way to the point of beginning containing .081 acre and is the continuation of Third Avenue in the Town of Quantico. Parcel "E" Said parcel begins at a common corner with Parcel "D" and the Naval Regional Medical Clinic right-of-way. Running, N 670 25' 00" W 88.03' to a point; thence N 22* 35' 00" E 187.97' to a point in the line from Prop Mon 141 to Prop Mon 142; thence along the same S 520 40' 00" E 91.03; to a point on the Naval Regional Medical Clinic right-of-way; thence along said right-of-way S 220 35' 00" W 164.79; to the point of beginning containing .356 acre. Parcel I" Said parcel includes North River Road and is the Naval Regional Medical Clinic right-of-way. Parcel begins at a point N 670 25' 00" W 19.33' from US Prop Mon No 134. Running N 670 25' 00" W 34.00 to a point located on the north edge of Potomac Avenue and a common corner to Parcel "A"; thence N 22' 35' 00" E 720.79' to a point in the line from US Prop Mon 141 to US Prop Mon 142; thence running with the same S 520 40' 00" E 35.16' to a point; thence S 220 35' 00 W 711.84' to the point of beginning containing .562 acre of which .168 acre is a part of the original 4.38 acre deed of taking and .394 acre which is North River Road, formerly known as Shipyard Road and is excluded from excessing. Parcel "G" Beginning at a point which is the intersection of the north edge of Potomac Avenue, east edge of the Naval Regional Medical Clinic right-of-way, and the old Riverview Hotel Property. Said point is N 670 25' 00" W 19.33' from US Gov't Prop Mon No 134. Running N 22* 35' 00" E 711.84' to a point in the line from Prop Mon No 141 to Mon No 142; thence S 520 40' 00" E 313.8V to US Prop Mon No 142; thence with the mean-high water mark of the Potomac river to the intersection of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Potomac Avenue; thence running N 67' 25' 00" W along the right-of-way line of Potomac Avenue to the point of beginning. Parcel "G" excludes two parcels of land that are privately owned. The acreage figure for Parcel "G" was determined by subtracting Parcels "A" through "V from the original deed of taking, civil No 473 dtd 10-13-42, containing 4.38 acres. Unable to mathematically close the boundary traverse due to original deed description calling for along the mean high water mark of the Potomac River to the intersection of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Potomac Avenue; thence along the right-of-way line of Potomac Avenue to the point of beginning. 2 ZZ04, Iwo - 00, %lCl I 356 Ac. C` At Cl '0 '11* '08/ co .465Ac 2962 Acres w 4@ 14 Go All* oq oell CV CIO MEAN H[GH WATER WAL 840's. cv cv OA 0 0 243 Ac. VA rF 00*. 403' to .00* :47'* 14 S. Gov r- PROP. 6? I"= Inc), 17 APPENDIX 2 Town of Quantico's Request for Proposals 1989 TOWN OF QUANTICO P.O. E30X 1S2 QUANTICO. VIRGINIA 22134 January 30, 1989 Ms. Cara Bobchek Director of Marketing Dewberry & Davis 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031 Dear Ms. Bobcheck: The Town of Quantico is accepting proposals for work to be conducted under a Coastal Resources Management Grant. The objective of this project is to identify the environmental sensitivities of a portion of the Potomac river front that is to be developed into a public park and marina. As part of the work program the selected consultant should provide the Town with a report identifying: o Expected impacts of park and marina development. o Strategies to protect the shoreline area and other identified environmentally sensitive areas. o Necessary sea walls, jetties, groins, bulkheads, etc., and design criteria. o Required permits. o Required dredging. Also a bathymetric survey of the study area should be performed and a bathymetric map of the area should be provided to the Town. The project completion date is September 1, 1989. A copy of the Request for Proposals as it appeared in the Monday, January 30, 1989, edition of the Washington Post, is enclosed. If you have any questions, please direct them to Beth Topol, Environmental Planner for the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, 703-642-0700. Sincerely, Mitchell afte i Councilman, Town f Quantico MR/BT/ls Enclosure @he 1@a-f--e cil To man wn f Quant Shoreline Management The Town Of Quantico is accepting proposals for work to be performed under a Coastal Resources Management Grant. The project is designed to identify environmental sensitivities and make recommendations to protect portions of the Potomac Shoreline. The goal is to convert this riverfront area into a recreational park and marina in an environmentally sound manner. The scope of work will include but not be limited to: 1 Identification of permits for shoreline stabilization and marina development. 2.A bathymetric survey. 3.Evaluation of shoreline erosion and sedimentation. 4-Sediment analysis. 5-ldentification of all dredging needs. 6-Ticlal and flood water elevation identification. 7.Wind and wave climate assessment. Expected products include a report: I-Listing environmental constraints and shoreline stabilization needs. 2. Identif ying effective angles and design requirements for structures needed to protect shoreline areas. 3.1-isting required permits for shoreline stabilization and marina development activities. 4.1dentifying all required dredging and possible locations for dredge spoils. Also. a bathymetric map of the Study area must be provided. Six copies of the proposal should be submitted to the Town of Ouantico, P.O. Box 152, Ouantico, VA 22134 by February 21, 1989, 4:00 P.m. For more info. call 703- 642-0700. The Town may accept or reject any or all proposals. EOE. APPENDIX 3 List of Sources of Information and Selected Bibliography APPENDIX 3 LIST OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY The following is a list of historic maps, plans, photographs, communications, and other documents and sources of information that were obtained through the Town of Quantico, Quantico Marine Corps Base, Northern Virginia Planning District Commission and other sources. Also furnished is a list of selected bibliography. 0 Coastal Resources Management Grant Contract. 0 Quantico Municipal Park Quitclaim Deed, and relevant communication between the U.S. National Parks Service, General Services Administration and Town's Attorney. 0 Quantico Municipal Park Deed Signing Ceremony, and relevant addresses and documents. o Guantico Munici2al Park Proposal, 1"=100' scale Concept Plan, by James Hall III, Hampton University, through Community Assistance Grant, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Summer 1966. 0 Zoning Ordinance, Town of Quantico. 0 Town Code, Town of Quantico. 0 Town of Quantico Plat. 0 Comprehensive Plan, Text and Maps, Town of Quantico, 1980. 0 FEMA Report, February 1978, and FIRM Map. 0 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Potomac River, Douglas Point to Cockpit Point, Maryland and Virginia, Soundings, 1:10,000 Scale, 1904. 0 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Potomac River, Aquia Creek to Mattawoman Creek, Marvland and Virginia, Land Topography and Shoreline, 1:20,000 Scale, 1903-1904. 0 Joseph Barry, Surveyor, Plat Showing Property of the Quantico Company, Shoreline, I"=400' scale, 1916. 0 Subsurface Survey Bureau, Preliminary Map Boundary Showing Parcels 1,2 &3, and U.S. Marine Corps Reservation, Quantico, Shoreline, I"=1000' scale, 1920. o Guantico Marine Corps Base, Map of Marine Barracks, with Soundings, I"=200' scale, June 30, 1928. 0 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Topographic Map No. T-5763, Maryland-Virginia Potomac River, Neabsco Creek - Quantico, 1:10,000 Scale, 1940. 0 National Ocean Survey, Hydrographic Survey No. 9322f Virginia-Maryland, Potomac River, Vicinity of Quantico, Soundings, 1:10,000 scale, 1972. 0 U.S. Geologic Survey, Quantico, VA.-MD.-, SE/4 Quantico 15' Quadrangle, 1:24,000 scale, 1966, Photorevised 1983, Bathymetry added 1982. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY American Institute of Architects: "Marinas," in Ramsey/Sleeper Architectural Standards, 7th Ed., Robert T. Packard, Editor, American Institute of Architects, New York, 1985. American Wood Preservers' Association: Standard C18-77: Standard for Pressure Treated Material in Marine Construction, 1977. American Wood Preservers Institute: AWPI Technical Guidelines for Pressure Treated Wood - S2 Bulkheads: Design and Construction - Part 1, 1970- Bruun, Per: Port Engineering, 3rd Ed., Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX, 1981. DeChiara, Joseph, and Koppelman, Lee E.: "Waterfront Development: Docks and Floats, Marinas," in Time-Saver Standards for Site Planning, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984. Fisher, Hugo B.: Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters, Academic Press, New York, 1979. Fleming, Charles A., Austin, Robin L. and Braley III, Charles A.: Quantico: Crossroads of the Marine Corps, History and Museums Division Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., 1978. MEECO Marinas, Inc.: Floating Marina Systems, McAllister, OK, 1989. P ile Buck, Inc.: Pile Buck Steel Shet Piling Design Manual, Revised Reprint of Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual originally published by U.S. Steel Corporation, Jupiter, FL, 1987. Pile Buck, Inc.: The Pile Buck Annual, Jupiter, FL, 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Low Cost Shore Protection ... A Guide for Engineers and Contractors, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1961. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Low-Cost Shore Protection, Final Report on the Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration Program (Section 54), Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., 1981. U*S"' Army Corps of Enqlneersi Shore Protection Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1984. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Engineering and Design: Design of Coastal Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads, EM 1110-2-1614, 30 April 1985. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Engineering and Design: Hydraulic Design of Small Boat Harbors, EM 1110-2-1615, 25 September 1964. U.S. Department of Commerce: 1989 Tide Tables: High and Low Water Predictions, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, Washington, D.C., 1989. U.S. Department of Commerce: Tidal Currents 1989, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, Washington, D.C., 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook, Region IV, Atlanta, GA, April 1965. Whiteneck, Lawrence L., and Hockney, Lester A.: Structural Materials for Harbor and Coastal Construction, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1939. APPENDIX 4 Personal Interview Su=aries, Records of Correspondence QUANTICO RIVERFRONT STUDY RROJECT STAFF SITE VISIT JUNE 16@ 1989 ATTENDEES: Oner YLIcel, Bob Hallermeier, Mark Headly and Rusty Arcuni (Harbor Master) 0 The meeting was held for two purposes: 1. To discuss various aspects of the project with Rusty, 2. For Bob H. Mark H. to inspect the site. 0 We presented a quick overview of the project based on D&D's preliminary topo, and expressed our intention to conduct soon some field measurements with a boat. We showed the a table of tide range calculations OY had prepared.and confirmed its accuracy with Rusty. Upon our request, Rusty voluntereed the following comments: Currents can be strong. During the tide coming Lip the river, the marina basin is protected by the Marine Base dock, and hence is usually quiescent. During the ebb cycle as the -tide leaves down the river, however, the marina basin is subjected to a very visible and consistent "whirl" created by currents coming in from north and after following a counterclockwise course leave the basin in a direction roughly perpendicular to the river. [It was a day with moderate southerly winds and the tide was receding according to the tide table predictions. We observed that the boats anchored immediately north of the dock were quite protected, while those anchored further away from the dock and in somewhat less protected positions had taken different orientations, indicating the local current directions.] The Marine Base dock has been flooded to the level of my knees [which we estimated to be 8.5', or 3 ft above the top of dock, 5.5' MSLI on an otherwise calm day without wind-driven waves a few years ago [probably during the 1985 storm. Bob H. indicated that there may be a need for revewing the 100-year flood levels.] However, no damage was Sustained to the boats that were attached to the floating docks within the marina basin. Nevetheless, Rusty commented that a higher breakwater should probably be designed for the proposed marina. 19 Rusty does not remember any maintenance dredging ever done in and around the marina. The 30' to 35'-deep hole outboard of the dock has always been there, and the marina basin itself has never paused any "draft" problems for the boats (up to 40' to 50' 1-6ngth). Rusty indicated that the Base marina is always clean and they certainly prevent oil spills from occuring, but the Town's beach needs clean-Lip four times a year. Rusty indicated that the depths shown on D&D's topo are inaccurate are basically good, except that they should nearly 5' deeper along the perimeter of the basin, and that along a line projected parallel to the outer edge of the Marine dock, the depths should be 20' to 25'. [MH and OY checked the spot shots in the area shown on the preliminary topo, and decided that the discrepancy may not be a serious one. However, MH will explore the possibility of using fish-finder to confirm the water depths in the area during their field work. Upon his request, we will furnish Rusty with copies of the current and 192LS topo as well as other plans.] Rusty also pointed out that -there is an underwater storm drain pipe approximately following the property line in the north, that is exposed during extremely low tide conditions. (Mark H will try to locate it.] Rusty strongly criticized the previous sketch plan in regards to the "solid wall" in the south as well as distant and inadequate parking facilities. He suggested that there is no need for the wall in the south, that the parking facility should be next to the shoreline to Accomodate temporary and permanent storage of boats. Rusty agreed with our plans of creating a mirror image of the Marine Base marina in the Town marina basin, including the "sufficiently long" breakwater in the north and strongly recommended "floating docks" South of the breakwater. Rusty commented that the proposed marina should best be designed primarily for "large, luxury" boats for "rich" indivuals to retire in Quantico, and suggested that the Town marina should have at least A-0 slips for 40' to 50' boats. Accordingly, he Suggested that the marina basin should be dredged to 6' to 8' depth. Rusty indicated that except for the visible beach area south of the shoreline, the bottom of the marina basin is all mud. He also suggested that the "dredge problem" will be a formidable one, and asked several times as to how D&D is planning to dispose of the dredge material. The only logical place he can suggest for the disposal site is the "wetlands" area northwest of River Road, but recognizes the problem with these tidal wetlands. Rusty referred to the six large-size "ice-eaters" he has in the Marine Base marina, strongly recommended that we consider ice as a major problem. - Rusty expressed his willingness to help us as needed. Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication Date 62 -o-M-63 I Routing 0 iz I Talked With M", T06A e tila @A Co-__ Of V Action Phone No. t7 -@2200 Recorder lncominj-] ing Reference Information Z, ztjz-,@r d, C, Topic: 1-fk C, L.0, J I k/ /1-1 dW4 cl V-- 0 6, C41"I 0,1,1 4 U A a j ruiceallf-d C, 951 COP L It IC LA A VJ 4t, -ci t f 4L r e V-2qLJ4.,e,-/,L ,e C.@@ Q d 4,c gs@,, @n- C, teA on A 'a TT 4L re a c/ i -e-d e 114 Aavve- / -e 14 kr. `@Fdkjlz Pa-j V I'Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication Date Routing Talked With Of IZA/ C t9b 4- 3 (P -7 6 (a 8 Action Phone No. Recorder, 7e, ho,,u /j, /0 01 lncorningF@ Outgoing V Reference -A@In parm4 Informatio /1--c- 4 Topic: i., 4 9 s4 Z, Ae AA-41 vwcw rer,--7A icdvi A-e 0 4 . I @ I IL-/ - Rj 71 Co *1 ct 4-:z :J4 t L 7-127-71'@zllgc -try Qkl a A-0 I' C a V, A INC, A da-1 I.Jf Xe ff AV . A/ 9 V KNOW 2@!d d 4 ::@b .1 LAI Ila i, 4A 4 A^ 4 f,,@d 6 e, MIL 4 Ajllc 4z;11j /At 4 1A C44 'k ruc@ AJ @124 Su@ cTei-Te Uj I C,11 -P110w1Ik*- ot vel, V AA PC -@- - P( V w (---D , -36-7,67:711 VA tov^e*. 1 0, @,qv- (004)-7X,-4J-bb iDewberry & Davis ilei Record of Communication Date Routing Talked Wit 0, Action Phone NO. ye2 Recorder Incoming 17 Outgoingo Reference information Topic: 61 4eyl- -2-AF h @-w (6@2@1-1- e4 IDewberry & Davis I Record of Communication Date Routing Talked With 11-fae- Ale, Of Zjad, (34@ Action Phone No. Recorder t Incoming Outgoing Ref ere nce Information awdn@ -4=2 Topic: .1w Ze Zl--/ .-1 74 1 1-4 M09 0 iDewberry & Davis ,$nxia Record of Communication Date 49- 19 Routing Talked Wit Of Action Phone No. Recorder ' ncorningix! Outgoing Reference Information n, Topic: ea -14 V r5d A4 -41 Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication Date 6 - 3- 99 Routing Talked With of Phone NO. @P7 Action C3 Recorder Incoming Outgoing Reference Information Topic: -t dX., 4e. V :J I A,& Py-r' gDewberry Davis Record of Communication Date 19 9 Routing Talked With 0,-, 4" Me Oyle 0, /)A-,) R - M-2d Action Phone NO. 63,ol 7Y 187 Recorder Incoming F11 Outgoing Reference Information Topic: a. e.,4 :v,- 4,4 -3-1 Dewberry Davis Record of Communication Date Routing Talked With 0 f 4 fg C, PhoneNo. Action Recorder F-1 Incoming" Outgoing Reference Information Topic: L 4, 'Ile /V /1-f Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication Date Routing Talked With Of Action PhoneNo.L?-@2/1 Recorder A@/ Incoming Outgoing Reference Information Topic- e, e- V/ 4...,,l 4.-iv rv 64 4,@ 67 ogg e 91. 4P- A I!n a. R 9 XX,,f A/e-.. Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication Date Routing Talked With Of Action Phone No. 7 4 T@2- Recorder Incoming 7 Outgoing Reference information Topic: L/ 6 4ax V le_7 I'Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication 01@ Date 91 14- JP5 Routing El Lk,:- Talked With LIFe- Pr(LL- 4_91@5= Of Action Phone No.__. 4-2,--712,) Recorder Dy Incoming Outgoing Reference G)UAKY-QCIO Information Topic: SI-re- M-rcc- e- ck Jae-, z"a I bd fan'% ch&S L% U U kill zs@,,j Gj1,0 &,K:M QjeaL)&,M MA= tp- Lteo Mf Ke +&0_ 9 fie- LIP- c--,@.K,4- 6zk- T@_ VtA,) 'Smac=e f L C 4 Uji aV e crz&4A 0^ AV r- OP. _111diAJir.1,j, 6,1i'lk:b U4 4- 44 (,@U r A ' 7 f e,, Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication Date q- Routing Talked With C 0 Of Action Phone No..000+ 796- /7& Recorder di 1. " IncomingF-1 Outgoing 0111", Reference Information Topic: A Ae XP A ((A Z4 av"'- 10'r) Lj re. Z( V-4 Z-1 ;7!1'1k7,-,A 6, k V A o,- 0/7 Ir anti, /1 e c 2.1 av I-Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication I Date Routing Talked With Of 61e @ S. Action Phone No.-....- (,(56q) Recorder Incoming 17 Outgoing Reference information VA Topic: -4, -72 /,,-&^.Ol 14L". n644 4 &',!*4 X-107C-A /ZOr- -4110 4o i-Dewberry & Davis Record of Communication Date- Routing Talked With Of Action Phone No. Recorder Incoming OutgoingF-1 Reference Information Topic: e Q ed @e L17 dL- e-0 A.6i 4L.- (761 August 11, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO Various Agency Representatives FROM Kurt R. Thompson, P.E., Dewberry & Davis SUBJECT Quantico Potomac Riverfront Environmental Study Per telephone conversations with representatives of Dewberr y & Davis, this is to provide directions and additional relevant information concerning the site meeting scheduled on the above referenced project. We are planning to meet at the site near the beach area in the southern portion of the park between River Road and shoreline, at noon on August 21, 1989. Please consult attached directions, a vicinity map and a project schematic. Also attached for your information are a brief description of the project and a list of the various agency representatives who may attend the site meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting, or have any questions, please contact me or Oner Yucel at (703) 849-0554. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Dewberry & Davis ,119alb Agency Representatives to Attend the Site Meetin&.L Ms. Beth Topol NVPDC, 7630 Little River Turnpike, Suite 400 Annandale, VA 22003 (703) 642-0700 Mr. Mitchel P. Raft6lis 503 C Street, Quantico, VA 22134 (703) 640-7979 Mr. James E. Brogdon U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northern Virginia Field Office Plaza South, Suite 102, 138 Graham Park Road Dumphries, VA 22026 (703) 221-6967 Mr. Les Balderson Virginia State Water Control Board, P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, VA 22230-1143 (804) 367-0062 Mr. Chuck Roadley Virginia Marine Resources Commission, P.O. Box 756 Newport News, VA 23607 (804) 247-2200 Mrs. Julie Bradshaw Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences Gloucester Point, VA 23062 (804) 642-7395 Mr, Lee Hill Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service, P.O. Box 1024 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 (804) 642-7121 Mr. Doldon Moore, Jr. Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration Tidal Wetlands Division, Tawes State Office Building, D-4 Annapolis, MD 21401 (301) 974-3871 Mr. Sean Smith Department of the Environment Standards and Certifications Division, 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD, 21224 (301) 631-3609 Mr. Maurice Foushee Prince William County, Planning Office 1 County Complex Court Prince William, VA 22192-9201 (703) 335-6830 Dewberry & Davis ffid A.'al '611922- 0- Directions: From Washington, DC and north/east: Take 1-95 South From Richmond, VA and south: Take 1-95 North Take Exit 50 to 619 East (also Fuller Road) for Quantico. Follow Fuller Road to end, passing through the Quantico Marine Base Gate. You may tell the guard at the gate that you will be going to the marina, and he should let you through. Follow to the Town of Quantico. Turn left, crossing the railroad "tracks, on to Potomac Avenue and into the Town. FolloW-to.end of Potomac Avenue, which continues to become the Marine Base's dock. Turn left on to River Road. The project area is on the right, between River Road and the shoreline, also north of the Quantico Marine Base's dock. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dewberry & Davis (D&D) was selected to perform the environmental and engineering services for this project on behalf of the Town of Quantico, Virginia, and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC). Shoreline stabilization is an essential element of the proposed public park and marina facilities in the area donated to the Town of Quantico by the Federal Goverment. As shown on the attached vicinity map, the riverfront in this project area is the only access to the Potomac River for the Town. The condition of the shoreline is featured by a deteriorated masonry seawall with accompanying shoreline erosion and a narrow beach along a short segment of the shoreline in the south. Field surveys and environmental measurements, historic trends of the shoreline migration, analysis of published information and other evaluations revealed that a breakwater can provide an adequate stabilization and protection means for the shoreline and the proposed public park and marina facilities. Thus, one primary purpose of the project is to study the environmental aspects of the project, including the potential environmental impact of the proposed structures and dredging activities. Also included in the project work scope is to identify and assess all aspects of permit processing at the local, state and.federal levels. Dewberry & Davis RAYS fqf ILLA Sit% I 0 LE H M 4, I Dju TRIPOLI KNOLL CEDAR MOBILE HOMES FHERRYIL@l 061 @SL@ 0M .00 IL IT C,. A"t.. d FBIES 0 00 P.,k CEWILL 0 Ppl@uv 06 4& ILE HO ES-- COCKPIT P IN WILLIAVOWN 220 A 4. j 63 U FRIE RT 0- sh, kMFRIES RAN MIR q QUANTIC 0 Z G4 I KOIAN L 81 081 Z! M S PAR .,kMS ys Lf arliMs PT A PIT //A R IPi HOG XV@. 41@ 19 NOS UKAWa C', SAME ILL SHORES L 0(/ A" POSSUM BARNETTE POINT tumb.lAs FORES Box PLANT 7 m NTIC \0 ARI RK CARDINAL IINTIC HEIGHTS CORPS ASE A lQUANTIC0 CORPS A d DEVELOPM NT & S All E 011CATION1 A ES A, G I'ER lp.. pwt -@i 'BELLEAU 0 61 10 10 IIILLAGE N ARINE CORPS L 'At GO AR LAMN- .9t .'BASE Joins 4 TIC01MARINE COR L PAR DEVELOP AENT & EDUCATION COMMAND 0!! RGONNi ANTICO ILLS @JIAL I" 49ILL Lac 1, 'BLANCA JEL AVE Ell 3 KE AVf t1i 13 us Naval assam6as Foin5insver'Rigm C D F i so am (PU IC-0 C'O Qj T 91\ ewbi c C" OTT AlIZ4 4y R?ofbSED Ez ICO A 6 ee@-A IC@ 1,JA'7- "pITH ;e/fO4/0 7-be) Agency Representatives to Attend the Site Meeting..L Ms. Beth Topol NVPDC, 7630 Little River Turnpike, Suite 400 Annandale, VA 22003 (703) 642-0700 Mr. Mitchel P. Raftelis 503 C Street, Quantico, VA 22134 (703) 640-7979 Mr. James E. Brogdon U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northern Virginia Field Office Plaza South, Suite 102, 138 Graham Park Road Dumphries, VA 22026 (703) 221-6967 Mr. Les Balderson Virginia State Water Control Board, P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, VA 22230-1143 (804) 367-0062 Mr. Chuck Roadley Virginia Marine Resources Commission, P.O. Box 756 Newport News, VA 23607 (804) 247-2200 Mrs. Julie Bradshaw Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences Cloucester Point, VA 23062 (804) 642-7395 Mr. Lee Hill Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service, P.O. Box 1024 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 (804) 642-7121 Mr. Doldon Moore, Jr. Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration Tidal Wetlands Division, Tawes State Office Building, D-4 Annapolis, MD 21401 (301) 974-3871 Mr. Sean Smith Department of the Environment Standards and Certifications Division, 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 (301) 631-3609 Mr. Maurice Foushee Prince William County, Planning Office I County Complex Court Prince William, VA 22192-9201 (703) 335-6830 Dewberry & Davis Directions: From Washington, DC and north/east: Take 1-95 South From Richmond, VA and south: Take 1-95 North Take Exit 50 to 619 East (also Fuller Road) for Quantico. Follow Fuller Road to end, passing through the Quantico Marine Base Gate. You may tell the guard at the gate that you will be going to the marina, and he should let you through. Follow to the Town of Quantico. Turn left, crossing the railroad tracks, on to Potomac Avenue and into the Town. Follow to end of Potomac Avenue, which continues to become the Marine Base's dock. Turn left on to River Road. The project area is on the right, between River Road and the shoreline, also north of the Quantico Marine Base's dock. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dewberry & Davis (D&D) was selected to perform the environmental and engineering services for this project on behalf of1the Town of Quantico, Virginia, and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC). Shoreline stabilization is an essential element of the proposed public park and marina facilities in the area donated to the Town of' Quantico by the Federal Government. As shown on the attached vicinity map, the riverfront in this project area is the only access to the Potomac River for the Town. The condition of the shoreline is featured by a deteriorated masonry seawall with accompanying shoreline erosion and a narrow beach along a short segment of the shoreline in the south. Field surveys and environmental measurements, histori'd trends of the shoreline migration, analysis of published information and other evaluations revealed that a breakwater can provide an adequate stabilization and protection means for the shoreline and the proposed public park and marina facilities. Thus, one primary purpose of the project is to study the environmental aspects of the project, including the potential environmental impact of the proposed structures and dredging activities. Also included in the project work scope is to identify and assess all aspects of permit processing at the local, state and federal levels. Dewberry & Davis 6U- Pd F TRIPOLI HEIGH CEDAR KNOLL MOBILE HOMES odm 1 6 C RRY IL Mo I ADS HSI, Iff Allo. 63 .1 cl N,!,vs Nu ILL pok - v Es PvILLIP )SU NO n. WILLIA TOWN 2 202 6 63 ------------- u RT-O. -ibm Es OUAN ff 0 G L TRIANfj moel PARK th -I(- T im E, g4 p I'll, IPP p Nob 4k' PARK faillili I "ILL Cou T pm ic T A" Ossum BARNET I POINT ORIST ---'r 47 - mft USt-,' --SHAPf L\ PLANT ci TH A (6Ai,NTICID ARI CA Di At CO TCO ASE hm J 'N Co HEINTS RPS a tdkco AM I 'A'All't AITS DEVELICIRM NT S E1111CATIGNA IMMAND- loci GEIGER ELLEAU 10 10. AS A IL LAGE Is -711 join$ ma LYMAN DEVELOP WENT & PARK 01MARINE COR EDUCATION MMMAND NE 0 ANTIC I9L"CA�dLbAWj I latill AVI 12 1 ["Al Avl 13 US N. w Rm-tion im, Rio 1, T.". 0 LF-L f IF J'(F cic-. (4 N lo, All (-4y rpFb to F@?ofbseL@) ,(@J17H RhReAlo 7-bC-,) Palm, Dewberry & Davis Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mr. Sean Smith Department of the Environment Standards and Certifications Division 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, Maryland 21224 Dear Mr. Smith: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: � Agenda � Summary Minutes o List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS rt R. Thompson, P.E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC AnaaPohs, MD Greensboro, NC Marion, VA Baltunore. MD Johnson City. TN Prince Frederick, MD Danville. VA Landover. MD Raleigh. NC MD Leesburg, VA Richmond, VA Dewberry & Davis Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mr. Les Balderson Virginia State Water Control Board P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, Virginia 22230-1143 Dear Mr. Balderson: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: � Agenda � Summary Minutes o List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS Kurt R. Thompson, P.E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC Annapolis, MD Greensboro. NC Marion, VA Baltimore. MD Johnson City, TN Prince Frederick. MD Danvine. VA Landover MD Raleigh. NC Frederick. BAD Leesburg: VA Richmond, VA Dewberry & Davis 96we Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mr. Ned H. Burger Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation P.O. Box 1425 Tappahannock, Virginia 23060 Dear Mr. Burger: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: o Agenda o, Summary Minutes o List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS urt R. Thompson, P.E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC lur@ @@R@c Annapolis, NED Greensboro, NC Marion. VA Baltimore, MD Johnson City, TN Prince Frederick, MD Danville VA Landover, MD Raleigh. NC Frederic'k, MD Leesburg. VA Richmond, VA Gaithersburg, MD Manassas, VA Woodbridae. VA Dewberry & Davis Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mr. Maurice Foushee Prince William County Planning Office 1 County Complex Court Prince William, Virginia 22192-9201 Dear Mr. Foushee: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: � Agenda � Summary Minutes o, List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAV@S' urt R. Thomp:Z*P.E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC Annapolis, MD Greensboro. NC Marion, VA Baltimore, MD Johnson City, TN Prince Frederick, MD Danville. VA Landover, MD Raleigh, NC Frederick. NED Leesburg. VA Richmond, VA Gaithersburg. MD Manassas, VA Woodbridge. VA Dewberry & Davis i%; Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mr. Doldon Moore, Jr. Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Administration Tidal Wetlands Division Tawes State Office Building D-4 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Dear Mr. Moore: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: � Agenda o Summary Minutes � List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS Kurt R. Thompson, P.E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC Annapolis, MD Greensboro, NC Marion. VA Baltimore. 1VM Johnson City. TN Prince Frederick. MD Danville. VA Landover, MD Raleigh. NC Frederick. MD Leesburg. VA Richmond. VA Gaithersburg, MD Manassas, VA Woodbridge, VA Dewberry & Davis Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989' Mr. Lee Hill Chief Engineer Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service P.O. Box 1024 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 Dear Mr. Hill: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: � Agenda o Summary Minutes � List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989'. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS Kurt R. Thompson, P.E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC AnnapoLis, MD Greensboro, NC Mahon, VA Baltimore, fvm Johnson City, TN Prince Frederick. MD Danville. VA Landover. MD Raleigh, NC Frederick. 1VM Leesburg, VA Richmond, VA Gaithersburg, MD Manassas, VA Woodbridge. VA Dewberry & Davis fs Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mrs. Julie Bradshaw Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 Dear Mrs. Bradshaw: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: o Agenda o Summary Minutes o List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS F rt R. Thompson, E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC .2 u :)son7E. nz Annapolis, MD Greensboro, NC Marion. VA Baltimore, MD Johnson City. TN Prince Frederick, MD Danville, VA Landover MD Raleigh. NC Frederick. MD Leesburg: VA Richmond, VA Gaithersburg. MD Manassas, VA Woodbridge, VA Dewberry & Davis 9 Architects Engineers Plann rs Surveyors 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mr. Chuck Roadley Environmental Engineer Virginia Marine Resources Commission 2600 Washington Avenue P.O. Box 756 Newport News, Virginia 21607 Dear Mr. Roadley: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: o Agenda o, Summary Minutes o List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS Kurt R. Thompson, E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC . @E on. Annapolis. MD Greensboro, NC Manon. VA Baltimore. MD Johnson City, TN Prince Frederick. MD Danville. VA Landover, MD Raleigh, MC Frederick, MD Leesburg, VA Richmond, VA Gaithersburg, MD Manassas. VA Woodbridge. VA Dewberry & Davis Architects Engineers Planners Surveyors Vega 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 703 849-0100 August 23, 1989 Mr. James E. Brogdon Environmental Scientist Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northern Virginia Field Office Plaza South, Suite 102 138 Graham Park Road Dumphries, Virginia 22026 Dear,Mr. Bro8don: Furnished are the following items related to the Interagency site meetings held on August 21, and 22, 1989: o Agenda o Summary Minutes o List of Invited Persons and/or Attendees Please review the above information. Written comments concurring with or clarifying the minutes are requested from each agency by September 15, 1989. Additional comments are also encouraged. On behalf of the Town of Quantico, and the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, your attendance at the site meeting and any other assistance provided is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Oner Yucel at 849-0552. Sincerely, DEWBERRY & DAVIS@ rt R. Thompson, P.E. Associate KRT:bae Enclosures cc: Ms. Beth Topol, NVPDC @@urt @R Annapolis. MD Greensboro, NC Marion, VA Baltimore, MD Johnson City, TN Prince Frederick, MD Danville. VA Landover, MD Raleigh. NC Frederick. MD Leesburg, VA Richmond, VA Gaithersburg, MD Manassas, VA Woodbridge, VA QUANTICO RIVERFRONT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AGENDA FOR INTERAGENCY SITE MEETING ON AUGUST 2l and 22, 1989 I. INTRODUCTIONS D&D, NVPDC, Town of Quantico, Agencies II. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Project History Shoreline Stabilization Marina (Conceptual Plan) Park (Conceptual Plan.) III. FIELD/PUBLISHED DATA/ INFORMATION GATHERING Historical Records and Other- Land and Bathymetric Surveys Tides Winds Waves Currents Flood Elevations Wetlands Sediments Water Quality (Salinity, TSS, DO, PH) Preliminary Contacts with Permitting Agencies IV. PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES Proposed Riverfront Park and Marina Breakwater Marina Riverfront Park Environmental Aspects of Proposed Project Breakwater Dredging Tidal Flushing Alternative Shoreline Stabilization Scenarios VI. DISCUSSION Jurisdictional Responsibilities Solicitation of Verbal/Written Comments on Permits/Project QUANTICO RIVERFRONT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SUMMARY MINUTES FOR ITERAGENCY SITE MEETING ON AUGUST 21, 1989 The first meeting was held on August 21, 1989. In attendance were: James Brogdon, US Army Corps of Engineers, Northern Virginia Field Office; Charles Roadley, VMRC Julie Bradshaw, VIMS Doldon Moore, MD/DNR/Wetlands Division; Mitchell Raftelis and Howard Bolognese, Town of Quantico; Beth Topol, NVPDC; Kurt Thompson, Oner Yucel and Mark Headly, D&D. After introductions, Kurt Thompson presented a brief history and work scope of the proposed shoreline stabilizaton, waterfront park and marina project. Oner Yucel and Mark Headly followed with brief descriptions of the field and published data and information gathering activities undertaken to date by D&D. These activities include the field and bathymetric surveys, evaluatoin of historical maps and other documents on tides, waves, winds, currents, sediments and 100-yr flood elevation, as well as preliminary field work on on-site and off-site wetlands identification, currents and water quality (salinity, TSS, DO, pH) measurements, and "grab sampling of bottom sediments and the associated analyses and evaluations. Oner Yucel also presented highlights of the proposed park and marina concept, including the associated breakwater and piers, as well as the preliminary dredging and tidal flushing aspects of the marina portion of the project. Kurt Thompson emphasized that the main purpose of this meeting was to introduce the project to the agencies as a concept, to identify jurisdictional responsibilities and possible obtain comments from the agency representatives on the various aspects of the proposed project. In this regard, Kurt Thompson asked for observations and ocmments on the project from each agency representative. Subsequent comments in written form after receiving the minutes of the meeting were also encouraged. The following is a summary of the observations and comments that we offered during the site meeting. Doldon Moore (Md/DNR/Wetlands Division): pointed out that part of the proposed project that is Outboard (waterside) of the Mean Low Water line along the shoreline is in Maryland waters, and hence falls under Maryland's jurisdiction. Subject to DNR's review and issuance of a "wetlands license" Would be tine proposed marina with its breakwater and piers, tine associated dredging activities including the method of dredging and dredge material disposal, pumpout facilities., impacts to the "shallow water habitat" also referred to as "Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)" and "tidal flushing" aspects, and portion of the shoreline protection structure outboard of the Mean Low Water line. the same aspects of the project would also be subject to review for a "water quality certification" from Maryland's Department of the Environment. based on observation from the shoreline, it appears that the proposed marina basin is covered to a large extent with hydrilla, wild celery and other SAVs. From the shallow water habitat viewpoint, dredging associated with the proposed marina in this basin is generally objectionable to Md/DNR. It is likely that the US EPA and US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, other agencies and special interest organizations would respond unfavorably to the PUblic notice that would be advertised bv the Md/DNR. A potential for mitigation for this shallow water habitat site appears very low and any proposal in this regard would likely be discouraged, mainly because there is scarce evidence of Success in Maryland in the case of SAVs. "delineation of the beds" to better describe the type and density of the various SAVs may be useful if it is desired to further explore any locations that may be agreeable to Md/DNR for dredging. with minimum or no dredging, the proposed breakwater with riprap toe protection and the floating piers would likely be found less objectionable. if dredging is done using clamshell, it Would not require "water quality certification" by Maryland's Department of the Environment. The land-side disposal in Virginia would be local issue, unless its OUtfall affects Maryland waters. "economics" is only one of the criteria, and is often out- weighed by the environmental criteria. no major problems are anticipated with the shoreline protection part of the proposed project. James Brogdon (US Corps of Engineers, VA): US Corps of Engineers' Baltimore District will not be involved in this project. US Corps of Engineers Norfolk District Would have the jurisdiction regarding the issuance of a Section 404 permit for any fills and a Section 10 permit for the Structures. mainly because Of the SAVs present in the proposed marina basin, the proposed project will likely be controversial, with close Scrutiny by the US EPA, U F&WS, and National Marine Fisheries. Charles Roadley (VMRC): other than being the "clearing hOUSe" for permit processing, VMRC Would have very limited jurisdiction for this project. based on observations, it appears that the shoreline is a nonvegetated wetland by Virginia definaions. VMRC would provide "over-sight" to assist the local wetlands board in regards to the nonvegetated wetlands (the zone) between MLW and MHW). Julie Bradshaw (VIMS): VIMS Would only provide comments, if any, on this project. mainly to aid the local wetlands board. VIMS concurred that the shoreline appears to be composed of mostly nonvegetated wetlands. QUANTICO RIVERFRONT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SUMMARY MINUTES FOR INTERAGENCY SITE MEETING ON AUGUST 22, 1989 A Second meeting was held on August 22, 1989. Attending were: Lee Hill, Chief Engineer of the Shoreline Programs Bureau (SEAS), and Ned Burger, Environmental Engineer, both representing VA Dept of Conservation Div of Soil & Water Conservation Maurice Foushee, Prince William Co., Planning Office, as in the previous day's meeting. The comments provided by Lee Hill on the impact to the existing SAVs with the proposed project was essentially in agreement with the previous agency representatives. Lee HIll concentrated mostly on the shoreline protection aspects of the proposed project, and recommended that a wedge-shaped riprap toe protection be considered along the existing seawall, in addition to renovating its, deteriorated portions. Agency Representatives Invited and Attended the Site Meetings: Ms. Beth Topol NVPDC, 7630 Little River Turnpike, Suite Meetings Mr. Mitchel P. Raftelis C Street, Quantico, VA 22134 (703)640-7979 (703) 642 -7979 Mr. James E. Brogdon Environmental Scientist, Regulatory Branch (703) 640-7979 Mr. James E. Brogdon Environmental Scientist, Regulatory Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northern Virginia Field Office 138 Graham Park Road Plaza SOUth, SUite 102 DUMPhries, VA 22026 (703) 221 - 6967 Mr. Chuck Roadley Environmental Engineer Virginia Marine ReSOUrces Commission 2600 Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 756 Newport News, YA 23607 (804)247 -2200 Mrs. Julie Bradshaw Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences GlOUCester Point, VA 23062 (804) 642-7395 Mr. Lee Hill Chief Engineer Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation P.O. Box 1024 Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service GlOUCester Point, VA 23062 (804) 642-7121 Mr. Doldon Moore, Jr. Department of Natural ReSOurces, Water ReSOUrces Administration Tidal Wetlands Division, Tawes State OffiCe BUilding, D-4 Annapolis, MD 21401 (30l) 974-3871 Mr. MaUrice FOUShee Prince William County, Planning Office I County ComPlex Court Prince Wi11iam VA 22192-9201 (703) 335-6830 0ther Individuals Who Also Attended the Site Meetings Howard Bolognese Mayor, Town of Duantico 104 Potomac Avenue Quantico, VA 22134 (703) 640-6613 Mr. Ned H. Burger Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation P.O. Box 1425 Tappahannock, VA 23060 (804) 443-6752 Agency Representatives Also Invited But Were Unable to Attend: Mr. Les Balderson Virginia State Water Control Board, P.O. Box 11143 Richmond, VA 22243-0143 (804) 367-0062 Mr. Sean Smith Department of the Environment Standards and Certifications Division, 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 (301) 631-3609 RECEIVED AUG 3 0 989 CC)LLEGE OF AND -%.!ARY T'-- t V11R'GTNIA INST@ I -7TE OF MAMNE SCfENCE DEWBERRY & DAVIS SCHOOL OF NIARINE SCIENCE WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING August 28, 1989 Mr. Kurt R. Thompson Dewberry & Davis. 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 Dear Mr. Thouipson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed activity at the Quantico shoreline. I have reviewed the minutes of our August 21, 1989 meeting. Please substitute the following comments for those which are attributed to me in your August 23, 1989 letter. I believe that the substitutions more accurately represent the comments which I made at the meeting. 1. VIMS is not a regulatory agency, but advises Virginia's regulatory bodies on marine environmental matters. 2. VIMS will provide specific comments on the marine environmental impacts of the proposal once specific plans are submitted. In general, the comments would reflect the Wetlands Guidelines promulgated by VMRC, addressing the justification for shoreline stabilization and minimization of potential environmental impacts. 3. VIMS concurs with Maryland Department of Natural Resources comments on the importance of the existing SAV beds to the marine environment and would recommend that they be preserved. 4. VIMS concurs with VMRC observations that-the shoreline consists primarily of nonvegetated wetlands. In addition, 1 would like to emphasize the high ecological value of the existing SAV beds and their incompatibility with the type of marina facility proposed. If I can be of further assistance on this project, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, @ ti, 4 J)dlie G. Bradshaw Marine Scientist Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 (804) 642-7000 off Consen'(11ion RECEIVM i I)e relopment of Public Heacizes DEWBERRY & DAVIS WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING CONUTONWTALTH of WRGINIz-11 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION A.ND DIVISION OF SOIL AND $VATER CONSERVATION Shoreline Programs P. 0. Box 1024 Gloucester Point, Vir@izinia23062 (804) 642-7121 September 5, 1989 Mr. Kurt R. Thompson, P.E. Dewberry and Davis 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666 RE: SPS #90063 Dear Mr. Thompson: On August 22, Ned Burger and I met with Oner Yucel at the site of the pro- posed shoreline stabilization, waterfront park and marina project for the Town of Quantico on the Potomac River. Maurice Foushee was also at the meeting. The purpose of the site visit was to discuss the shoreline erosion control measures required for the project. The Shoreline Situation ReRort: Prince William County, Virginia provides no historical erosion data for the area. The report does state that the major- ity of the area is stable. The area of the proposed project is protected by a concrete bulkhead. We make the following recommendations based on our site visit and subsequent analysis of the problem: 1. The existing concrete bulkhead is beginning to fail. To protect the bank from erosion, we recommend a properly designed and con- structed riprap (large rock) structure. The structure should be installed against the existing bulkhead. In the areas where the structure has failed, the riprap should be placed against the bank to minimize encroachment beyond the mean high water position. The riprap should be constructed on a 2:1 (horizontal/vertical) slope or flatter. A minimum of two layers of armor rock should be used. Each armor rock should weigh a minimum of 300 pounds. The toe of the riprap should be buried a minimum of 3 feet below the mean low water elevation. An alternative to the buried toe is a riprap apron. The apron consists of 2 layers of armor rock extending a minimum of 6 feet onto the bottom. A layer of filtek cloth should be used under and behind the riprap. The riprap should be extend- ed inland or properly connected to neighboring structures to pre- vent erosional flanking. Town of Quantico Page 2 September 5, 1989 2. The undercut trees on the upriver end of the project should be cut and the stumps removed. Tree removal should allow the riprap, structure to be placed against the eroding bank. 3. During the site visit, we discussed plans for the proposed marina and breakwater. The presence of submerged aquatic vegetation may limit the site's suitability for marina development. If the Town of Quantico decides to construct the marina, care should be taken to minimize marina impacts on the submerged aquatic vegetation. The above recommendations are made in my capacity as an advisory agent in shoreline erosion control matters. The suggestions should not be considered as binding you to any particular course of action as they are intended to indicate what we think would be the best solution in terms of cost and ef- fectiveness. Our examination of the site or this report does not constitute permission by the Commonwealth, or its agencies, to proceed with implementa- tion of control measures. Permits from State and Federal agencies are gen- erally required for shoreline modification. You should also be aware that success in shoreline erosion control cannot be guaranteed as there are many variables involved. In this regard, we suggest care in selecting a contractor. Our comments concerning construction are intended as guidelines developed from our experience in viewing structures which have been successful or have failed. If you decide to construct a control measure, an assessment of the impacts of the project on the environment will be given by the regulatory agencies. Our advice is given with the idea of reducing environmental impacts associ- ated with our recommendations. Although this has been considered in our recommendations, the permit reviewing agencies may desire additional infor- mation or measures. Services available through this office include: review of the permit ap- plication; review of design and construction plans; and inspection of struc- tures under construction when plans have been reviewed by this office. We recommend that a copy of this report be attached to the permit application. Please call me if you have questions or if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Carlton Lee Hill Chief Engineer smt cc: Diana C. Dutton, Executive Director; Prince William SWCD Deborah Cross, DSWC OV M-A*k, RECEWED @'E@ 2 6 1989 DE"fiftHRY & UAViS ENGINEERING INATER RESOURCES William Donald Schaefer Maryland Department of Natural Resources Torrey C. Brown, M.D. Governor Water Resources Administration Secretary Tawes State Office Building Catherine P. Stevenson Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Director September 25, 1989 Kurt R. Thompson, P.E. Dewberry and Davis 8402 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031-4666 Re:. 90-PL-0215 Town of Quantico Dear Mr. Thompson: Thank you for your letter of August 23, 1989 regarding the site review for the above referenced project. In short, I concur with the content of the meeting minutes which were forwarded to this office. I have reviewed the marina proposal with Mr. Charles Wheeler, Program Director, in light of the Department's policy as related to the protection of existing and historical submerged aquatic vegetation beds (SAV). The Department of Natural Resources will review and enact the same policies and procedures for marina and shoreline development projects along the Virginia shoreline of the Potomac River as is done with all projects in Maryland waters. Therefore, based on site conditions and the existence of a dense and diversified SAV bed at the project site, it is very unlikely that the Department would provide a favorable recommendation to the Maryland Board of Public Works for a nearshore marina which involves dredging. Options which the Department would view as favorable and would result in a lesser degree of environmental damage are: Fix pier structures that would be elevated over the SAV bed so that shading impacts are reduced. Along with the mooring of boats outboard of the SAV bed. An elevated fishing pier with 'IT" head that is located outboard of the SAV bed. (301) 974-3871 Telephone. DNR TTY for the Deaf: 301-974-3683 I thank you for the opportunity to meet, review and comment on this project at this early stage. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, IV. AC7/1 Doldon W. Moore, Jr. Tidal Wetlands Division DWM:ew APPENDIX 5 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Inquiry and Tidal Data Sheet U.S. DEPT OF COMMERCE/NOAA RAS/DC 1 ATTN:Collection Officer 11420 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20352 (301)443-8160 C233-592/89 RK3A02 July 10, 1989 June 29, 1989 1603-14-12 25.00 NONE 25.00 Mr. Oncer Yucel Ph.D. Dewberry and Davis 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, Virgina 22031-4666 benchmark information for tide station 863-4689 Ountico, Potomac River, with inferred value of NGVD-MLW for the 1960-78 Epoch.james R. Hubbard Chief Tidal Quality Assurance Section 8634689 5/ 3/ 76 VIRGINIA 27 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY TIDAL BENCH MARKS Quantico, Potomac River Lat. 38 131.2'; Long. 77 17.2 BENCH MARK 1 (1928) is a standard disk, stamped "1," set in the on top of a concrete bulkhead on the south side Of the marine, 9 feet west of the northeast corner of a small boat basin, 4 feet from the inshore face of the main outer dock, and 1 foot north of the edge of the bulkhead. Elevation: 6.00 feet above mean low water. BENCH MARK 2 (1928) is a standard disk, stamped "2," set in the top of the north retaining wall of a pier, 68 feet west of the northwest corner of a building on the pier, and 56 feet northwest of a fire hydrant. Elevation: 6.07 feet above mean low water. BENCH MARK 3 (1928) is a standard disk set in the top of a breakwater on the south side of Marine Wharf, about 45 feet southwest from the outer end of the pier and about midway between two large bitts. Elevation: 5.98 feet above mean low water. BENCH MARK 4 (1932) is a standard triangulation station disk, stamped "MARINE 1932 2," set in the top of the east end of the north retaining wall of Marine Wharf, 13 feet west of the inside corner of the dock and pier, and 6 feet east of the northeast corner of the building. Elevation: 6.00 feet above mean low water. BENCH MARK 5 (1959) is a standard disk, stamped "NO 5 1959," set flush in a concrete slab at the intersection of Potomac and Summers Avenues, 26 feet west of the centerline of Summers Avenue, and 3 feet west of the street corner sign for the two avenues. Elevation: 24.97 feet above mean low water. BENCH MARK 6 (1959) is a standard disk, stamped "NO 6 1959," set flush in the top of the retaining wall at a railway station, 17. 5 feet west of the northwest corner of the station building, and 12 feet east of the center of double tracks. Elevation: 33.89 feet above mean low water. RECEIVED JUL 12 1989 Quantico, Potomac River DEWBERRY & DAVIS WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING BENCH MARK A 233 (1941) is a standard disk, stamped "A 233 1941," set in the top of a concrete foundation at MCAS, a field in front of a barracks at Semaphore 777, on the west side of the tracks. Elevation: 22.47 feet above mean low water. Mean low water at Quantico, Potomac River is based on 15 months of records, November 1970 through October 1972, reduced to mean values. Elevations of other tide planes referred to this datum are as follows: 1941-59 TIDAL EPOCH Feet Mean high water 1.40 Mean tide level NGVD 0.70 0.41 (1941-59) Mean low water 0.00 0.23 (1960-78) The estimated highest water level to the nearest half foot is ten feet above mean low water. The estimated lowest water level to the nearest half foot is four and one-half feet below mean low water. NGVD=National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (Formerly Sea Level Datum of 1929) Elevations of bench Marks at this location have not been updated to the 1960-78 Tidal EPOCH. Mean Sea level rose 0.18 foot at Washington, DC between the 1941-59 and the 1960-78 Tidal EPOCHS. To arrive at an inferred value for NGVD-MLW for the 1960-78 Tidal EPOCH, apply the 0.18 foot rise in MSL to the 1941-59 value of NGVD-MLW (0.41ft). To make the 1960-78 inferred NGVD-MLW value to be 6.23 foot. VERTICAL CONTROL ELEVATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING BENCH MARKS FOR ADJUSTMENT 1972: "1" = 5.584 FEET ABOVE NGVD "2" = 5.656 FEET " "3" = 5.561 FEET " "MARINE 1932 2" = 5.584 FEET " NO 5 1959 = 24.557 FEET " NO 6 1959 = 33.478 FEET " A233 1941 = 22.054 FEET " APPENDIX 6 Tabulation of Field Measurements for Currents and Water Quality on June 22, 1989 i of t. NJA. rnf.4zk- ;7.1-1M (,-2-L- 69 Ul"Re TsmC Nulaaw MM OF umsoomb -TW? IbAUPITY' Ci*4bUW1-T-e Sw@PLG: DEM OLOVW, vvprA of Ails Pa. N*tn (VpS) 11EL-FoW o1tv.1.6,11,141 kpp F- "D ho-S) 0.,70 1.00 0.09 3 i O.Ob 2 D. De T 1 10, 0.01 1.0 11-T W:11 L57 0.41A -7.0 TS9 111cr .: 111to 0.0') 9: 10 3.1d" C.S' V6 0-or 'A.0 A'S 0.!5, 9:32, 30*, 0-03 Xci 0.160 iW Mckcrs not-PQ :30 3.1. 9 :2;'7 T T'@ -2 F10. j.: 0.16 :0 ..... ...... A% - ter-, p MA"If n. S* FP3, W^TCK V*ORZ Toma ly va,,,w DIEM OF U%-LStQ,%AEb rWP 16AU#.)ITY conat-n-ilre SFVnPLG ()FprA a &@ C)VPI or Pootj,r (FP:S) ME CA OWCUO (60 CPP+) 'hi CP o.Oj "AS hill %to 0.04; i3 0.0.5. .1'.0, o 2116i 0,04 -7.01 W 1:@ ;! ,- 2 10711 Cl 0.3\; j.0 0., 10:27, 4d' 00i f.. i 0.15 1,4. 4,0 11.100 50,tt' O.VS 7.0 7,0 .3d' 0: 3 -7 I . : , I - ;7, : : :, , F - 0.0215 A,, Te",p (AM); 22..5 3 &P 4. lijivtA C10C.Ato : 2. 11 FPS 2.1 - 8? IMPLE rims; vecooly CAPIM oF t%%So%-Ar-b nMP SAUOITY. CARbiCTW17'e !SFVnPLG COMM OLMMC OVPM of 1w9 C50Tr. (FPS) (PP+) I 1:4f P414 FrkAi,,cr OLOJr J.&CA 12:ov -1.0 ITX4 7; 0 110 30 2d' lp 7.0 !I -7- 1 is i.I,;: I E 77 . I ! @ /-7. 00 110 I-fill 1'o. 1:14 30, LIS* O-Of 771 0.()2. 7-i 1: io O.Ro 7.0 7.0 Air Ue", kAK)'12S FPS C, &-22- 8f lsl@F!Lff Tims;4 toorr DeM oF U%Sso%--Jcb SAUsArY, CM4bjCrW%j'f SFVnPLG D LP rA oF OrPTA of (rp$) covig-14' bovftl) SpoRg ewrvarv% (pem) -toe cpp+) @1 1:14 -ILcr 2*20 (>.():L, Jill, 1:74 vr:!!0.01' -71 1.6 3:04 3d' 212.'o 3: 15' 3@' 33 DA 3:14-7 e Cl 2.: 7-45" 3:s"I 0.0s, I 0.'141 7. 0 -7.0 OAR 1.0. 4110 IRV I X-?.O DfA 0 Li A6- Aw Tc-v.jAf4)'. 12..C VA 2. Q FPS AIM bm"Re Toma 'Mix" vuloow Will OF u%sso%-,IEb Wn-MP SAUPITY cmitucrWire S&nPLE oF orpi-A of 75 P0.0 r DlM'n04 ME Olt-fcrtj Ma" L Mbo-ffUD SWr" %onor-"% ra@m; (FPS) IL?w -1ppml 4PP-0 CAf@lhol) 9* 1 lie 1.5 -AA37, 93tr 0.0"1 0.5 o.r 1 .!7 16.9 O.oq 1.0 05 ue 0.7.1 '7.0 30 0.01 19: 1 ot 20of 0.01\ 11.0 'o. 0 4Li S, I!; IS'Gr 0.04 0-ck 1-1.5- T).0 too 0.0(. CP A-).o 7.0 or Roo .7.0 :Io 1160 0-11 2..o .4cio S.0 It. %sr j.0 '2.0 1/3 K16-9 'A VA Netcerrir cat-iie memue-o-rT NEtooly DepTiA OF DASOV-42b SAUPITY C&JtwCTWj-jY SFVv%PLG OEM a F MPT" of pal jq6tnopj (Fps) vE It C.Irf cppt) swPLE V,*-"Or- 5ROLf -2iit 1.0 'A %cr -4,8 < 16 t.0 7*c6 1 qLI S, 0.'7-) '7.0 Li I'l 950 0.01 IS -Al 5' 4 O-S' 3 -'57 0.10 1.0 01. APPENDIX 7 Predicted Tidal and Current Data at Quantico for June 1989 TIMES AND HEIGHTS OF HIGH AND LOW IATERS TRANSPOSED FROM WASHINGTON., DC QUANTICO CREEK STATION NO. 2309, 1989 TIDE TABLES., P.219 (DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIMES) TIME DIFF HEIGHT hr min FACTOR ---- ---- ------ HIGH WATER 1 4 0.51 LOW WATER 1 59 0.47 DATE, DAY WASHINGTON, DC PREDICTIONS GUANTICO PREDICTIONS TIME HEIGHT TIME HEIGHT hr min ft hr min ft 6/1-TH 6 4 3.6 5 0 1.8 13 34 0.2 11 3 ro 0.1 10 41 141.9 17 37 1.5 6/2-FR 1 24 0.2 23 25 0.11 6 56 3.6 5 502 1.8 14 31 0.1 12 312 0.0 19 38 2.9 18 34 1.5 613-SA 2 19 0.2 0 1410 0.1 7 49 3.6 6 45 1.3 15 26 0.0 13 27 0.0 20 30 2.9 19 26 11.5 6/4-SU 3 13 0.2 1 14 0.1 a 319 3.5 7 35 1.9 16 16 0.0 14 17 0.0 21 22 2.9 20 19 1.5 6/5-MO 4 7 0.2 2 8 0.1 9 28 3.5 9 24 1.8 17 7 0.0 15 a 0.0 22 15 2.9 21 11 1.5 6/6-TU 4 519 0.2 3 0 0.1 10 18 3.4 9 14 1.7 17 54 0.0 15 55 0.0 23 B 2.8 22 4 1.4 617-WE 5 48 0.3 3 49 0.1 11 7 31.2 10 3 1.6 IS 40 0.1 16 41 0.0 -; 2.8 U 55 1.4 6/8-TH 6 39 0.4 4 40 0.2 11 58 3.1 10 54 1.6 19 24 0.1 17 25 0.0 0 52 2.8 22 53 1.7 6/9-FR 7 31 o.5 5 32 0.2 12 54 2.? 11 50 1.5 20 6 0.2 18 7 0.1 6/10-SA 1 48 2.8 0 44 1.4 8 22 0.5 6 23 0.2 13 53 2.8 12 49 1.4 20 49 0.3 IS 50 0.1 TIMES AND HEIGHTS OF HIGH AND LOW WATERS TRANSPOSED FROM WASHINGTON., DC (Cont'd) DATE, DAY WASHINGTON, DC PREDICTIONS GUANTICO PREDICTIONS TIME HEIGHT TIME HEIGHT hr sin ft hr min ft 6/11-SU 2 40 2.8 1 36 1.4 9 18 016 7 19 0.3 14 49 2.7 13 45 1.4 21 31 0.3 19 32 0.1 6/12-MO 3 34 2.9 2 30 1.5 10 13 0.6 8 114 0.3 15 49 2.6 14 45 1.3 22 15 0.4 20 16 o.n 6/13-TU 4 23 2.1 3 19 1.5 11 11 0.6 9 12 0.3 16 47 2.6 15 43 1.3 22 59 0.5 21 0 0.2 6114-WE 5 10 3.0 4 6 1.5 12 6 0.6 10 7 0.3 17 39 2.6 16 35 1.3 23 47 0., 21 48 0..-) v A. 6/15-TH 5 52 3.1 4 48 1.6 13 1 0.6 11 2 0.3 18 29 2.6 17 25 1.3 6/16-FR 0 33 0.6 22 34 0.3 6 33 3.2 5 219 1.6 13 51 0.6 11 52 0.3 19 14 2.7 is 10 1.4 6/17-SA 1 22 0.6 23 23 0.3 7 10 3.3 6 6 1.7 14 39 0.5 12 40 0.2 19 56 2.7 19 52 1.4 6/18-SU 2 11 0.7 0 12 0.3 7 46 3.4 6 42 1.7 15 25 0.5 13 26 0.'@ 20 35 2.7 19 31 1.4 6/19-MO 3 0 0.7 1 1 0.3 8 25 3.5 7 21 1.8 16 10 0.5 14 11 0.2 .10 21 11 2.8 7 1.4 61240-TU 3 47 0.7 1 48 0.3 9 4 3.5 8 0 1.8 16 51 0.5 14 52 0.2 21 51 2.9 20 47 1.5 6/21-WE 4 34 0.6 2 35 0.3 9 47 3.5 8 43 1.8 17 33 0.4 15 34 0.2 22 29 3.0 21 25 1.5 TIMES AND HEIGHTS OF HIGH AND LOW WATERS TRANSPOSED FROM WASHINSTON, DC (Cont,d) DATE., DAY WASHINGTON, DC PREDICTIONS 9UANTICO PREDICTIONS TIME HEIGHT TIME HEIGHT hr min ff hr min ft 6122-TH 5 24 0.6 3 25 0.3 10 N 3.5 9 128 1.8 la 0 0.4 16 144 0.2 23 11 3.1 7 1.6 6/23-FR 6 13 0.6 4 14 0.7 11 20 3. 4 10 16 1.7 18 5p 4 0.4 16 915 0.2 23 59 3.1 L4 590 11.6 6/24-SA 7 7 0.6 5 8 7 1 12 142 .') 11 8 1.7 19 38 0.3 17 39 0.1 nT 6/145-SU 0 50 3.2 4@ 46 1.6 B 3 0.5 6 4 0.') 43 1 I a 3.2 '& 4 1.6 20 24 0.3 18 25 0.1 6/26-MO 1 44 3.2 0 40 1.6 ? 4 0.5 7 5 0.2 44 9 3.0 113 5 1.5 I 21 17) 0.3 19 14 0.1 6/27-TU 2 43 3.7) 1 39 1.7 10 9 o.c; 8 9 0.2 15 14 2.3 114 10 1.4 22 6 0.3 20 7 0.1 6/28-WE 44 3.3 2 40 1.7 11 14 0.4 9 15 16 20 2.7 15 16 1.4 2 3 5 (1.,) 71 6 0.1 4 7 b/29-TH 4 45 0.4 41 1.7 0.7 12 21 1@ 10 22 0.1 17 26 2.7 16 2.) 1.4 6/30-FR 0 6 0.2 7 0.1 5 45 4 41 1.7 13 2 2 o.-) 11 0.1 18 27 2.7 17 23 1.4 TIMES AND VELOCITIES OF SLACK WATER AND MAXIMUM CURRMS TRANSPOSED FROM BALTIMORE HARBOR APPROACH (OFF SANDY POINT) QUAKTICO - STATION XO. 5796, TIDAL CURRENT TABLES I M P.174 (DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIMES) TIME DIFF SPEED hr sin RATIO NIX BEFORE FLOOD 0 54 1 FLOOD (-) 1 4 0.9 NIX BEFORE EBB 1 32 1 EBB H 1 9 1.1 DATE, DAY SANDY POINT PREDICTIONS QUAKTICO PREDICTIONS TIRE VELOCITY TIME VELOCI hr sin knots hr sin knots ---- ----- ------- ---- -- 6/16-FR 3 46 1.1 F 2 42 1.0 7 26' 0.0 5 54 0.0 10 44 0.9 E 9 35 1.0 14 44 0.0 13 50 0.0 16 46 0.3 F 15 42 0.3 is 55 0.0 17 23 0.0 21 54 0.5 E 20 45 0.6 6/17-SA 0 29 0.0 23 34 0.0 4 28 1.1 F 3 24 1.0 8 6 0.0 6 34 0.0 11 31 1.0 E 10 22 1.1 15 33 0.0 14 39 0.0 17 33 0.3 F 16 29 0.3 19 45 0.0 le 13 0.0 22 40 0.5 E 21 31 0.6 6/18-So 1 7 0.0 0 13 0.0 5 a 1.2 F 4 4 1.1 8 47 0.0 7 15 0.0 12 12 1.1 E 11 3 1.2 16 17 0.0 15 23 0.0 18 19 0.3 F 17 15 0.3 20 35 0.0 19 3 0.0 23 24 0.5 E 22 15 0.6 6/19-HO 1 49 0.0 0 54 0.0 5 51 1.2 F 4 47 1.1 9 27 0.0 7 55 0.0 12 53 .1.1 E 11 44 1.2 16 56 0.0 16 2 0.0 it 1 0.4 F 17 57 0.4 21 24 0.0 19 52 0.0 6/20-TV 0 9 O.S. E 23 0 0.6 2 32 0.0 1. 38 0.0 & 32 1.1 F 5 28 1.0 10 & 0.0 8 34 0.0 13 32 1.1 E 12 23 L-2 17 31 0.0 16 37 0.0 it 43 0.4 F is 39 0.4 22 13 0.0 20 41 0.0 TIMES AND VELOCITIES OF SLACK WATER AND MAXI KUM CLWWS TRANSPOSED FROM BALTIMORE KAM APPROACH (OFF SANDY POINT) 2UAXTICO - STATION NO. 5796, TIDAL CURRENT TABLES IM, P.174 (DAYLISHT SAVINSS TIMES) TIME DIFF SPEED hr sin RATIO HIM BEFORE FLOOD 0 54 1 FLOOD (-) 1 4 0.9 AIN BEFORE EBB 1 32 1 Ell H 1 9 1.1 DATE, DAY SANDY POINT PREDICTIONS 2UAXTICO PREDICTIONS TIME VELOCITY TIME YELOCI hr sin knots hr sin knots 6/21-NE 0 56 0.5 E 23 47 O.k 3 20 0.0 2 26 0.0 & 15 1.1 F 5 11 1.0 10 46 0.0 9 14 0.0 14 11 1.1 E 13 2 1.2 18 3 0.0 17 9 0.0 20 25 0.5 F 19 21 0.5 23 5 0.0 21 33 0.0 6/22-TH 1 45 0.5 E* 0 36 0.1 4 13 0.0 3 19 0.0 a 0 1.0 F 6 56 0.9 11 25 0.0 9 53 0.0 14 49 1.0 E 13 40 1.1 18 33 0.0 17 39 0.0 21 7 0.5 F 20 3 0.3 6/23-FR 0 0 0.0 22 29 0.0 2 41 0.5 E 1 32 0.6 5 13 0.0 4 19 0.0 8 46 0.9 F@ 7 42 0.8 12 5 0.0 10 33 .0.0 15 28 1.0 E 14 19 1.1 19 .2 0.0 is a 0.0 21 53 0.6 F 20 49 0.5 6/24-SA 0 57 0.0 23 25 0.0 3 40 0.5 E 2 31 0A 6 21 0.0 5 27 4.0 1 41 0.7 F 8 37 0.6 12 45 0.0 11 13 0.0 16 9 0.9 E 14 59 1.0 19 32 0.0 is 38 0.0 22 39 0.8 F 21 34 0.7 6/25-SU 1 57 0.0 0 25 0.0 4 42 0.6 E 3 33 0.7 7 36 0.0 6 42 0.0 10 36 0.6 F 9 32 6.5 13 27 0.0 11 55 0.0 16 51 0.8 E 15 42 i.9 20 6 0.0 17 12 0.0 23 26 0.9 F 22 22 0.8 TIMES AND VELOCITIES OF SLACK W41ER AND MAXIMUM CURRENTS TRANSPOSED FM BALTIMORE HARBOR APPROACH (OFF SANDY POINT) QUANTICO - STATION NO. 5796, TIDAL CURRENT TABLES 1"90 P.174 (DAYLIGHT SAYINGS TIMES) TIRE DIFF SPEED hr sin RATIO KIM BEFORE FLOOD 0 34 1 FLOOD 1 4 0.9 MIX BEFORE EBB 1 32 1 Ell 9 1.1 DATE, DAY SAXDY POINT PREDICTIONS QUANTICO PREDICTIONS TIME VELOCITY TIME VELOCI hr sin knots hr sin knots 6/26-HO 2 57 0.0 1 25 0.0 5 50 0.6 E 4 41 0.7 8 59 0.0 9 5 0.0 11 39 0.5 F 10 35 0.5 14 11 0.0 12 39 0.0 17 so 0.8 E 16 29 0.1 20 43 0.0 19 49 0.0 6/27-TU 0 17 1.0 F 23 13 0.9 3 57 0.0 2 25 0.0 6 55 0.7 E 5 46 0.8 10 25 0.0 9 31 0.0 12 43 0.4 F 11 39 0.4 14 59 0.0 13 27 0.0 18 27 0.7 f 17 18 0.8 21 24 0.0 20 30 0.0 6/28-ME 1 11 1.1 F 0 7 1.0 4 55 0.0 3 23 0.0 0- 2 0.8 E 6 53 0.1 11 47 0.0 10 53 0.0 13 49 0.3 F 12 45 0.3 15 54 0.0 14 22 0.0 19 is 0.7 E Is 9 0.0 22 10 0.0 21 16 0.0 6/29-TO 2 3 1.2 F 0 59 1.1 5 50 0.0 4 is 0.0 9 5 0.9 E 7 56 1.0 12 59 0.0 12 5 0.0 14 54 0.3 F 13 so 0.3 16 55 0.0 15 23 0.0 20 17 0.7 E 19 a 0.8 23 0 0.0 22 6 0.0 6/30-FR 2 58 1.3 F 1 54 1.2 & 43 0.0 3 11 0.0 10 1 1.0 E 8 52 1.1 13 59 0.0 13 5 0.0 15 57 0.3 F 14 53 0.3 is 0 0.0 16 28 0.0 21 13 0.6 E- 20 4 0.7 23 52 0.0 22 59 0.0 APPENDIX 8 Tabulation of Published Wind Speed Records at Quantico (1960-1978) mlmmmm" m"'m mamlow mm mft@m mass= PERCENT. FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, UIND DIRECTIONS VS UIND SPEED LOCATION: QUANTICOp VA EVA 1377360.133; FROM 600822 THROUGH 781231; NO OF VALID OBSERVRTIONS: 45202 SPEED SPEED SPEED SPEED N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE 5 Ssm Su usu u UNW NU NNU CALM TOTAL C"/z*c3 Eft/sac3 Emphl Eknotz3 ------- -------- ----- ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- CALM CALM CALM CALM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 15.6 1 3.3 2.2 1.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.3 0-4 1.1 2.2 2.6 0.9 0.0 13.1 2 6.6 3.9 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.2 0.7 3.7 1.3 0.6 0.5 1.2 2.0 4.3 1.6 0.0 22.8 3 9.6 6.7 5.8 1.3 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.1 1.9 3.4 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.7 2.7 1.8 0.0 20.3 4 13.1 0.9 7.6 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.6 1.9 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.5 I.S 0.0 13.s s 16.1 11.2 9.7 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0 O.S 0.3 0.2 0.3 O@b 1.2 1.3 0.0 8.6 6 19.7 13.4 it.? 0.4 0-2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.0 3.7 7 23.0 15.7 13.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 1.4 a 26.2 17.9 15.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 9 29.5 20.1 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 10 32.0 22.4 19.4 .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 36.1 24.6 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 39.3 26.8 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 la 42.6 29-1 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 4S.9 31.3 27.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 is 49.2 33.6 29.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 S2.5 35.8 31.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 55.7 3e.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 is 59.0 .40.3 as.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 62.3 42.5 36.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 6S.6 44.7 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 82.0 SS.9 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 98.4 67.1 se.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 as 114.6 78.3 68.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ------ ------ ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- TOTALS S.3 2.9 3.1 2.S 2.5 1.9 3.7 6.4 12.2 4.6 2.2 1.8 4 8.9 13.6 8.6 IS.6 RVERAGE SPEED: 3.SS 3.41 3.16 2.96 2.44 2.58 2.76 2.79 2.87 2.8 3.05 2.67 2.6 2.78 2.96 3.63 0.00 APPENDIX 9 Shallow Water Wave Forecasts APPENDIX 9 SHALLOW WATER WAVE FORECASTING As it is often the case, there is a lack of site-specific data on waves for the immediate vicinity of Quantico. Furthermore, there is no theoretical or empirical development that can be readily applied to a particular project site for determining the appropriate design characteristics of wind-generated waves. The interim method recommended by the U.S. Corps of Engineers uses the representative average values of the wind speed and water depth evaluated over a specified fetch to calculate the design values of the wave height, period and duration, defined by the following dimensionless equations [Shore Protection Manual, Eqs. (3-28b), (3-39), (3-40) and (3-41)]: 0*00q16q1 'qSqF ) 1/2 2 ;128q& H d /4 qUA 20q- =0.283 tanh 0.530 U2 tanh 2 A 2q(8qLqd4q@q14q] qUA tanh 530 2 q10- qUA 0.0379 2q(XqF 0q)1/3 4q)3/8 qU2 T /gd A 2q&- - 7.54 tanh 833 canh qU 2q@Uq_2 (.q&d 4q)3/] A q10. A 33 qU2 A 5.37 x 10 q2 (1 8qLqT 7/3 qUA qU A where: H = design wave height[ft] T = design wave period [sec] t = minimum effective wind duration (minutes] F = fetch length [ft] d = average water depth [ft] U = adjusted wind speed [ft/sec] and, U= 0.589 * U^1.234, [U and UA in miles/hour] with U standard wind speed at 10-meter elevation After evaluating the design wave characteristics based on an appropriate number of alternative F, d and U values for the site, the above equations can be used to estimate H, T and t. Also available are time-saver charts based on these equations each developed,for a constant water depth. The chart for the average depth of d = 20.0 ft is reproduced in Figure 9.1. Many complexities are ordinarily involved in the process of generation of waves by surface winds of varying effectiveness over a number of fetches with varying depths and shoaling characteristics. In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the design wave characteristics to the variations in the three design parameters, a series of calculations were performed. The results are presented in Table 9.1, and summarized typically in Figures 9.2 and 9.3 to illustrate the sensitivity of the design wave height to the design parameters. Apparently, the effects of the applicable fetch lengths and average water depths along these fetches are relatively small, and remain in tMe order of 0.5 ft for the maximum ranges of both parameters. For the range of 25 mph to 50 mph applied to-the effective wind speed, on the other hand, the va'riation of the design wave height would range from 1.0 ft to 1.5 ft for varying fetch lengths and average water depths. These sensitivity evaluations, supported by the various historic data and indications, suggest that a generally valid design wave should probably have a significant wave height of H = 4.0 ft, a significant period of T = 4.0 sec, and should correspond to an effective wave-generating wind lasting no more than 1-1/4 hours. These values would be used as a guideline, only, and may need further adjustments depending on the structure to be designed or the environmental process to be taken into consideration. These additional considerations will include the effects of ext reme tide and flood elevations, uprush of waves along the face of a sloping structure, and acceptable levels of risk for overtopping of the various types of structures involved in the project. TABLE 9.1 SHALLOW-WATER WAVE FORECASTING (SHORE PROTECTION MANUAL, EqS. (3-39, 3-40), P. 3-55] Eq. (3-39): H1 = (gH /U^ 2) = 0.283 $ tanh Al $ tanh [B1 / tanh Al] Eq. (3-40): TI=(gT/U) = 7.540 $ tanh A2 $ tanh (B2 / tanh A2] with: Hl=(gH/U^2), T1= gT/U, dl=gd/U^2, Fl=gF/U^2 A1=(0.530)(d1)^(3/4), Bl=(0.00565)(F1)^(1/2) A2=(0.833)(dl)^(3/8), 82=(0.03790)(Fl )^(1/3) where: H = Design Value of "Shallow-Water" Wave Height (feet] T = Design Value of "Shallow-Water" Wave Period (sec) F = Length of Unobstructed Fetch (miles] U = Effective Wind Speed (miles/hour) d = Average Water Depth Along the Fetch [feet] This program calculates: A. the simple average depth of water along a given fetch F, and B.the design wave height H, and design wave period T, using the above equations, the computed average depth d, and a given fastest-speed mind velocity U QUANTICO - FIRST APPROXIMATIONS FOR DESIGN WAVE CHARACTERISTICS --------------------------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------- AverageFetch Wind Depth Speed dl Fl Al B1 H1 H A2 B2 T1 T d (ft) F (mi)U(mph) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- 20.0 12.4 35.0 0.24 8.0E+02 0.18 0.16 0.04 3.0 0.49 0.35 2.23 3.5 20.0 12.4 40.0 0.19 6.1E+02 0.15 0.14 0.03 3.3 0.44 0.32 2.04 3.7 20.0 12.4 45.0 0.15 4.8E+02 0.13 0.12 0.03 3.6 0.41 0.30 1.88 3.9 25.0 12.4 35.0 .31 8.0E+02 0.22 0.16 0.04 3.1 0.53 0.35 2.27 3.6 25.0 12.4 40.0 0.23 6.1E+02 0.18 0.14 0.03 3.5 0.48 0.32 2.08 3.8 25.0 12.4 45.0 0.18 4.8E+02 0.15 0.12 0.03 3.9 0.44 0.30 1.93 3.9 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUANTICO - ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS FOR DESIGN WAVE CHARACTERISTICS ----------------------------- 4---------------------------------------------------------------- :Average:Fetch ; Wind 1 41 11 1. 11 1. 1. 1 l : Depth : !Speed 1 dl Fl 1 Al 1 BI HI 1 H A2 B2 1 TI I :d (ft) lF (ei):U(mph)l i 1. ------- :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15.0 12.4 25.0 0.36 :I.bE+03 0.25 10.22 10.05 2.1 0.57 0.44 2.69 3.1 20.0 12.4 25.0 0.48 '1.6E+03 0.31 0.22 10.05 2.2 0.63 0.44 2.77 3.2 11*0 112,4 25,0 0,10 11,11+01 1,31 0,22 10,01 13 0,19 0,44 1 2*82 1, 2 1 30.0 12.4 25.0 0.72 :1.6E+03 0.41 0.22 :0.06 2.4 0.74 1 0.44 2.861 3.3 1 15.0 13.0 25.0 0.36 11.6E+03 1 0.25 0.23 10.05 2.1 0.57 0.45 2.72 3.1 20.0 13.0 25.0 0.48 :1.6E+03 0.31 10.23 0.05 2.3 0.63 0.45 2.80 3.2 25.0 13.0 25.0 0.60 :1.6E+03 0.36 0.23 0.06 2.4 0.69 0.45 2.86 3.3 30.0 13.0 25.0 1 0.72 :1.6E+03 0.41 0.23 0.06 2.4 0.74 0.45 1 2.90 3.3 15.0 10.6 25.0 0.36 11.3E+03 0.25 10.21 0.05 2.0 0.57 0.42 2.60 3.0 10*0 10*6 15*0 0,11 :1,3E+13 0,31 0,21 10,05 1 2*1 0,63 0,42 1,67 3*0 1 25.0 10.6 25.0 0.60 :1.3E+03 0.36 0.21 0.05 ; 2.2 0.69 0.42 2.72 3.1 30.0 10.6 25.0 0.72 !l.3E+03 0.41 0.21 0.05 1 2.2 0.74 0.42 2.75 3.1 11*0 II,l 15*0 0,16 '.l*4E+01 0*25 0,21 0,05 1*0 0,57 0,12 2,61 1,0 20.0 11.1 25.0 0.48 :1.4E+03 0.31 0.21 10.05 2.1 1 0.63 0.42 2.70 3.1 25.0 11.1 25.0 0.60 :1.4E+03 0.36 0.21 :0.05 2.2 : 0.69 1 0.42 2.75 3.1 1 30.0 11.1 25.0 0.72 11.4E+03 0.41 0.21 10.05 1 2.3 1 0.74 1 0.42 2.79 3.2 15.0 12.4 50.0 0.09 !3.9E+02 1 0.09 10.11 0.02 3.5 0.34 : 0.29 1.70 3.9 20.0 12.4 1 50.0 0.12 :3.9E+02 0.11 0.11 0.02 4.0 0.38 1 0.28 1.761 4.0 25.0 12.4 50.0 0.15 :3.9E+02 0.13 0.11 0.03 4.2 0.41 0.28 1.79: 4.1 30.0 12.4 50.0 0.18 :3.9E+02 0.15 0.11 0.03 4.4 0.44 0.28 1.821 4.2 15.0 113.0 50.0 0.09 :4.IE+02 0.09 0.11 10.02 3.6 0.34 1 0.28 1.721 3.9 20.0 13.0 1 50.0 0.12 14.1E+02 0.11 0.11 0.02 4.0 0.38 0.29 1.77 4.0 25.0 13.0 50.0 0.15 :4.IE+02 0.13 0.11 0.03 4.3 0.41 0.29 1.82 4.1 30.0 113.0 50.0 0.18 :4.IE+02 0.15 0.11 10.03 4.5 1 0.44 0.28 1.85 4.2 15.0 10.6 1 50.0 0.09 13.4E+02 0.09 0.10 10.02 1 3.4 0.34 0.26 1.64 3.7 20.0 10.6 1 50.0 0.12 :1.4E+02 0.11 0.10 0.02 3.9 0.38 0.26 1.69 3.9 1 25*0 10*6 10*0 0,11 :3,4E+02 0*11 0,10 0,02 4,0 0,41 0,21 1,73 3 1 30.0 110.6 50.0 0.18 13.4E+02 0.15 0.10 10.03 4.2 0.44 1 0.26 1.75 4.0 15.0 111.1 50.0 0.09 :3.5E+02 0.09 0.11 :0.02 3.4 1 0.34 0.27 1.66 3.8 20.0 11.1 50.0 0.12 :3.5E+02 0.11 10.11 10.02 3.8 : 0.39 0.27 1.71 3.9 25.0 11.1 50.0 0.15 13.5E+02 0.13 0.11 0.02 1 4.1 1 0.41 0.27 1.75 4.0 30.0 11.1 1 50.0 0.18 :3.5E+02 0.15 0.11 0.03 : 4.3 ; 0.44 0.27 1 1.77 4.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUANTICO - ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS FOR DESIGN WAYE CHARACTERISTICS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,Average!Fetch : Mind 1 Depth :Speed dl Fl Al 1 BI Hl H 1 A2 B2 TI 1 T :d (ft) :F (mi):U(sph)l ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 15.0 ; 12.4 25.0 10.36 :1.6E+03 0.25 0.22 0.05 2.1 0.57 0.44 2.69 : 3.1 20.0 1 12.4 25.0 0.49 :1.6E+03 0.31 0.22 0.05 2.2 0.63 0.44 2.77 1 3.2 25.0 12.4 25.0 0.60 :1.6E+03 0.36 0.22 0.06 2.3 0.69 0.44 2.82 3.2 30.0 12.4 25.0 0.72 :1.6E+03 0.41 0.22 0.06 2.4 0.74 0.44 2.86 3.3 15.0 13.0 25.0 0.36 :1.6E+03 0.25 0.23 0.05 2.1 10.57 0.45 2.72 3.1 20.0 13.0 25.0 0.49 :1.6E+03 0.31 0.23 0.05 2.3 10.63 0.45 2.80 1 3.2 25.0 13.0 25.0 10.60 :1.6E+03 0.36 0.23 0.06 2.4 :0.69 0.45 2.86 3.3 1 30.0 13.0 25.0 10.72 :1.6E+03 0.41 0.23 0.06 2.4 10.74 0.45 2.90 3.3 15.0 10.6 25.0 0.36 :1.3E+03 0.25 0.21 0.05 2.0 0.57 0.42 1 2.60 3.0 1 1*1 0,11 0,41 1 2,67 3,0 - 20*0 10,6 25,0 0,41 :l*3E+03 0,31 0,21 0,15 25.0 10.6 25.0 0.60 :1.3E+03 0.36 0.21 0.05 2.2 0.69 0.42 1 2.72 3.1 30.0 10.6 1 25.0 0.72 :1.3E+03 0.41 0.21 0.05 2.2 10.74 0.42 2.75 3.1 15.0 11.1 25.0 0.36 :1.4E+03 0.25 0.21 0.05 2.0 10.57 0.42 2.63 3.0 20.0 11.1 25.0 0.49 :1.4E+03 0.31 0.21 0.05 2.1 0.63 0.42 2.70 3.1 25.0 11.1 25.0 0.60 11.4E+03 0.36 0.21 0.05 1 2.2 0.69 1 0.42 2.75 3.1 30.0 11.1 25.0 0.72 !1.4E+03 0.41 0.21 0.05 2.3 0.74 0.42 2.79 3.2 11,0 12*1 35,0 0,11 ',8,0E+02 0.15 0.16 0.03 2.7 0.44 0.35 2.16 3.4 20.0 12.4 35.0 0.24 16.OE+02 1 0.18 0.16 0.04 3.0 0.49 0.35 2.23 3.5 25.0 12.4 35.0 0.31 :8.0E+02 0.22 0.16 0.04 3.1 0.53 1 0.35 2.27 3.6 30.0 1 12.4 35.0 10.37 ;8.0E+02 0.25 1 0.16 0.04 3.3 0.57 0.35 2.31 3.7 15.0 ; 13.0 35.0 10.18 :8.4E+02 0.15 0.16 1 0.03 2.7 0.44 0.36 1 2.18 3.5 20.0 1 13.0 35.0 :0.24 :8.4E+02 0.18 0.16 0.04 3.0 10.49 0.36 : 2.25 3.6 25.0 13.0 35.0 10.31 :8.4E+02 0.22 1 0.16 0.04 1 3.2 :0.53 0.36 1 2.30 3.7 30,0 13,0 35,0 :0*17 :1,4E+02 1 0,25 0,16 0,04 3,1 10,11 0,36 2,33 3*7 i 15.0 10.6 35.0 10.19 :6.BE+02 0.15 0.15 0.03 2.6 0.44 1 0.33 2.08 3.3 20.0 10.6 35.0 10.24 :6.8E+02 0.18 0.15 0.03 2.9 0.49 0.33 2.15 3.4 25.0 1 10.6 35.0 10.31 :6.BE+02 0.22 0.15 0.04 3.0 0.53 0.33 2.19 3.5 30.0 10.6 1 35.0 :0.37 :6.8E+02 1 0.25 0.15 0.04 3.1 0.57 0.33 2.22 3.5 15.0 11.1 35.0 10.18 :7.2E+02 0.15 0.15 0.03 2.6 0.44 0.34 2.11 3.4 20.0 11.1 35.0 0.24 :7.2E+02 0.18 0.15 0.04 2.9 0.49 0.34 2.17 3.5 1 25*0 II,l 1 35*0 0,31 117,21+02 0*22 0,15 0,04 1,0 0*53 0*14 2,21 3 5 - 30.0 11.1 : 35.0 0.37 :7.2E+02 0.25 0.15 0.04 3.1 10.57 0.34 2.24 3.6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- notes VaVeq: I&.* Vat:w d::tb al 20 Ife" with were P*rlods lose than 2.0 *so &go one owed to be deepwater q@vtm,i.*. 2 2.16. 150 100 6 50 40 30 20 5 10 1 1.5 2 2.53 4 5 6 78910 1.5 2 2.53 4 5 6 78910 1.5 2 2.53 4 5 6 78910 1.5 2 2.53 4 5 x 100 x 1,000 x 10,000 x 100,000 Fetch (ft) Notes Moves In a water depth of 6.0 meters with wave periods less than 3.4 seconds are considered to be deepwater waves. i.e../II FIGURE 9.1 - Forecasting Curves For wind-driven Shallow Water Waves For A Constant Depth Of 20 Feet (Source: Shore Protection Manual, Figure 3-27) No * an ;11101111 MIS we @w no 00 ON jw WIND-GENERATED WAVE HEIGHT PREDICTION for Fetch=12.4, miles & Average Depths Wind Wave Height (feet) 6 4- + 3- 0 0 0 2- 0 0 Wind Speed 26 mph + Wind Speed 60 mph 0, 10 16 20 26 30 36 Fetch-Average Depth (feet) FIGURE 9-e WIND-GENERATED WAVE HEIGHT PREDICTION for Varying Fetches & Average Depths Wind Wave Height (feet) 5 4 - Fetch Length: 10.8 to 13.0 MIles 3- Fetch Length: 2- 10.6 to 13.0 MIles 0 Wind Speed 25 mph + Wind Speed 60 mph 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 Fetch-Average Depth (feet) FIGURE aS APPENDIX 10 Summary of Relevant Tidal Cage Records %t,,.tc.-,y C...,y .-J( C-A ASHINGTON-D ARUNGTOI woodro v w.7 ids. 85 7@t 80 7 21) 75 H." N 44t 65 ch-k ft- 45 4 N c.1- 4*1 60 N. cHfft a 50 ftw 5 0 5 5i c." Id. c@ cl.- s7 5 15"- wbiu St. G-1. 0 POTOMAC RIVER ESTUARY PLACE NAMES e T405 TqW C 5111'sm"s scws ss 1:50111.000 s o 5 IG s@ mi@ Q s IQ Kd@ s a s I* pk.," ma. ER Numbered lines in 7 Potomac estuary represent nautical fi@w miles)from the mouth as measured along the channel. 03 DATUM REFERENCE Station number - 176 '3 Lf6 ge? Station Name - Dates Datum(s) applies to; From: B-I To: VN644- 19 -7 Subtract i,Lii-- feet to refer values to (h uV . Epoch Subtract feet to refer values to mH\Al . Subtract GO feet to refe'r values to XGVD. HIGHEST TIDE OBSERVED -"r I MONTH I , DATE FEET DATE FEET DATE FEET DATE FEET DATE FEET Jan. ---------- -- - k-P - ----- 1- .- --------- -------- - ----- -------- -------------- Feb. L i ........ . ---------- ------------ - ----------- . .............. ............. . ............ Mar. . .............. .............. ------------ -- Apr. Clk V e"L, @ 1@ I'd ------------ ------------- --------------- -------------- ---------- May --19 ---- --- 3 i yc--, -- ----- --- kji@k. - -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ....... ------ -------------- June ---- i-(o ------ ------ isl ---22@n --- ----- t=9-7 -- -------------- -------------- ------------ July ----- 1-3 ---- -- -7t ------- 7---- ---- Ll-@U, -------------- -------------- ----------- - -------------- - ------------ -------------- Aug. =') ----- ---- .. .... ------ ----- -- -------------- -------------- Sept. j- ----- ------- ------ -------- i----- ---- *!@@ -------------- ------------ -------------- L - -- ------- -- ----------- ----------- .............. Oct. ------ ----- -- - ------- .... ilS - -------------- ----------- Nov ---- ------- 2. ----@iAr-> ---I------------- ---------- . .............. 34 7 Dec. r REmARJW: ---- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------- --------------------------- --------- - - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----- --------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------------ LOWEST TIDE OBSERVED MONTH 2- DATE -FEET DATE FEET DATE FEET DATE FEET DATE FEET Jan. --- ---- aq- ..!o --asx -- ------------- ----------- - ------------ ------------ - Feb. -- -------------- ------------ i-------------- .......... ............. ............ -------------- Mar - ----- L-i ------- - -- -------------- - I Apr - ----- Lq ----- -- 0?@3-Lf- @ ------------- -------------- -------------- ------ ----- - i -------------- -------- -------------- ----------- --------- -------------- May ----- 3 ------- -- 0_5G --- ------ S@ ------ -- . --,rl Q--- -------------- ------ -------- i @------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- June ----- L5? ------ - ---- ---- Ln July ---- 2-0 ----- - 0-9-37 --- ------ Lt ----- -- -------------- - ------ ---------- -------------- 0, ------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- Aug. ----- --- 0@. ----------- Sept. ---------- ---- ------- --- .. .... ----------- ........... ------------- ----------- - ........ ---------- Oct. ------ --- ------- ----- --- - -------- ------ ------- Nov. Year Dec- 2, r- ------------- ------- ------ -------------- ------------ NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY POTOMAC RIVER DATA ON WATER ELEVATIONS Water Elevations, (ft, NGVDI NOS RIVER -------------------------------------------------- MILE NOS STATION TIME SPAN MHW I-No. 2-Mo. 1-Yr. 2-Yr. 10-Yr. Record, Date --------- ------------------------------ ----------- ----- ----- ----- ----- --------------- - 7 8577940 Cornfield Harbor, RD 11/70-02/72 1.13 2.20 2.50 -- -- -- 2.94 10/01171 8 0635750 Lemisetta, VA 1974 an 1.10 1.90 2.15 2.90 3.00 3.25 3.34 03/19JB3 16 8578240 Piney Point, RD 1960-1976 1.08 1.85 2.10 2.75 2.95 3.65 4.04 03108/62 36 8635150 Colonial Beach, VA 1972 an 1.45 2.40 2.65 3.25 3.50 4.00 3.97 09/06179 53 8579769 Port Tabacco, RD 11/70-10/72 1.10 2.30 2.50 -- -- -- 3.37 06/72 61 1574151 A,uia Creek, VA 11/70-09/72 1.13 2.30 2.45 3.25 12/70 68 8574609 Quantico, VA 11/70-10/72 1.18 2.30 2.60 3.37 06/22/71 74 8579381 Indian Head, RD 10/70-10/72 1.29 2.55 2.75 3.51 06172 82 8579629 Marshall Hall, MD 10/70-10/72 1.69 2.75 3.20 3.93 06/72 91 8634214 Alexandria, VA 05/74-07/75 2.01 3.15 3.20 6.62 12/74 95 9594900 Washington, DC 1931 on 2.09 2.09 3.00 3.90 4.30 6.60 10.44 10/17/47 ANNUAL HIGH WATER LEVELS AT NOS POTOMAC RIVER GAGES (LONG RECORDS) Eft, NGVO1 Sta 1 8594900 Sta # 8635150 Sta # 9635750 Sta # 8578240 Sta # 8634687 Year Washington, DC Colonial Beach Lewisetta, VA Piney Point, MD guantica, VA ----- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- 1960 4.04 02/19 2.84 07130 1161 4,14 11/21 3.04 10/24 1962 5.34 03/08 4.04 03/08 1963 3.64 09/06 1964 4.04 03/05 1965 4.34 02/25 2.24 06/16 1966 4.24 09/14 1967 3.94 05/26 3.44 05/26 1911 4,19 05/11 1969 3.94 11/02 2.84 11/02 1970 4.44 04/02 3.94 11/03 1971 4.34 10/25 3.31 10/02 1972 7.04 06/24 3.24 06/21 3.37 06/22 1973 4.32 04/27 3.22 10/29 2.64 04/19 1974 6.89 12/01 3.26 12/-- 1975 5,11 09/27 1,23 01/01 2,91 11/19 1976 4.26 01/02 2.46 04/01 1977 4.34 12/20 3.50 09/26 3.09 12/21 1978 5.64 01/26 3.48 04127 1979 6.56 02/26 4.07 09/06 2.99 09/06 1980 4.14 01/18 3.14 01/17 2.92 10/25 1981 3.82 11/16 3.27 11/16 2.74 11/16 1112 4,44 06111 3,36 10111 3,03 10/21 1983 4.84 03/19 3.93 03/19 3.34 03119 1984 5.12 02/16 3.94 03/29 3/10 03/28 1985 7.53 11/04 3.92 11/01 2.93 11105 1986 4.94 12/02 3.88 12/02 3.00 12/02 1987 4.65 10/17 3.82 04/17 2.87 09/20 1988 4.22 04/14 3.49 04/13 3.17 04/13 MLW -0.68 10/78 -0.21 10/78 -0.17 10/78 -0.34 10/78 -0.19 10/78 M11 2,09 1,45 1,11 1,11 1,11 EXTREME WASHINGTON, DC, FLOODS IN OTHER POTOMAC RIVER GA6E RECORDS Ut, NGVD1 June 1972 (Agnes) 8.04 at Washington, DC, on 06/24/72 5th highest in record 3.83 at Marshall Hall 3.28 at Aquia Creek 1,11 at Indian Head 3.37 at Riverside 3.37 at Ouantico on 06/22/72 3.24 at Piney Point an 06/21/72 Decesber 1974 -6.89--at-Washington, DC, an 12/01/74 8th highest in record 6.62 at Alexandria 2.81 at Colonial Beach on 12/16/74 2.54 at Piney Point an 12/16/74 3.26 at Lemisetta February 1979 : -6.56--at-Washington, DC, on 02/26179 9th highest in record 2.88 at Lewisetta Novenber 1985 (Juan) -------- ---- ------ - 7.53 at Washington, DC, an 11/04/85 6th highest in record [also 7.25 at Washington, DC, on 11/071851 3.92 at Colonial Beach on 11/01/85 2.93 at Lewisetta an 11/05/85 March 1962 : ------------ 4,01 at line, Point on 03/18/62 Highest over 11 years 5.34 at Washington, DC 4-Yr flood elevation Septeeber 1979 : 4.07 at Colonial Reach 03/08/62 Highest over 15 years 5.56 at Washington, DC 5-Yr flood elevation 1.19 at lewi,etta 2-Yr flood elevation March 1993 : ------------ 3.34 at Lewisetta Highest over 14 years 4.84 at Washington, DC 3-Yr flood elevation 3.93 at Colonial Beach 7-Yr flood elevation FLOOD WATER LEVELS OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE [ft, NGVD]: ------------------------------------------------------- 11.3 Projected 100-Year Flood Water Elevation at Washington, DC 10.44 Highest Recorded Water Elevation at Washington, DC, 1931-1988 7.9 Projected 100-Year Flood Water Elevation, Quantico, VA, FEMA Study 7.0 Tentative Wall Elevation for Marina Perimeter Structure (Breakwater) 3.97 Highest Recorded Flood Water Elevation, Colonial Beach, VA, 1972-1988 3.4 Projected Annual High Flood Water Elevation, Quantico, VA [Highest Recorded Flood Water Elevation, 1972-1972] 1.14 Mean High Water Level, Quantico, VA, 1960-1978 Tidal Epoch 0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum [NGVD] -0.23 Mean Low Water Level, Quantico, VA, 1960-1978 Tidal Epoch APPENDIX 11 (A through H) Historical Maps Depicting Topographic, Hydrographic and Boundary Features from 1903 to 1975 Ak U. S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY TOPOGRAPHIC MAP No. T-5763 MARYLAND -VIRGINIA POTOMAC RIVER NEABSCO CREEK QUANTICO SCALE 1:10,000 1 inch-833.33 ft.) This Map, Without Contours, Was Compiled From Air Photographs Taken June 29, October 25, 1938, And April 23, 1939, And Supplemented By Other Surveys To May 15, 1940 QUANTICO CREEK, 1)14z' 4P 41* is tw .'Z 40 1b 17 An Do 8C1 @--OC2 /B 2 Mari.1"11 All A2 QUANTICO POINTS DISTANCE AO - A2 2,250' A1 - A2 740' B1 - B2 820' C1 - C2 670' 90,godarqy 4Mo4MoWN Him 48. 1929 APPENDIX 11A U.S. Coast And Geodetic Survey Topographic Map (1938-1940) NATIONAL OCEAN SURVEY I A- L. POWELL. Director HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY No. 9322 VIRGINIA - MARYLAND POTOMAC RIVER VICINITY OF QUANTICO Date of Survey . . . May - October. 19 7 2 Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . I : 10.000 ChW of Party. G.R. Schaefer N.C. Austin Surveyed by . . . . . . . . Ship's Officers SOUNDINGS IN FEET at Mean Low Water drain pipe,,", 37 ,.t landmark 96 ft above ground 124 ft above MHW C007creff bloe't awash- 34 35 POINTS DISTANCE row subm,0111fig J 31 Al - A2 775' 35 B1 - B2 835'. 34 C1 - C2 670- foul w/concrele 6/00 S I 4.1f X,28 13430 concrete Bkhd 2 4 21 335 r4prilp 24 45 9 / 2@"' QUANTICO concroto pvo/"*- 3 4 2.3/ 33 3 J-1 3335 3, Coe 5 3ri Tiae Station concrete Bkhd /,71 -it -3 126 MARINE 2 RM I B1 OWNt W 4 q9 )12 33 33 _B2 4 229 4" 210 Al ,1 30/ '2 32 concretir rlo,qo Is iff #r )0 311@1 UaYb, N(I 131 32 _I 28 777 -.12 3Il--39-j() riv marker PRV 13C 274 surfaced rarnp-._ IN . 0, 30 Z,30 30 3030219 2 3 2630 29 30 N 4 411 29. Z9 J1 213' 2928 21 foul wlrks 5 q/ 9 29 58 2 a 28 tower outfoll 7 2 1 1 2 7 H p 213 ' 29 21t27 foul W/ r**--, 3 56 9 9' '/j2j' Z7 ; 7 - 9 concrete Bkhd 4 /1137, 28 27 2-7 28 27 s4wer outfall 4 8 A4 1 218 2 6Z6 2 4 7 Ij , 25 27 27 28 foul w rks and ------- 3 19/ H 28 if 2-3 conc,100 blac*s 4 ' 2152726 .2?" 7@1 3 rip rep con"q:k:0;khd .1)46 .2.0 20 f 22-7 6 1 n2116 2,627-2-72e27 2726 27. Ss 711@ b4 ! . .1 2 142 3 . I sft Ar Mj 4 25 26 27 27 25 APPENDIX 11B - National Ocean Survey Hydrographic Map (1972) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND IABUR coAST AND GEOUEme suRvEY 0. If. 'IlUxuann. SuperinswadenL POTOMAC RIVER AQUIA CREEK TO MATTAWOMAN CREEK JHD. AND VA. Plazwl!mNe Su@ kr S.Fbrrqr.%A"-Chier of Pw-tr .1903-1904 SCALIC 20WU0 P Sgurn Point 74- --n% @Shippinj Point J-1 POTOMAC POINTS 1 C2RIVER AO - A2 2,250' B 2 Al - A2 670'+ 2 840 "T Bl - B2 Ab Cl - C2 6701+ - L--7- -A- AL -P, APPENDIX 11C U.S- Coast And Geodetic Survey Topographic Map (1903-1904) @ND TABO DEPAItTMENT OF COMMERCF R COAST AND GEODETIC SUllv 0. ll.'nfim&uu.J%pfuintmdvnl- POTONUC RI -jR DOUGIAS POINT TO COCK IT POINT MARYL&ND AND VIRGINIA\ Surveyecl U.TAmmistaut J.B.B. -@f Ph" -T\ &mA October 1904 2.S 27 20 is 2D 28 QUANTICO CREEK 2* 7127 'awf. 26 Ak 29 . 26 29 * 28 -4mistXx 'A-&Vt'X J5 343* 3o 29 29 *27-ft 2vag to 30 4omqjW3Z 30 28. 28Z 22 zrp 27 21 .30 ze 'I 3* 28 334, 30 20 AJF#310 30 lam al it a: 31 % :10 me 32 20 ft jg 3, 303t to J3 7A DISTANCE 22 J3 20 POINTS -i6w 31 31 4APU 31 3# 28 Al - A2 550"+ \1 34 a Bl - B2 790'*+ 33)p 36 Cl - C2 580'T 35 3%-k 3v 72 as' Cl 38 2 &#.so Ile ft Bi 36 jo B2 is Al ask, 40 at A2 313, 34 at 20 2020 20 am 20 2t 10 aftft w ft awl% 31" .v Ion APPENDIX 11D U-S- Coast And Geodetic SurvOY Hydrographic map (1904) J .1 .17)1 1).0 0. 14- tj iv, \C1 q-4 - L41 r j4i- 4 Approximate Scale: 11, 0 0 APPENDIX 11E Plat Showing Property Of The Quantico Company, February 19, 1916, Joseph Berry, Surveyor, Fairfax County, Virginia 1@1 F@@;p UU Approximate Scale: 111=10001 7, Y 1-t 4`7m' '4 4 :,r r t iv a ..;*v- k 41 4.4 54. ,w 16? :j .AJ. APPENDIX 11F Preliminary Boundary Map Of The Quantico Marine Corps Base, January 21, 1920 QUANTICO, VA. - MD. SE/4 QUANTICO 15'OUADRANGLE 38077-E3-TB-024 1966 PHOTOREVISED 1983 BATHYMETRY ADDED 1982 I DIVIA 5561 111 SE-SERIES V834 SCALE 1:24000 0 1 MILE low 0--- 1000 7000 3COO 4000 5000 6000 IOLO FEET 0 1 @ILQKTER CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUMOF 1929 BATHYMEtRIC CONTOUR INTERVAL I METER WITH SUPPLEMENTARY 0.5 METER CONTOURS DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER THE RELATIONSHIP KTWEEPI THE TWO DATUM$ 13 VARIASUE THE MEAN RANGE OF TIDE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.4 METER Mapped By The Defense Mapping Agency Edited And Published By The Geological Survey And The National Ocean Service In cooperation With Commonwealth of Virginia Agencies Control By NOS/NOAA, And USCE bup Q& C', n, Light 4. 0 U, J\ A.... P6 Ssum Point 4, 30 45 A R. 5g; &Z e :71, G @67 OU "-F P ng oint-, A y ZL 0 Quantko V 321 , " - " @7: --, 2, AV! APPENDIX 11G U.S. Geological Survey Topographical And Bathymetric Map (1966, 1982, And 1983) MARINE CORPS BASE, QUANTICO V834S I -DMATC hop&-" &ad wAIAW by Ow oewwo mopping Ago" Topographic Cootw. wasmalwa. 0. C. 11"Fou"00" AS of 11711 C" "0 MO. A LAW 6 G&49&Ml COMMAND AS KOM A MWAVANA OF 6 Rif 0.3 MATINS) IN WOM Scale 1:25,OW t 41 Ion ssum ain,/ 'b 'b IiN1 4 Gal Zipping Point )Ilavall Hospital 4u tico 7. .,.tr \i P. 34 APPENDIX 11H Defense mapping Agency Map (1975) APPENDIX 12 Nontidal Wetland Data Form DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): Mark Haus Date: 7/20/89 Project Site: Potomac Riverfront Park State: VA County: Prince William Co. Applicant/Owner: Town of Quantico Plant Community #/Name. Area 1 (W-1) Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X No (If no. explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X (If yes. explain on back) --------------------------------------------------- VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Red Oak FACU- T 11. Grape Sp. FAC-FACU V 2. White Oak FACU- T 12. 3. Poison Ivy FAC V 13. 4. Virginia Creeper FACU V 14. 5. Jewelweed FACW H 15. 6. Lizard's Tail OBL H 16. 7. Bracken Fern FACU H 17. 8. Silky Dogwood FACW S 18. 9. Black Cherry FACU S 19. 10. Southern Arrowood FAC S 20. Percent of dominant species that are 0BL,FACW and/or FAC 50% Is the hydrohytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale, 50% of the dominants are facultative and/or wetter SOILS Series/phase: Dumfries and Mattapex* -Subgroup:2 Is the sail on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No X Is the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X Matrix Color 5Y3/1 1OYR472 Mottle Colors: 10YR4/6 Other hydric sail indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Chroma of 2 with mottles and less than 2 without mottles HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth: Is the sod saturated? Yes X No- 10 to 12" Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Saturated Soils JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE 1s the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale fair jurisdictional decision: All three parameters present 1This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy." *Based on phone conversation with Prince William County SCS DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METH0D1 Field Investigator(s): mark Haus Date: 7/20/89 Project/Site: Potomac Riverfront-Park State: VA County: Prince William Co. Applilcant/0wner: Town of Ouantico Plant Community #Name: Area 2 (W-2) Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, Use the back of data form or a field notebook. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Do normal environmental conditions exist at hte plant community? Yes X No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils. and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X (If yes. explain on back) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - VEGETATION Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1.Jewelweed FACW H 11. Common Greenbriar FAC V 2.Tulip Tree FACU T 12. False Nettle FACW+ H 3.Red Oak FACU T 13. 4.Virginia Creeper FACU V 14. 5.Sumac UPL S 15. 6.Black Cherry FACU S 16. 7.Red Maple FAC S 17. 8.Japanese Honeysuckle FAC- V 18. 9.Poison Ivy FAC v 19. 10.Sassafras FACU T 20. Percent of dominant species that are 0BL,FACW, and/or FAC 50% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: 50% of dominants are faculative or wetter SOILS Series/phases: Dumfries and Mattapex* Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined 13 the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No x Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color 2.5Y5/4 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: 0 Is the hydric sod criterion met? Yes No x Rationale: Matrix Chroma HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No x Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Well-drained List other field evidence of surface inundation at soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _ No X Rationale: Well-drained, upland area JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Hydric soils and wetland hydrology not present This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy." Based on conversation with Prince William County SCS DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): Mark Haus Date 7/20/89 Project/Site: Potomac Riverfront Park State:VA County:Prince William Co. Applicant/0wner: Town of Quantico Plant Community #/Name: Area 3 (W-3) Note: If a More detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. ------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X No (If no. explain on back) Has the vegetation. soft, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No X(If yes, explain an back) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1.Black Willow FACW TS 11.Silky Dogwood FACW S 2.Button Bush OBL S 12.Sweetflag OBL H 3.Pickeral Weed OBL H 13. 4.Grape Sp. FAC-FACW V 14. 5.Jewelweed FACW H i5. 6.False Nettle FACW+ H 16. 7.Goldenrod Sp. OBL-FACU H 17. 8.Sycamore FACW- S 18. 9.Silver Maple FACW T 19. 10.Cattail OBL H 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW. and/or FAC 100% is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale:> 50% of dominants are facultative or wetter SOILS Series/phase: Dumfries and Mattapex* Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No x Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No x Histic epipedon present? Yes No x 1s the soil: Mottled? Yes X No Gleyed? Yes No X Matrix Color: 7.5YR3/0 Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydrqic soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Matrix chroma of zero HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth: 4" Is the sod saturated? Yes x No Depth to free-standing water in pitsoil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or sod saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: Saturated conditions subject to periodic flooding JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: All three parameters present 1This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy," Based on phone conversation with Prince William County SCS DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METH0D1 Field Investigator(s): Mark Haus Date: 7/20/89 Project/Site: Potomac Riverfront Park State: VA County: Prince William Co. Applicant/Owner: Town of Quantico Plant Community #/Name : Area 4 (W-4) Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. --------------------------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X No (If no. explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No (If yes, explain on back) --------------------------------------------------- VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. Red Oak FACU- T 11. Rose Sp. OBL-FACU S 2. Jewelweed FACW H 12. Slippery Elm FAC T 3. Red Maple FAC S 13. 4. Silver Maple FACW S 14. 5. Silky Dogwood FACW S 15. 6. Catalpa FAC T 16. 7. Honeysuckle FAC- V 17. 8. Black Cherry FACU S 18. 9. Black Locust FACU- T 19. 10. Sycamore FACU- T 20. Percent dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 73% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes x No Rationale: 50% of dominants are facultative and wetter SOILS Series/phase: Fill Subgroup: 2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No X Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No x Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color Fill material - varied Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric sad criterion met? Yes No x Rationale: Area composed of fill material HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No x Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes NO X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or sod saturation. Well defined channel Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes x No Rationale: Well-drained swale that periodically floods JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetand? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Facultative or wetter vegetation exist and hydrology is present (even though fill did not exhihit usual charateristics) 1 This data form can be used for the Hydrqic Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classificqation according to "Soil Taxonomy." APPENDIX 13 La boratory Analysis Data Sheet on Composite Sediment Sample DATA SUMMARY SHEET Report No: 8679 Date: 08/21/89 Client: Town of Quantico Coll: 06/21/89 c/o Dewberry & Davis Recv: 06/22/89 Attn: Mark Headly W.O. No. 05661-PZ874-ENG Sample Description: Soil (Composite) - 12774 Sample Source: Stations 1,2,3,4,5 Quantico Bay Parameter Results Arsenic, mg/kg <0.5 Barium, mg/kg <50. Cadmium, mg/kg <2. Chromium, mg/kg <8. Lead, mg/kg 10. Mercury, mg/kg <0.5 Selenium, mg/kg <0.1 Silver, mg/kg <4.0 NOTES: 1. Results expressed in ppm (mg/kg) dry weight. 2. Samples were dried and composited by weight. 3. Sample digestion was performed using EPA Method 3010. 4. Analysis was performed using atomic absorption (Flame spectroscopy). Dp@le Dewberry & Davis 0 S APPENDIX 14 Gradation Analysis Results on Sediment Samples from Samples No. 3, 5A, and 5B Quantico 9-11-89 Sample: S-3 S-5A S-5B Sieve % Passing 2 in 100.0 100.0 1 in 81.5 87.2 3/4 in 100.0 69.0 77.9 3/8 in 88.0 50.1 58.1 No 4 85.1 37.4 46.9 No-10 82.3 30.2 39.2 No 20 76.4 21.6 31.7 No 40 60.8 8.1 16.6 No 60 44.3 3.0 7.9 No 100 29.3 1.9 3.9 No 200 23.4 0.9 2.6 Liquid Limit 28 Plastic Limit 18 NP NP Plasticity Index 10 Classification SC GP GP All Shells =0 low on am mo aw m an so on aw 410 dw SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS sli-c-OF OPENING IN INCHIES I NVM15ER OF Mff!5H PEFI INCH. US. STAND RP I 45RAIN S.ZE IN k4b N 100 at 402 Aqq C, 0 90 -10 or 60 20 70 30 w w @ 40 L > A 40 ir Ix w 50 50 0: U. 1 4 0 u -60 z 40-- uj u cc u w or IL I w 30- 70 IL 2 do io 2.0 0 lop 0 GRAIN SIZK IN MILLIMIETICRS CORPS OF INGINKER3 UNIFORM $OIL CLASSIFICATION so Coarse Medium Fine COBBLES 0@ FINES GRAVEL 5AND SAMPLE NQ DEPTH -FT CLASSIFICATION WWC. LL Pi PROJECT jan-Vi m Sample data S-3 Sc 28 10 q - 3 Subenirted by Expl. ot 9p. sample No. GRADATION CURVES lplaned: W/o N 0. (Dar* of ropq ch.qC 9.11 Mechanics 19,11-cill As A* OR "m am go so mow Jim so *0 ON SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANA LYSIS OPENING IN INCHES NVMDE R OF tAK!3" FE11 IrqCH, US. STANO RD I GRIkIN SITE 114 ML4 -A st Q8 a 0 100 go 10 20 ao 30 70 w w 60 1 --- x 40 > cr 0 r% w (r IA w -50 cr z so-- 4 LL 0 f I 1 -00 z w 40-- INS w v I, U ir ILI f (L IL % 70 30 20 4141=::::A11-H--F-4 --TITTT' 7FT l1w --T-r1w 1 1 lop TT 9 Ot bj 44 44 2 T N 44 GRAIN SIZI IN 144ILLIMETERS CORPS OF INGINKER3 UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATIOM Fine Coarse Medium Fine C BBLE G RAVEL SAND FINES 0 --d PROJECT 'FT CLASSIFICATION WTWC. LL P11 SAMPLE NO, DEPTH r I. Sample data s-5A Nc) 9A Submitted by Expl. or 9p. sample No. No. 00" GRADATION CURVES laded; (Der* of r*pott) ch.qf@ 6.11 M A 4. -A 4 40P 40 =01 40 low SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHIS NyMISER OF M63H PER INCH. LAS. STAr4DARD I rRAIN SiZE IN MM vi 4o 2 sit -0 0 so 100 1 1 1 10 so x 20 80 70 -30 w 00 x -40 > (A 50 Ix 50 - 4 0 LL - u 60z 40 w w IL W IL 70 30- do 0- YN -50 10- tb 0 1 1111 fit IiI I I I ziq=l-r-@ r= - tiog 00 2 a 'a a T - N - 44 IR bi * al 94 R GRAIN SIZE IN K41LLIMCTICRS - COFtPS OF SN41NIEZR3 UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION rse fine Coarse Medium Fine FINES COBEILES GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE N3 -6-1E-PTH FT CLASSIFICATION N@T WC. L L P I PROJECT Cliant-i M Sample data S-5B Submitted by No 5B Expl. or gp. sample No. W/o N a. lFicrisd: GRADATION CURVES (Dare of to art) ChiW 6.5 Mgch*nIc&--Br-r--- pncfi-- APPENDIX 15 (A through F) Additional Engineering Considerations and Analysis. APPENDIX 15 ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSES 15.A. PUBLIC RIVERFRONT PARK FACILITIES Conceptual Site Features The upland portion of riverfront park area is easily accessable from west by way of the River Road (Exhibit 2). A short spur from River Road preferably along the Town's property line with the Naval Hospital in the north would provide the additional access required for both vehicular and better pedestrian access to the shoreline and the docking facilities. The surface of the spur road could be paved or simply stabilized, but will.have an open section in either case. This spur will take approximately 5,000 sq-ft of the park area including a 40-ft wide turn-around provided at the road's end where a boat ramp can be constructed at the shoreline. For off-street parking purposes, a strip of land exists on three parcels of Town property along the western side of the River Road with a total length of at least 520 ft that appears to have no potential of grading problem for a minimum 20-ft wide parking area. This implies a minimum of (520 ft)/(9 ft) => 57 spaces for standard parking oriented perpendicular to- the road. A 10-ft wide strip along the eastern side of River Road, on the other hand, would provide a minimum of (500 ft)/(19 ft) => 27 spaces. Thus, a total of 57+27 => 84 parking spaces are available for the marina, with additional area available for trailers. Because there are no 5pecific regulations in effect by either the Town of Quantico or by Prince William County regarding parking requirements for marina facilities, it was decided to apply the widely acceptable criteria of one off-street parking space with minimum dimensions of 9 ft x 18 ft for every two slips proposed for the marina. Thus, the minimum 84 parking spaces available would allow for a minimum of 2x84 => 168 slips for the marina. Preliminary Site Limitations It appears from the preceding preliminary evaluations that no site limitations or problems should be encountered in allocating adequate parking in the upland portion of the park and providing access spur to the shoreline under normal cicumstances. Furthermore, due to the absence of any wetlands vegetation in the park area, these upland park area activities will not likely produce any major adverse environmental impacts. Finally, no special problems should be encountered in regards to additional minor upland amenities, such as a concession stand, a restaurant, a ships' store and similar public facilities. Clearly, however, the overall extent and likelihood of these "amenity" facilities is closely related to the degree of realization achievable for the proposed marina facilities on the "water" side of the project. Preliminary Cost Estimates: Considering only the improvements related to parking spaces and the spur access road, the following gross estimates can be made: 84 parking spaces, 84x9'xlB' = 13,608 sq-ft Spur access road, 250'x2O' = 5,000 sq-ft Shoreline turn-around, 40'x4O' = 1,600 sq-ft Gross total surface area = 20,200 sq-ft Using 20,000 sq-ft or less than 1/2 acres of paved area including the spur access road and all parking, the upland park portion of the proposed project activities will probably require nearly (20,000 SF x $1.25/SF of surface =>) $25,000. A more detailed account of this and other conceivable "upland facilities" aspects of the project would be part of the future planning, engineering and costing studies. 15.B. MARINA FACILITIES Boat Distribution Characteristics An evaluation of the current boating trends in the region is an important step in planning of marina facilities. Such an evaluation was performed using a computerized data base for the Potomac Estuary, and other data gathered for various marinas in Virginia and Maryland. A graphic presentation of these boat distribution data are given in Figures 15.1 and 15.2. Also considered carefully were the particular site conditions of the proposed Quantico marina basin, in regards to boating and navigation characteristics. It is important to note-'that the project site is quite unique with its immediate access to the minumum 25-ft deep waters of the main channel of the Potomac River. This implies that the boats will spend virtually negligible navigation time between the marina and the main channel of the Potomac River. A discussion was held with Mr. Rusty Arcuni, the Harbor Master of the Marine Corps Base marina and dock, on the overall features of the facility in regards to boating. It was learned that there has been a significant demand for slips to accomodate larger boats mainly because of the extreme proximity of the wide open and deep waters of the Potomac River. Similar conditions and criteria will certainly be valid for the proposed marina. Preliminary Features of the Marina Structures and Facilities The main features of the proposed marina will be two floating piers with slips on both sides and on ends, additional slips off a floating dock along the marina side of the breakwater, the seawall with t least partial improvements and a boat ramp. Of the several possible configurations and number of slips, the ultimate selection will depend on both economic and environmental factors, including the typical dimensions of these structures (refer to Table 15.1), but perhaps more importantly, the extent of dredging that can be realized. Two dredging scenarios considered for the proposed marina basin are illustrated in Figures 15.3 and-15.4. Dredging Scenario No. I is to accomodate 143 slips and calls for lowering the bottom elevation to an elevation of approximately -6 MLW between the Tees of the floating piers and the breakwater, while the remainder of the basin would be lowered to the approximate elevation of -6 MLW. Dredging Scenario No. 2, on the other hand, involves a largely "scaled-down" dredging to accomodate 68 slips only at the deeper portions of the basin. The possible dock configurations for these two cases are summarized in Table 15.2. The marina layouts considered above are based on a breakwater constructed with the proposed alignment to protect the basin from northerly storms. Without the breakwater, the marina would be reduced from that of a sheltered harbor to an open pier. A marina with a very small number slips will probably not justify the cost of the breakwater. Section 15.G presents the principal elements and the associated preliminary cost estimates for the proposed project and four additional alternatives. Regarding the extents of dredging and docking configurations considered, these alternatives provide a fairly wide spectrum of the potential applications. Nevertheless, a more detailed study will eventually be needed to determine the extent of dredging, boat size distribution, dock and slip layouts desired and to finalize breakwater alignment and cross section, subsequent to the resolution of the environmental questions. Table 15.1 - Typical Dimensions for Piers, Slips and Catwalks I From Ramsey & Sleeper: Architectural Standards, 7th Ed., p. 180 t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Length : Maximum : Minimum Minimum : Gross ; Width :CL to CL Minimum ! Total : Group ;Beas Wdth:Distance Clear :Width of: of :Width of Clear :Catwalk; of Boat of Boat :to Anchor!Width for:Each Slip! Catwalk @Each Pair: Fairway :Length : Pile :Each Slip: :of Slips: Width : [ft] !Cft]:Cinl:[ft]:Cin]:Cft]:Cin]:Cftli(in]:Cftli[in]:Cft]:Cinl:[ftl:cin]: (ft] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Up to 14 6 7 17 0 8 10 10 9 4 0 25 1 6 21 0 12 14 to 16 7 4 19 0 9 8 1 11 7 4 0 27 2 24 0 12 16 to 18 8 0 21 0 10 5 12 4 1 4 0 28 8 27 0 14 18 to 20 8 7 23 0 11 1 13 0 4 0 30 0 30 0 16 20 to 22 9 3 25 0 11 9 13 1 8 4 0 31 4 33 0 to 22 to 25 10 3 28 0 13 1 1 14 0 4 0 32 0 37 1 6 18 25 to 30 11 3 33 0 14 3 15 2 4 0 34 4 45 0 20 30 to 35 12 3 38 0 15 8 17 7 4 0 39 2 52 6 22 35 to 40 13 3 43 0 16 11 18 10 4 0 41 8 60 0 24 40 to 45 14 1 48 0 17 It 19 10 4 0 43 8 67 6 26 45 to 50 14 11 53 0 19 0 20 11 4 0 45 10 75 0 29 1 50 to 60 1 16 6 63 1 0 21 0 22 11 4 0 49 10 qO 0 34 60 to 70 18 1 73 0 23 0 24 9 4 0 53 4 @105 0 34 70 to 80 17 9 83 0 24 11 1 26 7 4 0 57 2 :120 0 34 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 15.2 - Town of Guantico larina: Alternative Dock Configurations PROPOSED PROJECT : -------------------------------------------------------------------- Length : NUMBER OF SLIPS IN EACH DOCK !TOTAL Group DOCK 1 DOCK 1 DOCK DOCK @ DOCK DOCK DOCK : ALL of Boat A : 0 : C D 1 E F 6 :DOCKS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 20' i 10 14 1 24 :21' to 25' 1 25 15 24 64 :26' to 35' 1 20 22 42 :36' to 40' 8 8 141' to 50' 4 i 4 > 50, 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- !GRAND TOTAL: 12 1 25 ! 25 20 : 22 : 39 1 @ 143 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ALTERNATIVE I --------------------------------------------------------------------- Length NUMBER OF SLIPS IN EACH DOCK :TOTAL Group DOCK 1 DOCK DOCK 1 DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK : ALL of Beat A : B C : D E F G :DOCKS --------------------------------------------------------------------- <= 20' 1 0 @21' to 25' 10 12 14 36 @26' to 35' 10 i 9 19 :35' to 40' 8 8 :41' to 50' 4 4 50, 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- :GRAND TOTAL! 12 1 10 : 12 : 10 : 9 : 14 : I : 68 ; --------------------------------------------------------------------- "K " M *0 'Iim, 00 'w go w w @Nw we ',wo on BOAT REGISTRATION, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND Boat Size Distribution Cumulative % of Larger Boats 100 Virginia, 6007 Boats 80 Maryland, 1237 Boats 60 40 - ------ 20 . .. . ............. 01 9 B 8 &9 20 30 40 '50 60 Boat Size (feet) FIGURE 16.1 - Registered Boat Size Distributions In Virginia & Maryland ww IV M so I=* ww Iwo TWO MARINAS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. Slip Size Distribution Cumulative % of Larger Slips 100 KM -T Gangplank, 369 Slips 80 Columbia, 384 Slips 60 40 . . . ....... ........... ...... 20 ................. . ........ .. . . ....... . . ............ .. 10 30 50 70 90 110 Slip Size (feet) FIGURE 15.2 - Slip Size Distributions for two Marinas In Washington, D.C. TOWN of QUANTICO -4Z -4 N, N Q& 2- "II/CO AZI QUANTICO PROPOSED MARINE BASE PIERS 77- PROPOSED /CO BREAKWATER VIRGINIA STATE GRID NEIRTH APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" 200' POTOMAC RIVER FIGURE 15.3 Dredging Scenario No. 1 sw TOWN of QUANTICO -14 -42, -10 Q& QUANTICO PROPOSED MARINE BASE 4 PIERS ;@5L4v 4 PROPOSED /0, 0 BREAKWATER VIRGiNIA STATE GRID NORTH APPROXIMATE SCALE: 11' 200' POTOMAC RIVER FIGURE 15.4 Dredging Scenario No. 2 Materials and Construction Methods After a review of the available literature, several discussions and correspondence with several manufacturers and contractors, site-specific conditions and regional trends, it was determined that the floating docks will consist of modular deck and frame systems with standard fenders and anchorage or support piles. It is a common feature of these systems that polyethylene floats with polystyrene beads provide long-lasting protection against salt-water corrosion, ice and boat impact damage, and harmful marine bicta. Floating docks also provide a specified freeboard and adequate spacing for passage of currents, debris and ice. Furthermore, ice control equipment (ice-eaters) will virtually be a mendatory option for this project. The construction and installation methods and the equipment used vary among the manufacturers. Adequately prepared specifications and inspection procedures would ensure environmentally feasible, economically viable and structurally safe floating docks. Preli'minary Cost Estimates For the proposed project, the floating piers involve 1,620 feet of the 8-foot wide standard docks, and an additional 180 feet of 12-foot wide fuel docks. Currently, the average unit cost of the typical floating docks is $23 '.00 per square feet (SF) of the deck area for the material and installation, with additional $6.50/SF for utilities and approximatelty $8.00/SF for guide piles. Hence, applying a total installed unit cost of $37.50/SF, the estimated cost of the floating docks for the proposed scenario becomes: [(1,620')(8')+(180')(12')1 [$37.50/SF] = (15,120 SF) ($37.50/SF) = $567,000. Cost estimates for the floating pier components of the various alternatives considered are presented in Section 15.G. 15.C. BREAKWATER Preliminary Configuration As depicted by Exhibits 3 or 4, the configuration of the proposed breakwater is basically a symmetrical image of the Marine Corps Base marina on the south side of the Marine Corps Base dock with the dock itself being the axis of symmetry. This configuration is recommended for all alternative designs. However, its exact point of attachment to the shoreline may be subject to revision due to easement and setback requirements to be determined later. The breakwater is formed of two principal segments. The portion attached to the shoreline is approximately 450 ft long, and parallel to the northern edge of the Marine Corps Base dock. As such, this segment is also approximately perpendicular to both the shoreline and the north-marth-east direction expected to produce the "design storm" waves. The second segment is nearly 280-ft long and defines the northern end of the inlet to the proposed marina basin, whereas the inlet's southern end is defined by the Marine Corps Base dock. Based on tidal and riverine flood evaluations and design wave predictions, the top elevation for the breakwater was set as 7.0 ft above MLW for the entire breakwater for the purposes of this concept study. This top elevation is about 1,5 ft higher t "an the that of the Marine Corps Base dock, and expected to provide a safe harbor for the marina basin with a fairly low risk of being overtopped during most storms. Materials and Construction Method Structurally, the breakwater will be constructed of precast reinforced concrete pipe/piles with timber fillers, quarry-stone riprap toe protection on the outboard side of the wall, and a reinforced concrete slab cap on top. A typical section of the breakwater is shown schematically in Figure 13. Based on preliminary geotechnical and hydrodynamic evaluations, the precast reinforced concrete piles was tentatively set to be 4 ft in diameter with 5-inch wall thickness and 25-ft length in deeper parts of the basin. These dimensions would be typical for the offshore segment of the breakwater with the proposed dredging conditions. For less dredging and near the shoreline with shallower depths, these dimensions would decrease. In particular, the pile length required could be reduced to about 15 ft. However, determination of the actual pile lengths required must await detailed geotechnical investigations and finalization of the basin geometry. The piles will be driven using several inches of space and timber fillers will be applied after all the piles are in place. These timber fillers could be sized to fit locally and will render the wall basically impermeable. In addition to providing a smoother surface on the marina side, use of spaced pilings will also help reduce the risk of pile damage during driving and will result in significant savings in both material and labor costs. The top of the piles will be covered with a minimum 18-inch thick reinforced concrete slab running along the entire breakwater. The primary functions of this slab will be to provide lateral support for the piles and uniform appearance to the wall despite the likely unevenness of the pile tops after they are driven. The marina side of the breakwater wall will be a vertical wall extending down to the existing or otherwise dredged bottom. This is not expected to promote local scour at the base of the wall in view of the low-speed boating and otherwise calm waters within the marina basin. In order to reduce the risk of scour on the outer side of the wall exposed to the waves and currents of the Potomac River, an the other hand, quarry-stone type riprap will be placed along its base for toe protection. For a design wave height of 4.5 ft, the average weight of the armor stone required will be about 640 lbs, increased to nearly 875 lbs for a 5-ft high design wave. The Shore Protection Manual suggests that a +25%-spread should be applied around these average sizes to determine the minimum and maximum sizes of stone for the top layer of a stone revetment. It should be noted, however, that these stones will provide toe protection to the breakwater, and as such, all be submerged at least 2 ft below water surface, unlike a stone revetment which would be directly exposed to the oncoming waves. It should also be remarked that these stone sizes are applicable for the offshore seaments of the breakwater with relatively deep water and the waves breaking in the immediate vicinity of the breakwater thus dorectly and fully impacting the structure. As the water depth decreases towards the shoreline along the outer wall of the breakwater, smaller size stones may be used because of the reduced wave height due to shoaling effects and breaking of waves farther away from the breakwater. The preceding considerations lead to the following design recommendations for the riprap protection: 0 use 200-lb to BOO-lb armor stones to form the top layer; 0 use gradually smaller armor stones near the shoreline, but no less than 200-lb to 600-lb stones on the top layer; 0 use the heavier stones to form a minimum 3-ft wide toe; 0 excavate minimum 1-ft below existing grade to place the toe; 0 use smaller (50-lb to 100-1b) stones for the lower layers; 0 use a woven plastic filter cloth along the entire base of the riprap and up the face of the breakwater; 0 provide 2-ft wide top and 2:1-sloped face for the riprap as determined by the local water depth; 0 provide the 3-ft wide toe as a minimum, even where the water depth is shallow and does not allow for a sloped-face. An adequately designed riprap will efficiently dissipate the energy of oncoming waves, and thereby minimize reflection and virtually eliminate the risk of local scour in front of the breakwater. It will also provide a favorable environment for the shallow water habitat with its essentially porous strcuture. Preliminary Cost Estimates PRECAST CONCRETE PILES: The 4-ft diameter, circular, precast reinforced concrete piles will be spaced at approximately 5-ft intervals, For all piles, the top elevation will be approximately constant, about 1.0' below the top of the reinforced concrete cap running along the entire breakwater, pile top elevation of +6.0 MLW. The bottom or the tip elevation will depend on the actual location of the pile, and governed by the detailed design requirements accounting for the local geotechnical and design wave characteristics. For the "offshore segment" of the breakwater running nearly parallel to the shoreline, where the water depth adjacent to the breakwater will be maximum with the existing or otherwise dredged bottom elevation being approximately -7.0 MLW, with nearly 28-ft long piles, depending on the stiffness of the local soil strata. For the shallowest regions of the breakwater, the minimum value of 16 ft is used. Thus: Total of 146 piles: 66 @ 8-ft, 20 @ 24-ft, 20 @ 20-ft, and 40 @ 16-ft; total of 3,368-ft length for all piles, unit cost of $95/LF (linear foot, vertical, in place, including the treated timber fillers=, and hardware): 3,368-ft x $95/LF $319,960 PRECAST CONCRETE CAP: The cap section of the breakwater will be reinforced concrete, probably cast in place after the piles are driven, with a total (conservative) volume of 6-ft wide x 2-ft deep x 730-ft long (27 cu-ft/C.Y.) 325 C.Y., and estimated cost of: @ $175/C.Y. (in place)= $56,875 HAND RAILS: A pair of aluminum hand rails will run along each side of the top of the breakwater, with a total length of 2x730 ft=1,460 ft and estimated cost of4 @ $41/LF (in place) $59,860 QUARRY-STONE RIPRAP TOE PROTECTION: Four different typical cross sections were considered for the quarry-stone riprap for toe protection to be placed along the outer wall of the breakwater based on the local water depth. All of these cross sections have the same apron-top elevation of -2.0 MLW; whereas the toe-top elevation varies between -6, '3 and -2.0 MLW, as tabulated below: DESCRIPTION/LOCATION APPROX APPROX. APPROX. LENGTH AVE.TOE VOLUME OF TOE-RIPRAP SEGMENT EFTI ELEVEFTI [C.Y.1 N-S Segment, Offshore 280 -6.0 518.5 W-E Segment, outermost 50' 50 -6.0 92.6 W-E Segment, next 200' 200 -3.0 192.6 W-E Segment, next to shore 200 *-2.0 44.1 -------------------------------- --- ----- Entire Riprap Toe.Protection 730 847.8 With unit weight of 1.5 Tons/C.Y., total weight =>> 1,300 tons Use unit cost of $50/Ton for quarry-stone riprap toe in-place: Total Cost of Quarry-Stone Riprap Toe Placed $65,000 Based on the above, the total estimated cost of the entire breakwater may be evaluated as follows: Subtotal, Construction Cost $501,695 Mobilization, @ 2.5% of Construction Cost $ 12,543 Subtotal, Construction + Mobilization Costs $514,237 Contingency, @ 20% of Construction+Mobilization Costs $102,647 TOTAL BREAKWATER COST $617.085 AVERAGE COST OF BREAKWATER ($617,085/730 ft) $845/LF ALTERNATE DESIGN: QUARRY-STONE BREAKWATER An alternate design to the breakwater with precast concrete piles referred to above is a quarry-stone breakwater with the following preliminary features for its maximum cross section: Top width = 4.0 ft Top Elev = +7.0 ft Side Slopes = 2:1 Toe-top Elev = -6.0 ft Toe Width = 4.0 ft Toe bottom Elev= -8.0 ft The minimum cross section, an the other hand, will have: Top width = 4.0 ft Top Elev = +7.0 ft Side Slopes = 2:1 Toe top Elev = -0.0 ft Toe Width = 4.0 ft Toe bottom Elev= -2.0 ft Quarry-stone in the 600-lb to 1,200-lb range would be recommended to provide stability for the top layer of the breakwater against design wave heights of up to 5.0 ft where the breakwater is at its maximum size. For the layers below the top layer, and along the segments of the breakwater with shallower water-depths, the stone size may be as low as 200-lb to E300-lb range. With 330 ft of the full section, and the remaining 400-ft transition to the minimum cross section, the following preliminary quantity and cost estimates are obtained: 11,600 C.Y = 17,400 tons of 200-lb to 1,200-lb quarry-stone: @ $50/ton in place (including filter cloth) = $ 870,000 Contingency @ 15% (Lower-risk construction) = $ 130,500 TOTAL QUARRY-STONE BREAKWATER COST = $1,000,500 AVERAGE COST OF BREAKWATER ($1,000,500/730 ft)= $1,370/LF A comparison based strictly on the-preceding preliminary cost estimates for the proposed And alternative breakwater scenarios clearly favors the proposed scenario. 15.D. SEAWALL IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary Configuration The proposed scenario with breakwater involves replacement of the deteriorated portion with a full-section stone revetment and improvement of the remainder portion of the existing seawall with wedge-shaped stone reinforcement and otherwise minor repairs. The deteriorated portion of the existing seawall is approxim@tely 100-ft long, and it exhibits broken concrete rubble, considerable wash-off of backfill material and exposed roots of three trees within 10 to 15 feet of the wall alignment. This segment would be replaced by a full-section quarry-stone revetment with a top elevation of +5.0 MLW at its 5-ft wide apron, 2:1-sloped face and 4-ft wide toe and the toe top placed at approximately at MLW, with the typical geometrical features as shown in Figure 15(a). The segment of the wall to be reinforced.covers nearly 200 ft of the shoreline within the proposed marina basin area. As shown in Figure 15(b), the riprap toe protection would be wedge-shaped, with a top elevation of +2.0 MLW at its 2.0-ft minimum wide apron, a 2:1-sloped face where required, and the toe-top again placed at approximately MLW. This reinforcement may be extended as necessary beyond the marina basin portion of the shoreline, excluding perhaps the beach segment of the shoreline. It is recommended that the shoreline segment north of the Town property be also stabilized with or without the breakwater. This may be achived using the full-section stone revetment where there is no structure protecting the shoreline or the wedge-shaped reinforcement with the same features as those being recommended for the Town's shoreline. Consequently, the off-sitei shoreline improvements would basically be a continuation of the Town's stabilized shoreline. Materials and Construction Method Quarry-stone will be used for both the full-section revetment and stone reinforcement. With the breakwater in place, the stones along the Town's shoreline will be in the 200-lb to 600-lb range. Because the offsite segment of the shoreline in the north adjacent to the Town's shoreline will be exposed to northerly storms irrespective of the breakwater, 600-lb to 1,,600-lb armor stones should be used to protect this segment of the shoreline. In either case, largerstones will be placed to form the toe section, with smaller stones to be placed up the 2:1-sloped face forming at least a 2-stone thick section. In order to form a relatively smooth surface and provide added stability, 50-lb to 200-lb stones will be used for "chinking" the armor stone, particularly in the case of the full-section stone revetment. The existing bottom will be excavated a minimum of 1-ft for toe placement, and elsewhere along the base of the structure as necessary. This will reduce the risk of instability due to local scour and settlement in the future. Woven plastic filter cloth will be laid along the entire base of the stone structures with the fabric material not extending beyond the base to prevent the risk of local scour induced by the possible flopping motion of material. Over the filter cloth, a protective layer 3-inch to 6-inch bedding-stone will be placed before the quarry-stone layers are placed. Any existing storm drain pipes will be extended through the stone revetment or stone reinforcement structure to discharge at the 1:2-sloped face with an invert elevation at or above MLW in order to ensure adequate outfall. Finally, it is important that these structures be constructed by the method of "placement" and not by "dumping" the stones in order to achieve long-lasting stability. Preliminary Cost Estimates Based on the preceding considerations and the geometric features shown in Figures 14(a) and 14(b) in Section 111.8, the following preliminary cost estimates were obtained: DESCRIPTION/LOCATION APPROX APPROX APPROX LENGTH VOLUME WEIGHT OF STONE STRUCTURE EFT] [Cyl [TONS] Full-Section Stone Revetment 100 196 275 Transition Section 50 75 105 Stone Reinforcement 150 155 217 ---------------------------- --- Entire Improvement 300 426 597 Using 600 tons of quarry-stone and unit cost of $50/ton in place including mobilization, excavation for toe placement, material and labor for bedding stone and filter fabric: Construction cost, seawall improvement = $30,000 Additional wall repair and regrading, etc. = $ 7,500 Subtotal, construction cost = $37,500 Contingency, @20% of subtotal construction cost = $ 7,500 APPROXIMATE STONE SEAWALL IMPROVEMENT COST $45P000 AVERAGE COST OF IMPROVEMENT PER L.F. OF SEAWALL $150/LF Because the average cost of stone delivered to site, its handling by the conventional equipment and other labor associated with armor-stone structure construction are practically independent of the armor-stone size range considered for this project, the above cost estimates are valid for stone shoreline improvement scenarios both with and without the breakwater in place. 15.E. DREDGING Preliminary Characteristics of Dredge Material An important objective of the environmental field measurements was to gather water and sediment samples in representative locations throughout the project area and assess the likelihood of the presence of hazardous or otherwise environmentally sensitive constituents in the basin material proposed to be dredged. These investigations were further supplemented by a review of the general water quality of Potomac River in the region, a preliminary geologic evaluation presented in the Geatechnical Consultant's Report, and an overall evaluation of the chances for hazardous waste disposal in the vicinity that would possibly impact the project area, and the bottom sediments in the proposed marina basin, in particular. No heavy metals were encountered in these samples, leading to the conclusion that the likelihood of finding toxic constituents in the marina basin was practically negligible. It was also determined that the material is mostly granular with particles finer than 0.1 mm being no more than 20 % towards the southwest corner of the basin, and less than 5% elsewhere in the basin, with no cohesion or otherwise plastic behavior. There is a chance of encountering cobble size material, according to the general geologic information available for the vicinity, which has the potential of complicating dredging activities to a certain extent, at least locally. It- can be concluded, nevertheless, that the dredge material is not likely to present any major environmentally unfavaroble characteristics during the actual dredging, transportation or disposal phases of the dredging operations, irrespective of whether the proposed dredging is carried out hydraul-ically or mechanically. Approximate Quantities Two dredging scenarios are considered in conjunction with the proposed marina layouts shown schematically in Figures 15.3 and 15.4. Dredging Scenario No. I is aimed at accomodating A full-- scale marina under the given environmental circumstances of the basin, while Dredging Scenario No. 2 seeks to minimize the amount of dredging for a viable marina. In both cases, the marina is confined to the northern half of the basin, leaving the southern half adjacent to the Marine Corps Base dock quite undisturbed. Dredging Scenario No. I calls for dredging the bottom of the basin to an average elevation of -8.0 MLW outboard from the proposed fueld dock or the end of the floating piers, and to an average elevatioR of -6.0 MLW virtually up to the shoreline in the remainder of the proposed marina area. Under this scenario, assuming a 3:1 slope along the perimeter of dredging, the total dredge volume will be approximately 30,000 cubic yards and the total surface area to be disturbed will be nearly 5.0 acres. The area disturbed will be about 56% of he total basin area, defined essentially by the Marine Corps Base dock, the shoreline and the proposed breakwater. For Dredging Scenario No. 2, the approximate dredge volume and surface area of disturbance are reduced to 4,500 cubic yards and 2.5 acres, respectively, corresponding to a drastically reduced surface area disturbance of only 28% of the entire basin area. It should also be noted that "no dredging" is not a practical option when associated with a marina of virtually any size,' however small it may be. Even though the marina area may be drastically reduced and confined to the naturally deepest portions of the basin, there will nevertheless be some periodic distuirbance of the bottom. In order to assure safe navigation conditions for the boats, it will be necessary to periodically clear any local deposits of the sediments along with any submerged aquatic vegetation that may emerge on the bottom. Proposed Dredging Method and Alternative Scenarios Depths involved and the size range and type of sediments found in the bottom of the basin area do not suggest either mechanical or hydraulic method of dredging to be preferred over the other. In the case of this project, the final determining factor will be the actual dredge volume that will be handled, the location of the dredge disposal site and the overall environmental features of each scenario. If only a small amount of material is dredged from the deepest parts of the basin, it would probably be performed mechanically by a clamshell, for example, and either barged or trucked to the disposal site. If a relatively large quantity is to be dredged and the material in the deeper portions of the basin bottom is adequate, hydraulic dredging may be more feasible. In this case, the dredged material would presumably be pumped on to a barge anchored in the deep channel next to the dredging area and hauled away to a certified disposal site more economically. An overland slurry pipeline would become another viable alternative if an upland disposal site is found within a sufficent distance to the marina basin. A final decision as to the choice of dredging method must await the selection of the dredging scenario, dredge disposal site and relevant economic and environmental evaluations. Preliminary Cost Estimates Without having selected a dredging scenario or dredging and disposal methods, it is possible to estimate only a plausible range of dredging costs for the proposed project. For this purpose, the unit cost of dredging will be assumed to be in the range of $10/ton to $15/ton, corresponding to the optimistic and worst scenarios. Using these values and the quantity estimates for the two scenarios that involve actual dredging, the following are obtained. Dredging Dredge Volume % of Basin Cost Range ($) Scenario Disturbed Low High -------- ------------- ------------- -------- -------- No. 1 30,000 CY 56% 300,000 450,000 No. 2 4,500 CY 28% 45,000 67,500 These estimates show that a 50% reduction in the su*rface area of the basin disturbed will accomodate slightly less than half the number of slips but provide a nearly eight-fold reduction in the volume and the estimated handling cost of the dredge material. 15.F. TIDAL FLUSHING The term "tidal flushing" refers to the renewal of a marina basin's waters by tidal action, but also includes contributions of riverine, wind-driven and density currents to the process. The primary purpose of a tidal flushing study is to-'estimate the average time it would take for the tidal exchange and other hydrodynamic action to dilute the concentration of a pollutant introduced to the marina basin to a specified acceptable level. The basin and inlet geometry, basin volume and tidal ranges are A the basic parameters controlling the process. The process of temporal (varying with time) and spatial (varying with space) dilution of a point-source or nonpoint-source pollutant in a tidal basin can easily be extremely complex depending on these parameters. An analytical solution to this complex turbulent diffusion and dispersion problem does not exist. Numerical solutions can be obtained for specific site geometry and hydrodynamic conditions using finite-differer;ce and finite-element methods that are available. However, engineers widely prefer using the "tidal prism" models in marina water quality evaluations, because these models are relatively simple to use and also known to provide generally conservative results. Such a simplified "tidal prism" model recommended by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is illustrated schematically in Figure 15.5, along with the recommended equation to calculate the "time of flushing" for these semi-open marinas. Of the various simplifying assumptions inherent to this model are that complete mixing occurs at all times for both pollutants and tidal motion in the basin, and that the residence time of a pollutant in the basin is equal to the time it takes to replace the basin volume at the average tidal exchange rate. A "sensitivity" analysis was performed with this model to evaluate the overall water quality characteristics of the proposed marina basin. The simplified EPA equation defined in Figure 15.5 employs the tidal-prism concept in estimating an approximate "flushing time" required to reduce or dilute a pollutant to a desired fraction of its original concentration, designated by D in the formula. In the sensitivity calculations for this project, 2%, 5% and 10% dilution levels were used for D. Taken as constants for the project were the surface area and the volumes of the marina at low and high tide levels, and the time between consecutive high tides. Another parameter that was varied in these calculations was the return flow factor, b, or the fraction of the previously flushed pollutant to return to the marina. It is conceivable, however, that this parameter is probably very close to zero. Indeed, considering the size and depth of the river section and the river channel velocities in comparison with those of t-he marina, it is quite unlikely for a pollutant flushed out of the marina basin into the river by the tide to return to the basin within the next tidal cycle nearly 12.5 hours later, even in miniscule fractions. Nevertheless, a series of calculations were performed with return flow factor values of 2%, 5% and 10%. Table 15.3 summarizes the results obtained with the sensitivity calculations, whereas Figure 15.6 illustrates the variation of the expected flushing periods for varying marina basin depths and dilution levels. As expected, the flushing period decreases as the "dredge" depth of the marina basin is decresed and as the desirable dilution level is increased. More specifically, these relatively conservative calculations indicate that it will take approximately three days to dilute a pollutant's concentration to --Qh Tie. R .-LO.T4. 1,00h.614, nttow L L notm. A 3P.OaCe area Tf =T LogD Log (AL + bAR ITC AH where: TfaTime of flushing (hours) T AC Tidal cycle, high tid 1:02 high tide (hours) Surface area of marin: (m D Desired dilution factor R Range of tide (m) b Return flow factor (dimensionlgss) I aMon-tidal freshwater inflow (ml/hour) L -Average depth at low tide (m) H =Average depth at high tide (m). FIGURE 15.5 - Schematic Of Representative Semi-enclosed Marina Basin And Relevant Simplified Tidal Flushing Model (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook) Table 15.3 - Tidal Flushing Calculations with EPA Model Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook, 1995. Simplified equation to estimate time of flushing for a confined marina: Tf = Tc I Log (0) / Log {IVL+b(YH-VL)-YFI/VH) where: Typical Project Data Tf =Time of flushing (hrs] 196.3 hrs 8.2 days Tc =Time between consecutive high tides [hrs] 12.5 hrs - D =Desired dilution level 101 VL =Volume of water in the Marina at Low Tide 19,200 cu-ft VH =Volume of water in the Marina at High Tide 22,800 cu-ft VF =Fresh water inflow to the marina during one tidal cycle 0 cu-ft b =Fraction of previous flushing returning to the marina 21 Also used in tabular data presentation: A Marina surface area (sq-ft] 2,400 sq-ft DL z Depth of water in the marina at Low Tide 8.0 ft. OH z Depth of water in the marina at High Tide 9.5 ft DT = Tidal range (=DH-DL) Utl 1.5 ft QUANTICO MARINA - Sensitivity Calculations Tc D b A TR Ill. DH YL VH Tf Tf [hrs] (sq-ft) (ft) [ftJ (ft] (cu-ft] (cu-ft] (hrs] (days] ----- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ---- ------- ------- ----- ------ 12.50 0.02 0.10 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 319.0 13.29 12.50 0.02 0.10 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 282.7 11.78 12.50 0.02 0.10 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 246.4 10.27 12.50 0.02 0.10 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 210.0 8.75 12.50 0.02 0.10 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 173.6 7.23 12.50 0.02 0.10 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 137.1 5.71 12.50 0.05 0.10 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 244.3 10.18 12.50 0.05 0.10 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 216.5 9.02 12.50 0.05 0.10 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 188.7 7.86 12.50 0.05 0.10 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 160.8 6.70 12.50 0.05 0.10 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 133.0 5.54 12.50 0.05 0.10 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 105.0 4.37 12.50 0.10 0.10 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 187.8 7.82 12.50 0.10 0.10 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 166.4 6.93 12.50 0.10 0.10 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 145.0 6.04 12.50 0.10 0.10 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 123.6 5.15 12.50 0.10 0.10 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 102.2 4.26 12.50 0.10 0.10 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 80.7 3.36 OUANTICO MARINA Sensitivity Calculations (Cont'd) Tc D b A TR OL DH YL VH Tf Tf thrs) Isq-ft] (ft] [ft] Utl [cu-ft] Ecu-ft] Chrs] (days] ----- ------- ---- ---- ---- ------- ------- ----- ------ 12.50 0.02 0.05 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 300.9 12.54 12.50 0.02 0.05 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 266.5 11.10 12.50 0.02 0.05 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 232.1 9.67 12.50 0.02 0.05 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 197.6 8.23 12.50 0.02 0.05 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 163.1 6.79 12.50 0.02 0.05 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 128.4 5.35 12.50 0.05 0.05 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 230.4 9.60 12.50 0.05 0.05 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 204.1 8.50 12.50 0.05 0.05 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 19,750 177.7 7.40 12.50 0.05 0.05 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 151.3 6.30 12.50 0.05 0.05 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 1243 5.20 12.50 0.05 0.05 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 98.3 4.10 12.50 0.10 0.05 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 177.1 7.38 12.50 0.10 0.05 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 156.9 6.54 12.50 0.10 0.05 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 136.6 5.69 12.50 0.10 0.05 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 116.3 4.85 12.50 0.10 0.05 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 96.0 4.00 12.50 0.10 0.05 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 75.6 3.15 12.50 0.02 0.02 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 290.9 12.12 12.50 0.02 0.02 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 257.5 10.73 12.50 0.02 0.02 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 224.2 9.34 12.50 0.02 0.02 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 190.7 7.95 12.50 0.02 0.02 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 157.2 6.55 12.50 0.02 0.02 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 123.6 5.15 12.50 0.05 0.02 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 222.8 9.28 12.50 0.05 0.02 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 197.2 8.22 12.50 0.05 0.02 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 171.7 7.15 12.50 0.05 0.02 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 146.1 6.09 12.50 0.05 0.02 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 120.4 5.02 12.50 0.05 0.02 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 74.7 3.94 12.50 0.10 0.02 2,500 1.5 8.0 9.5 20,000 23,750 171.2 7.13 12.50 0.10 0.02 2,500 1.5 7.0 8.5 17,500 21,250 151.6 6.32 12.50 0.10 0.02 2,500 1.5 6.0 7.5 15,000 18,750 131.9 5.50 12.50 0.10 0.02 2,500 1.5 5.0 6.5 12,500 16,250 112.3 4.68 12.50 0.10 0.02 2,500 1.5 4.0 5.5 10,000 13,750 92.6 3.86 12.50 0.10 0.02 2,500 1.5 3.0 4.5 7,500 11,250 72.8 3.03 MIMMMMW M mmmmmmm TOWN OF QUANTICO MARINA Tidal Flushing Estimates Flushing Period (days) 14 12 . ...... . .. ....... 10 . ............ - --- --- - 8 . ......... ....... ....... ........... . ................... ... .. .. M x .... ....... .. . . ............. ............. .... . . ...... 6 -- --------- . ....... + x 4 + 2% Dilution x 0 5% Dilution . .... .......... . .. ...... .............. ..... .... . -...... .................... ...... .............-.. . . . ....... X 10% Dilution 01 11 1 2 4 6 8 10 Depth of Dredge (feet) FIGURE 15.6 - Tidal Flushing Estimates nearly 10% of its original value, and no more than five days to dilute the same to the 2% level. Based on the general guidelines provided by the EPA manual, these results indicate satisfactory "flushing" characteristics for a marina. There are several other factors that should be considered to ensure a satisfactory water quality and flushing characteristics for a marina. It is extremely important that the bottom slope within the marina is consistently positive and preferably increases towards the inlet section. Additionally, there should be virtually no "dead-zone" corners within the'marina basin, whereby effective circulation is prevented by inappropriate geometric features of the docks, groins and breakwaters The preceding principles and guidelines were taken into due consideration in the geometric design of the proposed marina both in plan and elevation views. 15.G. COST OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES Based on the various environmental and economic characteristics presented in this study, the principal components of the proposed project and its four alternatives were identified. Based on the individual project component costs and descriptions provided in Table 15.4, a summary of project descriptions and overall cost estimates for the proposed project and each of its alternatives are given in Table 15.5. It should be emphasized that these design alternatives and the associated costs are subject to refinement and revisions due to environmental, economic and policy-related developments and constraints likely to affect the future project conditions. Table 15.4 - Summary of Preliminary Cost Est.imates for Major Project Components Project Component and Primary Features Component Cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Shoreline: Stabilization, guarry-Stone Revetment and Riprap Toe $ 45,000 Shoreline: Stabilization and Seawall Repair for Minimum Protection $ 20,000 Breakwater: Precast Reinforced Concrete Pipe/Pile and Riprap Toe $ 625,000 Breakwater: 600-lb to 1,600-lb Armor Stone, Full Section $ 1,000,000 Two Floating Piers: Dock along Concrete Breakwater, 143 Slips $ 567,000 Two Floating Piers: No Dock along Stone Breakwater, 110 Slips $ 361,500 Two Floating Piers: Dock along Concrete Breakwater, 68 Slips $ 483,840 Two Floating Piers: No Dock along Stone Breakwater, 40 Slips $ 308,480 Single Floating Pier; with Tee only, Total of 600 ft, 20 Slips $ 153,600 Dredging: DS 11, Dredge 561 of basin to EL= -6' and -B' $ 450,000 Dredging: DS 12, Dredge 2B% of basin to EL= -4' and -6' $ 67,500 Dredging: Minimum dredging (grubbing) only at deep waters $ 15,000 Upland Riverfront Park: Beach, Parking and Spur Access for 143 Slips $ 30,000 Upland Riverfront Park: Beach, Parking and Spur Access for 110 Slips $ 30,000 Upland Riverfront Park: Beach, Parking and Spur Access for 68 Slips $ 15,000 Upland Riverfront Park: Beach, Parking and Spur Access for 40 Slips $ 10,000 Upland Riverfront Park: Beach, Parking and Spur Access for 20 Slips $ 5,000 Upland Riverfront Park: Spur Access, Minimum Improvements $ 5,000 Table 15.5 - Summary of Preliminary Cost Estimates for Proposed Project and Several Alternatives Features of Proposed Project and Selected Alternatives Project Cost Slips --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ----- PROPOSED PROJECT: ------------------ Precast Reinforced Concrete Pipe/Pile Breakwater with Timber Fillers; Stone Riprap Shoreline Stabilization with Seawall and Beach Improvement; 143-Slip Marina with Two Floating Piers; 6' and 8' Dredging (30,000 CY); Parking and Spur Access Improvements in the Upland Riverfront Park Area $ 1,717,000 143 With Armor-Stone Breakwater finstead of Concrete), 110-slips S 1,886,500 110 ALTERNATIVE 1: -------------- Similar to Proposed Scenario, but with such less Dredging; includes Precast Reinforced Concrete Pipe/Pile Breakwater with Timber Fillers; Stone Riprap Shoreline Stabilization with Seawall and Beach Improvement; 68-Slip Marina with Two Floating Piers; Much Less Dredging (4,500 CY); Parking and Spur Access Improvements in the Upland Riverfront Park Area $ 1,236,340 68 With Armor-Stone Breakwater (instead of Concrete), 40-slips $ 1,430,980 40 ALTERNATIVE'2: -------------- No Breakwater; Min. Dredging; Single Floating Pier with Tee; 20 Slips; Stone Riprap Shoreline Stabilization with Seawall and Beach Improvement; Minor Parking and Spur Access Improvements in the Upland Park Area 21B,600 20 ALTERNATIVE 3: -------------- No Breakwater: No Piers; No Marina Facilities; No Dredging in the Basin; Seawall Repair for Minimum Shoreline Protection and Beach Improvement; Minor Improvements in the Upland Area 25,000 0 ALTERNATIVE 4: -------------- No Breakwater; No Piers; No Dredging in Basin; Stone Riprap Shoreline Stabilization with New Seawall for Substantial Shoreline Protection; Minor Beach, Parking and Spur Access Improvements in the Upland Area 50,000 0 Dewberry & Davis All, DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U SIA, Fairfax, VA Annapolis, MD Baltimore, MD Gaithersburg, MD Landover, MD Prince Frederick, MD Danville, VA Leesburg, VA Manassas, VA Marion, VA Richmond, VA Woodbridge, VA Raleigh, NC Johnson City, TN