Torpedo plant dock and piers technical analysis and design recommendations

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Torpedo Plant
Dock and Piers:

Technical Analysis
and
Design Recommendations
TC
355
T67 City of Alexandria, Virginia
1-979

Property of CSC Library

Torpedo Plant Dock and Piers:

Technical Analysis
and
Design Recommendations

U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

4ffl@

Alexandria City Council

Honorable Charles E. Beatley, Jr., Mayor
Robert L. Calhoun, Vice Mayor
Donald C. Casey
Nelson E. Greene, Sr.
Margaret B. Inman
James P. Moran, Jr.
Carlyle C. Ring, Jr.
0
City Manager

k_q Douglas Harman
Fl , I-

Prepared by

Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Alexandria, Virginia
July, 1979
This study has been partially funded by a federal grant from the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, Department of Commerce and the Heritage Engin Artemel, Director
Conservation and Recreation Service, Department of the Interior under the George Colyer, Principal Planner
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
This study was prepared by the City of Alexandria, Department of Planning Barbara Faga, Urban Designer, Project Planner
and Community Development with the assistance of TAMS/Modjeski and Patty Enneking, Assistant Project Planner, Photographer
Masters, Engineering Consultants; Timber Products Inspection Company, Mary Ida Cammisa, Secretary
Conyers, Georgia; James A. Taylor, Timber Products Specialist, Fairfax, Vir-
ginia; and, the Department of Forest Products, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
'i

and State University.

List of Figures

Page
1. Section through South Pier* cover 28. Shell Set in Water (photo) ......................... 30
2. Sailboat- Baltimore Inner Harbor (photo) ............. 2 29. Shells Stacked in Rowing Facility (photo) ............. 31
3. Study Goal .................................... 7 30. Alternative Rowing Club Layout Plan ................ 31
4. Perspective down King Street (photo) ................ 8 31. Elevation at Snack Bar ........................... 31
5. Potomac River Ports ............................. 10 32. M/S CARIBE (photo) ............................ 32
6. U.S. Frigate Constellation ......................... 11 33. Harbormaster Building in Annapolis (photo) ........... 33
7. Historic View of Torpedo Plant from the old Virginia 34. Elevation of Dockmaster's Building .................. 33
Concrete Plant Site (photo) ........................ 12 35. Eagle ........................................ 34
8. View of Torpedo Plant Complex .................... 13 36. Gangplank Restaurant Boat (photo) ................. 35
9. Old Dominion Boat Club (photo) .................... 14 37. Fish Market Boat ............................... 35
10. Torpedo Plant Layout Plan ........................ 14 38. South Pier (photo) .............................. 36
11. Potomac River View of Torpedo Plant (photo) ......... 15 39. North Pier ..................................... 38.
12. North Pier (photo) .............................. 16 40. South Pier Elevation View (photo) .................. 39
13. Consultants (photo) ............................. 17 41. South Pier Sections* ............................ 39
14. North Pier Pulley System (photo) ................... 18 42. South Pier Corner Details* ........................ 40
15. South Pier Deck (photo) .......................... 18 43. Floating Debris at Dock (photo) ..................... 42
16. Existing Dock (photo) ............................ 18 44. Dolphin N-1 (photo) ............................. 43
17. Dolphin N-1 (photo) ............................. 19 45. River bottom at Low Tide (photo) ................... 43
18. Torpedo Plant Basin (photo) ....................... 19 46. Typical Corps Permit Review Process ................ 45
19.- Typical Boat Drafts .............................. 19 47. Annapolis Marina (photo) ......................... 46
20. High School Rowing Facility (photo) ................. 21 48. Piling Plan-South Pier ............................ 53
21. Sailboats at Annapolis Marina (photo) ................ 22 49. North Pier Piling (photo) ........................... 55
22. Surrounding Marinas Map ........................ 23 50. Condition of piles-North Pier ...................... 55
23. Plan A ....................................... 24 51. VPI Consultants on South Pier (photo) ............... 56
24. Plan B ....................................... 26
25. Block Paving Pattern (photo) ...................... 28 *Source: Naval Torpedo Assembly Plant,
26. Bollard (photo) ................................. 29 Alexandria, Virginia
27. Rowers with Shell (photo) ......................... 30 Construction Drawings, September 20, 1927.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

PLAN SUMMARY
BACKGROUND

PART L FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OUTLINE OF ENGINEERS'FINDINGS
TECHNICAL TERMS
RECOMMENDATIONS
MARINA RELATED FACILITIES

PART 2: TECHNICAL INFORMATION

APPENDIX: I. Annapolis City Dock Information
IL Maritime District Code for Annapolis,
Maryland
III. Report from Don Keefe, Timber Products
Inspector
IV. Report from James A. Taylor, Timber
Products Specialist
V. Site Inspection Report by Virginia Polytechnic
Institute Representatives
VI. Condition of Pine Piling Submerged 62 Years
in River Water

Introducti'oon

TORPEDO PLANT DOCK AND PIERS-TECHNICAL tom. Part 1 also includes recommended design alternatives, cost esti-
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS is a study of mates and detailed information for proposed marina facilities, such as
the ways in which publicly-owned property at the heart of Alexan- the High School Rowing Facility, cruise ships and historic vessels.
dria's Potomac River Waterfront can be put to active use. The princi- PART 2: TECHNICAL INFORMATION contains the consultants'
pal goal of the project is to promote public recreational use of this complete analysis and recommendations for the structures.
portion of the City Waterfront through increased site access, water-
front activity and visibility.
Funds for this study were provided from two federal agencies, the Of- Purpose
fice of Coastal Zone Management, Department of Commerce and
the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Department of The purpose of this study is to provide the technical analysis and in-
the Interior, through the State of Virginia Coastal Zone Management formation needed to complete a comprehensive design plan for the
Office. City-owned Torpedo Plant Waterfront. With this information as a
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 has focused much atten- base it is anticipated that the resulting renovations and related uses
tion on the nation's coastal areas. This Act outlines a national policy reflect the overall goal of opening the Waterfront and realize the full
for the management of coastal resources and provides a process to recreation potential of this valuable urban resource.
accomplish the policy's goals. The process provides for coastal states Additionally, the compilation and publication of this information is
to develop and administer resource-management programs in the critical to the total Torpedo Plant development process. The City and
coastal zone by federally funded grants. Additionally, the Act encour- the selected developer are to begin negotiating the final design and
ages states to manage their coastal resources by establishing a com- financial package of the complex in September 1979. The Torpedo
prehensive program for dealing with land and water use issues hav- Plant Prospectus will be used as a guideline for these negotiations.
ing more than local significance. In the Prospectus it states under "Ownership Conditions" that ...
This grant enabled the City of Alexandria Department of Planning "The City will retain ownership of Waterfront open space ... and
and Community Development to research marina design and study easements to allow public access to the Waterfront ..."
marina operations in such other municipalities as Annapolis, Balti- This study was prepared as a guideline for the design of the public
more and Philadelphia. Engineering consultants, paid by grant portion of the Waterfront. The technical analysis supplies information
monies, investigated the structural foundations of the dock and piers. on the present condition of the dock and piers needed to develop a
Their recommendations are included in this report. comprehensive design plan. The two types of marina layouts shown
This report is in two parts: PART 1: FINDINGS AND RECOM- are workable within the site limitations. Cost estimates are included to
MENDATIONS contains an outline of the engineers' findings from give an approximation of the basic costs attributable to the renova-
their structural investigation of the existing piers, dock and river bot- tion and redesign of the existing piers.

Figure 3

FLA

MEN dmb0mdL a A
3,
2W0W2OM2M to

1. To assess structural information on
existing dock and piers
2. To recommend cost-effective reno-
Objectives vations
3. To establish the best design layout
for a transient marina given the site
More specifically this report has success- limitations
fully met the following objectives 4. To recommend additional activities
which were established at the beginning and facilities necessary to support
of the process: an active Waterfront

4, 71

Plan
\vN

V
SU ary

The study area is made up of approximately five acres of publicly-
owned land at the center of Alexandria's frontage along the Potomac
River. It is located at the foot of King Street, one of Alexandria's ma-
jor shopping areas and it is included in the limits of the Old and His-
toric District. The Torpedo Plant Complex includes four buildings,
two constructed during World War I and two during World War 11.
vow
Ito
The Torpedo Plant Waterfront contains the only public dock current-
ly in operation in the, City. Because of its location this dock presents a
tremendous potential for commerce and recreation if the site is devel-
oped as a transient marina with compatible facilities.
A summary of the technical and related findings is presented, along
with the specific recommendations formulated to meet the stated
goals and objectives of this study.
Figure 4 Perspective down King
Street-Torpedo Plant Complex is
located at right foreground

Findings Recommendations
� The basin is silted to the extent that 9 That the basin be dredged to a water
the maximum water depth at high tide depth of 10 feet
is 3 feet
� Only the substructure of the South 0 That the South Pier be reconstructed
Pier is in generally good condition from the substructure up
� The structure and foundation of the * That the North Pier be renovated
North Pier are in generally good con-
dition
� The existing City dock area is basically 0 That the City renovate the City dock
unusable
19 The existing piers and channel depth 0 That the facilities be upgraded to
are not adequate for cruise ship dock- facilitate cruise ship docking and the
ing channel be dredged by the Corps of
Engineers to its authorized depth of
24 feet
The existing Torpedo Plant Waterfront That easy access and water-oriented
is not easily accessible and does not facilities and amenities be provided to
attract the public to the Waterfront attract the public to the Waterfront-
these could include a restaurant boat,
fish market, historic vessel docking
and a new high school rowing facility
Presently there is no special designa- That the City consider a Maritime Dis-
tion of a maritime district in the City trict Code
Code

Based on these findings and recommendations two alternative plans for the Torpedo Plant Waterfront
are presented. Under the Recommendations section (p. 17) of this report an analysis of both plans
and cost estimates are provided.

Figure 5
Potomac River Channel 42p0l4w
and Major Ports 8qOqv6qk 8qK*l6qk
8qp-q:8qt6qK8qW0qN--/0

4qY0q%UAql6qb,

2qP2q+
4qWql6qq

Ice 2qM4q44q67 ql0qaq 00qf
4qV6q"6qA0qk -8q+6q> 0qQ qi6qv6qL00q@00qCq,0q) 00qT12q48q:q1q-2q1

Background

Potomac Port History

The Alexandria Waterfront has a long tradition as an active urban
port. As early as the mid-seventeenth century ships were arriving at
Oronoco Bay to trade copper, tobacco, furs, dyes and oil. In the mid-
18th century Alexandria became the largest tobacco port and ware-
X@x
housing facility on the Potomac River. By the 1770's Alexandria had I@Z
been established as a foreign commerce port; shipbuilding industries
were producing large ocean-going vessels and trade with foreign
countries was active. Before the Revolutionary War the City was han-
dling cargo tonnages comparable to those of the ocean ports of New
York and Boston. After the war the City's reputation as a major
North Atlantic Trading center was firmly established.
Within fifty years, however, Alexandria's importance as a port and
maritime center had begun to decline. Baltimore, with its location at
the head of the Chesapeake Bay and near the Susquehanna River, a
major gateway to the western farmlands, had begun to compete suc-
cessfully as a port. Serious fires and cholera epidemics had struck
Alexandria in 1803 and 1832. The failure and bankruptcy of the
Alexandria-Georgetown Canal and the growing importance of the
railroads seriously eroded the local port's capability. The Union occu-
pation of the City during the Civil War effectively curtailed trading ac-
tivity along Alexandria's Waterfront. By the end of the nineteenth
century the port had declined almost totally, with only fishing boats
anchored there. Figure 6 U.S. Frigate Constellation

4jzr""

,75,-,Atl

Avow
AW

o, x4lki

Now-,

Figure 7 Historic View of
Torpedo Plant Complex from the
Old Virginia Concrete Plant Site
12

Torpedo Plant History
A short rejuvenation period came to the Waterfront in the early
1900's with private shipyards involved in building ocean-going ves-
sels. Shortly before the end of World War I the central section of the
present Torpedo Plant was begun. During World War 11 thd Torpedo
Plant was enlarged to its present size. After the war, the production of
torpedoes ceased and the government used the facility to store cap-
tured Nazi war documents. During this time the buildings'became
known as the Federal Records Center. In the 1960's ownership was
transferred to the General Services Administration, and the stored
records were replaced by government furniture and artifacts from
the Smithsonian Institution.
In 1969 GSA offered to sell the property as surplus to the City. A
price of $1,570,000 was agreed upon. The deed to the property was
conveyed to the City on March 10, 1970 with the stipulation that the
federal government would retain the right to occupy the buildings for bolj,,.44@1 I
a period of five years. During this period, they would gradually
r
phase-out their use of the complex and turn sections of the buildings
over to the City. On March 9, 1975, the City received exclusive and
Ix,
unrestricted use of the property.

Lq@ L@W' VA

Figure 8 Bird's-eye View of
Torpedo Plant Complex

Property Description
The Torpedo Plant property contains approximately 205,300 square A number of smaller storage buildings occupy the northeast corner of
feet of fast land area (4-1/4 acres) and 65,800 square feet (1-1/2 acres) the site. The largest of these has approximately 7,700 square feet and
of submerged land. The City-owned property extends into the Poto- houses the High School Rowing Facility. The Old Dominion Boat
mac to the bulkhead line. Club, a private facility, occupies a wooden building just South of
The main building complex is made up of four separate structures Building #10.
designated as Buildings #1, #2, #3 and #10. Building #1 occupies
the entire portion of the site between Lee Street and Union Street.
The other three adjoin each other between Union Street and the
river. Figures 8, 9 and 10 depict the existing site plan and aerial
view of the Torpedo Plant and adjacent waterfront area.
The pierhead line lies 100 feet beyond the bulkhead line. Two piers
presently extend to this line. The northern pier is concrete to the bulk- VQ
head line and wood to the pierhead line. It is in fair condition and op-
erational. The southern pier is a wood structure and is severely
deteriorated.

J
11 E

1r, OW
r7
to*

Figure 9 View of Old Dominion Figure 10 Existing Torpeo Plant
Boat Club located directly south of Layout Plan
the Torpedo Plant

Redevelopment
Chronology
Since City acquisition of the complex in 1970, various studies have
been made to determine the best use or reuse of the complex. In
1974 the Torpedo Factory Art Center was formed. The majority of
Buildings #10 and #2 house the artists' studios and exhibit areas.
The Torpedo Factory Art Center has been acclaimed as an outstand-
ing example of adaptive reuse and was included in a recent exhibit
("Buildings Reborn: New Uses, Old Places") at the Smithsonian's
Renwick Gallery.
In 1977 City Council acted to request private development to submit
proposals to redevelop the Torpedo Plant complex. The result of this
was the Torpedo Plant Prospectus issued in 1978. This Prospec-
tus established the City's criteria for redevelopment and led to the
following:

July 1978 City Council approved Torpedo Plant Pro-
spectus and invited developers to submit pro-
posals for redevelopment of the complex within
the guidelines established by the Prospectus.
October 30, 1978 Four proposals were submitted by: 1) the Lerikin
Company, 2) OTV, Inc. and Watergate Develop-
ments, Inc., 3) The Alexandria Waterfront Res-
toration Group, and 4) the Redstone Develop
ment Corporation.
February 23, 1979 City Council received Summary Evaluation of
Torpedo Plant Proposals prepared by staff.
May 8,1979 City Council designated Alexandria Waterfront
Restoration Group as the "preferred developer"
under the terms of the Prospectus.
June 12,1979 City Council reviewed guidelines for negotia-
tions for the sale of Building #1 of the Torpedo
Plant.
August 1979 City begins negotiations for the redevelopment.
Figurell View of Buildings 2
and 3 from the South Pier

------- VIF-
;T-

Figure 12 North Pier

Part I.
F
0 0
in ings an
0
Reco endations

. ..... ..... .

Outline of
Engineers' Findings
a,@ (See Part 2 for complete Engineers' Report.)

The engineering firms of TAMSIModjeski and Masters were con-
tracted in March 1979 to consult with the Department of Planning
and Community Development on the structural condition of the ex-
isting dock and piers. To support and confirm the engineers'
p
reliminary findings, timber experts were hired to take core samples
of the wood piles to determine the extent of deterioration in the struc-
tural framework of the piers. (See Section 2, and Appendix III, IV,
Figure 13 Consultants taking V and VI for detailed laboratory reports.)
wood borings of the piles to deter-
mine the structural condition of the After extensive examination of the dock and piers the consultants
North Pier reported the following:
d d

A
r

North Pier

0 The North Pier is in generally good condition.
- The concrete portion which extends to the bulkhead line is in
good condition.
- The timber piles which support the wood pier between the
-:7
bulkhead line and the pierhead line are good-31 percent
showed decay of outer fibers only.
- The internal bracing of the timber structure is in good condition.
- 80 percent of the fender piles are deteriorated and need to be Figure 14 Pulley system
on North Pier
replaced.
South Pier

0 The South Pier will require a new superstructure but the
-ME
foundation piles appear sound and in good condition.

- The deck, stringers, headers and cross-bracing are badly deter-
iorated.
- The foundation piles are sound with some surface deteriora-
tion.

Figure 15 Deteriwated
timber deck on South Pier
Dock

e The dock is in good condition but some headers, stringers
and the fender piles need to be replaced.
- Access to the pilings is limited but the conditions are considered
the same as for the North Pier.
- Some foundation piles, headers and stringers are deteriorated
and need to be replaced.
Decking is usable but deteriorating.
Fender piles are deteriorated and mechanically damaged. Figure 16 The Existing
Dock is considered
structurally sound

bulkhead
pierhead
line line

cruise
ship

sailboat i
trimaran

outboard
Figure 17 Dolphin N-1
mean
low
water\
0. -;j7
'T ------ @@exi 1@i
proposed ttom -- ------- 2V
>1 t1o
river bott I.

F
711@y K CASH 12"@2

Figure 19 Typical Boat Drafts
Dredging

0 Dredging in the basin is necessary.
-7
MV - In the pier areas existing water depths range from 0 feet to 3
Figure 18 Water depth at low tide feet at low tide.
- At the Pierhead Line water depth averages 15 feet.
- A water depth of 10 feet in the basin is required for small craft,
Dolphins (Figure 19), which will result in the removal of approximately
8,000 cubic yards.
ow

Dolphins are in good condition. *The River and Harbor Act of 1910 provides for a riverbottom depth
- Piles in dolphins were sample tested and are considered in 'bf 24 feet between the Potomac River Channel and a line drawn 20
satisfactory condition. feet channelward of the established Alexandria Pierhead Line.

Technical Terms
Following is a list of technical terms used throughout this r@port:

Batter Receding upward slope. Header A horizontal bearing member.
Beam Structural member supporting a load Pier A deck, supported above the water, Z7t:
perpendicular to its long axis. be"Im built from the shore out into the harbor and
Bent Transverse section of pier structure. used for berthing or mooring vessels.
Bollard Single post fitting to which mooring Pierhead Lines Line which establishes the 110 Z
lines from vessels are attached. outboard limits for open pier construction.
Pile A long slender column of timber, steel
Bulkhead A structure designed to retain or concrete driven into the ground to support 7-
earth and consisting of a vertical wall some- a vertical load.
times supplemented by an anchor system.
Bulkhead Lines Lines which establish limits Plate Same as header.
outside of which continuous solid-fill con- Rafting A practice of tying alongside an-
struction is not permitted. other boat rather than tying directly to a pier
or wharf.
Channel Lines Lines which establish the
limits of navigable channels dredged and Slip A berthing space for a boat between
4S 6WMI
maintained by the federal government. piles, for mooring a boat.
Clamshell Method Excavation by a crane Spur Pile A bracing pile driven on a batter
using a clarnshell bucket. to provide lateral stability.
Cleat A mooring fitting having two horizontal Stringer A longitudinal member in a
arms for attaching mooring lines from vessels. structural framework which supports the deck.
Dolphin A structure usually consisting of a
cluster of piles. It is placed near piers and
V Ov.
wharves or similar structures, or along shore'
to guide vessels into their moorings or to fend
vessels away from structures, shoals or shore.
Draft Depth of vessel hull below the water-
line.
Dredging Excavation of riverbottom
material.

Fender A device or framed system on the
face of a pier, dock, etc., which takes the im-
pact from berthing or berthed vessel. (Chock tr
-A brace between fenders.) Zfl@
U@7

Recommendations

Two alternative concept design plans are presented as possible con-
siderations for the kind of development envisioned for the Torpedo
Plant Waterfront. The two plans are considered viable solutions for
the renovation and reuse of the piers. These designs reflect con-
sideration of the following:
� The technical analysis of the existing structures
� Existing water-oriented uses, i.e., High School Rowing Club,
cruise ship docking Program
� Proposed water-oriented uses, i.e., pleasure boat marina,
historic vessel docking For
� The Torpedo Plant site limitations Torpedo Plant
The following program and concept plans take into account these
considerations along with the City goal to increase waterfront recrea-
tion. Waterfront

North and South Pier-Axle load of fire engines and service vehicles
will be considered in final design.
*Rowing Facility 14,000 square foot building providing storage
for 30 shells and facilities for 200 students and
9 coaches.
Transient boat slips
14 sailboat slips of drafts to 7 feet with 40 foot maximum boat
length.
12 outboard slips with 2-foot drafts and 32 foot maximum
length.
Historic vessel slip of up to 10-foot draft and 100-foot length.
*Water taxi.

*Fisherman's Market/Produce Boat

*Restaurant Boat.

Dockmaster's Office.

*See pages 30 to 35 for detailed descriptions of these amenities.
Figure 20 Rowers carry out shell
at High School Rowing Facility

Transient Marina
versus
Permanent Marina Figure 21 Sailboats docked at
A view of the Potomac on a weekend or holiday will quickly assure Annapolis Marina
the viewer of the importance of sail and motor boating as a major rec-
reational activity.* The area's permanent docking facilities are pres-
ently filled. Both the Washington Marina and Old Town Yacht Basin,
the closest facilities to Alexandria, are at capacity. Provision of boat
docking facilities at the Torpedo Plant will add significantly to the
waterfront atmosphere of the complex and provide a picturesque
background for the restaurants and shops around the complex.
Due to the large volume of recreational craft on the Potomac, the 0
Torpedo Plant site is an excellent location for a transient marina. Re-
cent surveys estimate a total of 2,500 boats permanently docked J
within 5 miles of Alexandria. (See Figure 22). Additional pleasure
craft visit the upper Potomac from the South and Chesapeake Bay.
Day trips to Alexandria would be encouraged by providing tran-
sient docking, so that boaters could moor their crafts for a few hours
or the day, to sightsee, shop or dine. 7 J
The location and layout of the Torpedo Plant facility is better suited
to accommodate transient docking as opposed to permanent dock-
ing facilities. A full service mooring facility would need space for fuel-
ing, dry docking and boat repair which requires heavy equipment
and large, open land areas with direct street access. The existing piers
can accommodate approximately 30 slips. This figure allows spaces
for other possible uses such as an historic vessel, water taxi and fish-
erman s market. Additional transient boats could be accommodated
by rafting during peak periods.
*The Potomac River at Alexandria is currently considered safe for
secondary contact (boating). Presently the fecal coliform count is
over the standardfor safe primary contact (swimming). \I,

Figure 22 Marinas within a 9-mile
radius of the Torpedo Plant
Marinas Within 9 Mile
Radius of Torpedo Plant
1. COLUMBIA ISLAND MARINA, Arlington, Va.
Slips 500 at 1.45/ft./mo., transients $6/day min., storage 500
wet.

2. WASHINGTON MARINA, Washington, D.C.
Slips 67, storage 67 wet.
3. CAPITOL YACHT CLUB (private) 3 7 9 10
46
4. GANGPLANK MARINA, Washington, D.C. 5
Slips 230, transient at $10/day min., storage outside 20, 150
wet.

5. FT. McNAIR YACHT BASIN, Washington, D.C.
Slips 158, transient at $6/day min., storage outside 20, 150
wet. aim rib, 13
6. BUZZARD POINT MARINA, Washington, D.C. 14 kw4rm tollsmubr0q,,
Slips 80, transients at $5/day min., storage 35 outside 80 wet. 2
7. DISTRICT YACHT CLUB, Washington, D.C. (private) nv6r
8. WASHINGTON YACHT CLUB, Washington, D.C. (private) is I ***
9. ANACOSTIA MARINA INC., Washington, D.C. t;e
Slips 3 covered, 40 open, transient at I.Wft., storage outside kk+
150, wet 40 Y"VM
10. SEAFARERS BOAT CLUB, Washington, D.C. (private) 18 J 16 7 jeW,*
11. WASHINGTON SAILING MARINA, Alexandria, Va.
Slips 185, 374 dry sail stalls, storage 185 wet, 72 racks.
12. OLD DOMINION BOAT CLUB, Alexandria, Va. (private)
13. ALEXANDRIA MARINE SERVICE, Alexandria, Va. 17. FT. WASHINGTON MARINA-YACHTS AMERICA,
Slips 15. INC., Ft. Washington, Md.
14. OLD TOWN YACHT BASIN, Alexandria, Va. Slips covered 36, open 250, transients at $3/day min., storage
Slips 170, storage outside 75, wet 170. outside 200, wet 300.
15. BELLE HAVEN MARINA, Fairfax, Va. 18. MT. VERNON YACHT CLUB, Mt. Vernon, Va. (private)
Slips 100, Storage 50 outside, 100 wet. *Source BOATING ALMANAC, Vol. 4, 1979, published by
16. TANTALLON YACHT CLUB, Tantallon, Md. (private) BOATING ALMANAC CO., INC. Severna Park, Md.

Plan A
i building 10 building 2 building 3

dock
fishing boats

00
C 3 A 0
fu
end elevation-south pier
1 0 historic
V 0 ship

existing I
high school I
rowing facility I

L ----------

north
3,qut
@ier p r

water
I taxi

typical cruise ship
mooring location

Figure 23

Proposed Plan A
Plan A consists of retaining the existing pier layout and renovating 6. Dredging
the north and south piers. The south pier would be demolished to the a. Marina area-excavated to depth of 10 feet below
pile caps and at that time the substructure would be tested. If these mean low water.
tests show the foundation piles to be structurally unsound total Estimated Quantity
replacement of the foundation piles would be required.
Development of the marina and docking facilities in accordance with 35,000 c.y. at $20/c.y. $700,000
the proposed Plan A will require the primary items listed below. The Contingencies at 10% 70,000 770,000
estimated costs (based on prices in June 1979) for the major items b. Riverfront (area between pierhead line and channel limits)
expressed as groups of repairs are as follows: Excavated to provide a depth of 24 feet.
ITEM COST Estimated Quantity
1. North Pier-Retain and rehabilitate. Rehabili-
tation to include fumigation of the existing piles, 8,000 c.y. at $20/c.y. $160,000
repair of structural members and deck timbers; Contingencies at 10% 16,000 $176,000
replacement of fender system along the north,
east and south sides; permanent support for (With existing South Pier
ramp and removal of existing overhead metal- foundation piles) TOTAL $1,557,000
work; restoration of guard timbers, mooring facil- Possible total
ities and pedestrian Tailings as required to ac- replacement of
commodate an historic vessel, a floating restaur- foundation piles
ant and a water taxi or other similar uses. $121,000 for South Pier (+110,000)
2. South Pier-Demolish superstructure to top of (With South Pierfoundation
existing pile caps. 50,000
piles replaced) (TOTAL $1,667,000)
a Construct new superstructure
(similar to existing) 250,000
b. Walkways and mooring piles 100,000 *Sewage pumpout facility (if required) and area lighting not includ-
(c. total replacement of foundation piles, ed. Federal law, effective on existing boats as of January 30, 1980
if required.) (110,000) provides an option requiring either a sewage retention device or a
certified treatment system. The Virginia State Water Control Board is
3. Additional mooring dolphin- vicinity of South seeking more stringent protection of Virginia shellfish waters and is
Pier for mooring deep draft vessels, if required. 20,000 working on regulations to impose more stringent requirements than
4. *Utilities -Water and electrical service for the federal regulations against discharges. The Northern Nec k
tributaries of the Potomac River are included in the regulations.
small boat slips. 35,000
(SOURCE: Water News, July, 1979, published by the Virginia Water
5. Dock rehabilitation 35,000 Resources Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
sity.)

Plan B
I buildinglO building 2 building 3
L ---------------- .1

dock
r---j
7fishing boats

E 0
0
0

existing
high school
rowing facility

north
p
er
i

kmaster building
pier
extension
WY1, typical cruise ship
mooring location

FiquTe 24

Proposed Plan B

Plan B involves demolishing the South Pier and building an exten- 8. Dredging
sion to the North Pier, south along the pierhead line. The result a. Marina area-Excavated to depth of 10 feet
would be an L-shaped pier layout. below mean low water.
Development of the marina and docking facilities in accordance with Estimated Quantity
the proposed Plan B will require completion of the major items listed
below. The estimated costs (based on prices in June 1979) for the 35,000 c.y. at $20/c.y. $700,000
items are as follows: Contingencies at 10% 70,000 770,000
ITEM COST b. Riverfront
1. North Pier-Retain and rehabilitate. Rehabili- Excavated to provide a depth of 21
tation to include fumigation of existing piles; re- feet.
pair of structural members and deck timbers; re- Estimated Quantity
placement of fender system along the north, east
and south sides; permanent support for ramp 8,000 c.y. at $20/c.y. $160,000
and removal of existing overhead metalwork-, Contingencies at 10 % 16,000 176,000
restoration of guard timbers, and addition of rail-
ings. $ 90,000 Total $1,881,000
2. Construct timber extension to North Pier,
paralleling pierhead line. Width of new Sewage pumpout facility (if required) and area lighting not included.
structure-50 feet. Approximate length of
addition - 200 feet. 600,000 NOTE:
3. Provide walkways and mooring piles for The estimated costs indicated to complete the various items of work
small boat slips and construct corner deck areas. 80,000 for either Plan A or Plan B, are based on present indices. They are
4. Additional mooring dolphin-South end of preliminary figures based on limited site information acquired during
north-south addition, if required for mooring execution of the work included in the scope of the feasibility study.
deep draft vessels. 20,000 As such, they represent budget figures satisfactory for planning in
progress at this time.
5. South Pier-Demolish superstructure, remove When a particular plan is selected and development begins, provi-
existing bearing and fender piles to a depth
greater than 10 feet below mean low water. $ 75,000 sions for more detailed investigations, engineering and estimates
should be included in the budget planning. Costs for these services
6. Dock rehabilitation 35,000 (i.e., preliminary and final engineering design, investigations, inspec-
7. *Utilities -Water and electrical service for tion of construction activities, etc.) in addition to the City's administra-
small boat slips. 35,000 tive costs, may be estimated at 10 to 15 % of the anticipated construc-
tion costs.

Reco ended Plan

Plan A Plan B
(existing pier layout) (L-shaped pier layout)
Layout Offers an efficient marina layout with addi- Layout Marina layout can work but leaves wasted space in
tional space for attractive amenities, i.e., central portion. Perimeter footage of pier is less for
restaurant boat, historic vessel additional amenities
Security Offers no real sense of "entry point" into marina Security Control can be maintained by central entry
Cruise Ship Cruise ship position limited when the gangway Cruise Ship Gangway can open anywhere along dock
lines up directly with pier
Historic Value Renovation of historic Torpedo Plant piers Historic Value New layout
Views View offers a complete panorama of the Views Views may be blocked by new pier
river
Costs Estimated total cost $1,557,000 Costs Estimated total cost $1,881,000

Of the two alternatives presented, Plan A is the better plan. Plan A of-
fers a more efficient and historic pier layout than Plan B. The perime-
ter footage around the two piers in Plan A offers more area for boat
slips and additional mooring space for historic vessels, a restaurant
boat and a water taxi. The number of pleasure craft slips is approxi-

X
mately the same in both plans. Plan A basically involves the restora-
tion of the historic torpedo plant piers while Plan B is a new layout
?
with little historic relationship to either the Torpedo Plant or the City.
Views from the ends of either pier will remain the same although
f
views from the dock in Plan B may be blocked by the new pier addi-
A
tion.
The financial aspect of both plans as presented is an important factor
in selecting a preferred layout. The cost of Plan A is less because it is
a renovation plan rather than a new construction plan, as is Plan B.
Plan A is therefore recommended as the more cost conscious and Figure 25 Nautical wood block
best design plan for the Torpedo Plant Waterfront. paving pattern at Annapolis City
Pier.

Financing
In addition to general obligation bonds, there are two other likely
funding sources for the proposed public improvements:

Developer Contribution
This is anticipated as a primary method of financing. As stated in the
City Objectives section of the Prospectus: "The City seeks to
achieve the development objectives described herein in such manner
that the cost of public improvements are supported by the revenue
received from the sale of lands and buildings for private uses and the
Aff,
tax revenues generated from those private uses. The City will ear-
mark for public improvements all proceeds from the sale of lands and
buildings for private uses." The amount of the private contribution
will depend on the negotiations currently underway between the City
and the selected developer.

Grants
The Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by the Virgin-
ia Commission of Outdoor Recreation holds substantial promise for
assisting the city to fund the public improvements at the Torpedo z7-
Plant. The Commission funds projects incorporating such elements
as 1) acquisition of land for development of outdoor recreation facili-
ties and support facilities; 2) acquisition of frontage on rivers, streams
and lakes; 3) development of swimming pools, bathhouses, beaches
and boat ramps; 4) development of trails and bikeways; and 5) archi-
tectural and engineering fees. In 1978 the City received $431,000
from the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation for the
Holmes/Cameron Run Biketrail Project. City and State sources indi-
cate a Grant request for the Torpedo Plant of at least this magnitude
would be reasonable. The funding limit for the Grant is $1 million
dollars with thirty percent of that amount funded by the local jurisdic- Figure 26 Bollard
tion. Additionally, Historic Maritime Trust Grants are available from
the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service of the U.S. De-
partment of the Interior and the National Trust for Historic Preserva-
tion for building or acquiring historic vessels (p. 34) and for the reno-
vation of historic pier areas.
Other possible revenues to the City could come from collection of
fees for marina services. These services could include transient dock-
ing fees and utility hookup charges, wet boat storage during the
winter and concessions on rentals for canoes, sailboats and fishing
tackle.

Marl'sna Related Facielietioes

Following is a summary of the available information regarding exist-
ing and proposed marina related activities and facilities.

LI
Alexandria
High School
Rowing Club

The Alexandria High School Rowing Club is currently the largest
high school rowing club in the United States. This year the senior
boys team placed second in the Nationals and were invited to row in
the Henley Regatta in England.
The rowing program is operated jointly by the Alexandria School
Board, the City and the Alexandria Crew Boosters. The Crew Boost-
ers have provided the rowing equipment and coaches' equipment for Figure 27 Rowers carrying shell
the past twenty-seven years. The School Board pays the coaches' sal-
aries, supplies the uniforms and pays for the building maintenance,
while the City provides the building and pays the utilities.
WAIWA4
Originally, the rowers used the facilities of the Old Dominion Boat
Club but as this program expanded, the City provided use of the old
Torpedo Plant storage building. This 7,700 sq. ft. building, construct-
ed in 1943, provides storage for 20 of the 28 rowing shells. Due to
lack of space the remaining eight shells are stored outside. Minimal
renovations were done in 1974 to provide men's and women's lock
er rooms and shower rooms. Because this facility is regarded as tem-
porary the locker rooms are inadequate and do not meet City Code.
A small weightlifting room and coaches' office are also located in the
@77
existing facility.

Rowing Season
The official rowing season is from February first to Memorial Day.
During the season the students use the facility after school until dark,
Monday through Friday. The regattas are held on weekends. Figure 28 Rowers set shell in River

Proposed Program for New Facility

Current program
participants: 200 high school students umbred 1,,
9 coaches riv
Equipment: Storage for 30 sixty-foot shells 8qY0q464

MMqMqMqMM
Men's locker room: 3 water closets H
3 urinals 1br
2 lavatories Jazt, 4r
20 showers
Women's locker room: 3 water closets OInt4 evA Xr
2 lavatories L-4 L4
20 showers
Coacheslocker room: 10 lockers
Additional facilities: Weightlifting room - 400 sq ft.
Coaches office and first aid room-
250 sq. ft.
Storage room - 150 sq. ft.
Anticipated total building
square footage: 14,000 sq. ft.
Figure 30 Alternative Rowing
7 Club Layout Plan

IY
tj

ze,
--low

Figure 29 Shells stacked in rowing facility Figure 31 Elevation on deck area

Cruise Ships
Cruise ship activity is relatively new to Alexandria. The WS
CARIBE, the first passenger ship to dock in Alexandria in decades,
made a successful cruise from the City in the fall of 1978 and has
planned at least two visits in the fall of 1979.

Costs related to the 1978 cruise
City costs relative to the November 1978 cruise amounted to approx-
imately $5,000. The City received total reimbursement from the
owner, Commodore Cruise Lines, and the agent, U.S. Travel -A;--
Agency.
The breakdown of the direct costs shows that the City's reimburse-
2
ment expenditures were as follows:
Police protection $1,780
Water connection 980
Traffic barriers 360
Administrative overhead 1,880
$5,000 Figure 32 M/S CARIBE docked
in Alexandria
Anticipated costs of 1979 cruise The cruise ship captain also requested that the City dredge outside
The proposed November 1979 cruises will be facilitated on the com- the pierhead line. The draft on the M/S CARIBE is 17 feet, while at
pletion of specific improvements to the dock facility. Both the North the point the ship will dock the water depth is approximately 15 feet.
and South Piers are deteriorated. As discussed on p. 37 most of the Minimum dredging costs to the City were estimated at approximate-
fender piles along the faces of both piers are not in good condition. ly $80,000. Because of the high costs, this expenditure was not ap-
The piles are not expected to provide safe docking tor a large ship. proved by City Council at this time.
With the absence of strong tender piles serious permanent damage to Estimated direct costs to the City for the 1979 fall cruises of the M/S
the piers can be expected if a large cruise ship is permitted to dock. CARIBE are approximately $2,775 for each anticipated cruise. The
Recently the City contracted with Thomas H. Andrews, Inc. located City will be reimbursed for this amount by Commodore Cruise Lines.
directly upriver to complete necessary pier repairs and modifications. The City has estimated that its tax revenues will be a total of $1,164
The total contract cost is $40,000 and includes: for the November docking of two cruises.
1) Replacement of fender piles for North Pier along pierhead Providing customs facilities for these cruises poses a problem with the
line. existing building layout. The only space considered adequate for
handling customs is the tunnel between Buildings #2 and #3. The
2) Installation of timber chocks between fender piles. ideal location for a customs facility would be in the location of the ex-
3) Installation of temporary plywood decking. isting rowing club. It could either be incorporated into the design of a
new rowing club or be an added facility in the Torpedo Plant Rede-
4) Installation of new dolphin. velopment. The customs location is important to the cruise ship ac-
tivity and needs to be examined further.

Dockmaster
The most cost-effective way for the City to operate the transient ma-
rina would be to employ a dockmaster to supervise marina opera-
tion. Annapolis, for example, employes a full-time harbormaster and
two assistants to supervise the maintenance and operation of the City
docks, collect fees, patrol creeks, enforce City codes, and operate the
City Market. Due to the limited operation and scope of the Torpedo
Plant Marina the City would need to employ a dockmaster full-time,
8 AM to 8 PM, during the summer months only. During the winter
months, no marina traffic is expected, therefore the dockmaster
would be employed part-time to oversee maintenance on the piers
and supervise operation of the City Market.

Figure 34 Alternative elevation of
clockmaster's office

Figure 33 Harbormaster Building
in Annapolis. Public Restrooms are
located on ground floor and harbor-
master's office is on second floor.

3) Supervise operation of a City Market* and Fisherman's
Market
This would include monitoring stall leases and operating lease
111 1 J1 4A space for the Fisherman's Market.

Dockmaster Facility:
A major factor in the location of the Dockmaster's office and operat-
ing space is that it must be easily accessible to the boat owners and
Dockmaster's Responsibilities: have an open view of all boat traffic entering the marina. The best
To manage and supervise the maintenance and operation of location for this facility would be to locate it on the pier, as shown in
the Torpedo Plant Marina, including: Plan B (p. 26).
1) Collecting docking fees-Rates and conditions would be Building Program:
established by City Council. (For comparable fee rates the An- Office 150 sq. ft.
napolis City dock charge is a minimum $12/day fee plus 50 First aid room 100 sq. ft.
cents per hour county tax. See Annapolis City Dock Informa- Storage 100 sq. ft.
tion, Appendix 1.) 350 sq. ft. total
2) Enforce a maritime code -An example of such code currently *A covered City Market is proposed by the Alexandria Waterfront
enforced in Annapolis is included in Appendix 11. Restoration Group.

views of the river down King Street and would do much to attract
Historic Vessel visitors to the pier.
Historic vessels are frequent visitors to Alexandria, presently docking Sound historic vessels are not readily available. Most require exten-
at the Old Ford Plant on Franklin Street. This dock is seven blocks sive renovations. An alternative would be to build a replica of a vessel
south of the Torpedo Plant and generally out of the mainstream of at the Torpedo Plant Pier, as Baltimore did with the PRIDE OF BAL-
Old Town Activity. The most recent vessels to visit Alexandria were TIMORE. Baltimore commissioned a builder of historic ships to fabri-
the tall-masted sailing ships, the EAGLE and the YOUNG AMERI- cate an authentic clipper ship on a pier at the Inner Harbor. Total cost
CA. The EAGLE is now a U.S. Coast Guard cutter. It was built in, was approximately $300,000, partially funded by a Maritime Preser-
Germany in 1936 and used as a cargo ship throughout World War 11. vation Grant. Building the PRIDE did much to attract visitors to Balti-
The ship was brought to the United States in 1946, and currently more's Inner Harbor.
serves as a cadet training vessel. The YOUNG AMERICA is a
reconstruction of a 130-foot brigantine wood cutter of the 1700's. Alexandria, too, could benefit from *building an historic vessel at the
The Torpedo Plant Marina is an ideal location for historic vessel pier. Grants for such an endeavor are available through Maritime
docking, either permanently or on a visiting basis. The addition of Preservation Grants and the State Historic Trust. Building a replica
such a vessel to the Waterfront would accentuate Alexandria's mari- on-site would provide the City with a choice of craft to exhibit and
time history. The towering masts and sails would greatly enhance the serve as an education tool.

As-r GU

Figure 35 The EAGLE

Restaurant Boat

The Torpedo Plant Marina provides an ideal location for a restaurant %
boat. Daytime and evening diners would enjoy the special advantage
'77
of waterfront views. Depending on the type of boat, it would be possi-
ble to moor pleasure craft to the facility, thus allowing for additional
mooring spaces for transient visitors coming to dine.
Restaurant boats are moored on many waterfronts. Philadelphia,
Washington and Baltimore all have large restaurant boats that lease
mooring space at City-owned docks. Operations of these facilities
must be carefully worked out taking into account the City services
provided such as water, electricity, sewer and parking. While this type
of facility would require detailed planning at the onset, it could prove
to be an attractive amenity to the Torpedo Plant Waterfront.
Water Taxi @N

Currently a water taxi operates in Annapolis. It is a classic 1930 mo-
tor launch called the MARY HARPER and can accommodate 44 Figure 36 The Gangplant
passengers. The charge for a one-way fare is $1.00. It operates a dai- Restaurant Boat at Washington
ly commuter service from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, May 1 to September Waterfront
15. This type of amenity could prove very attractive to the Torpedo
Plant Marina both in terms of providing a service and attracting peo-
ple who would like to approach Alexandria from the river but do not
have access to a boat.

Fish Market/Produce Boat

A fisherman's market would provide an attractive amenity in con-
junction with the City Market proposed for the redeveloped Torpedo 130
Plant. It is envisioned that fishing boats could be moored at the dock
for the primary purpose of selling fish. Problems with this type of
amenity can be anticipated. Annapolis, for example, restricts retail
selling over the docks because this type of commerce conflicts with
the adjacent City Market. Another problem is the competition for
mooring a fishing boat. A way to avoid this would be to lease the
mooring space or operate the boat as a concession. Further problems
would be in regard to utilities and trash storage and collection. Details
for this type of amenity would need to be carefully developed before
its implementation. Figure 37 Fish Market Boat

"be

77 @7@L,

IF, J

Figure 38 View of the Torpedo
Plant from the South Pier

Part 2.
Techni'*cal In r t'O
ion
Ana ysi'os of x'sste
i ing
C o n di'O ti* o n s

The following presents information pertaining to the condition of the From the Bulkhead Line to the Pierhead Line, a distance of approxi-
existing primary waterfront structures. These include the North Pier, mately 100 feet, the North Pier is a timber structure. The width of this
the South Pier, the adjoining dock and the three existing mooring section is approximately 64 feet with partial access by ramp from the
dolphins. The river bottom in the vicinity of the Torpedo Plant is also parking lot level. In general, this section is comprised of timber piles,
discussed. timber headers and a timber deck. The south, the east and the north
faces are protected by a timber fender system comprised of piles and
chocks. In addition, the northeast and southeast corners are further
protected by clusters of timber piles. An adjustable ramp section,
North Pier (Concrete/Timber Construction) measuring approximately 12 feet by 40 feet, is located near the
southeast corner.

Description This section of the pier has seventeen rowsof piles in a west-east di-
This structure, almost directly opposite Cameron Street and the ac- rection. There are ten rows of piles in the norfh@@outh direction. Near
cessway between Building #2 and #3, is a concrete structure be- the low water line, the piles are braced with a 4-inch by 12-inch tim-
tween the inshore bulkhead and the Bulkhead Line of the Potomac ber running in the longitudinal direction. At the top of the piles, there
are two, 2-inch by 12-inch headers running longitudinally, supporting
River. (Figure 8). The concrete section measures approximately 6-inch by 12-inch stringers which are spaced on 24-inch centers.
227 feet in length and approximately 26 feet in width. The struc- These support a deck of 4-inch by 12-inch timbers running in a
ture is supported by timber piles, with the foundation area enclosed longitudinal direction.
by a steel sheet pile bulkhead running along the south and east sides.
(Figure 39.) The sheet pile bulkhead continues in a northerly direc- Existing Condition
tion and terminates at the northeast corner of the City's property.
f

From the concrete pier to the north property line, the sheet pile bulk- The concrete portion of the pier is in generally good condition as not-
head serves as a retaining element for that portion of the property ed during a visual observation of the exposed surfaces. Access to de-
currently being used as a parking area. termine the condition of the foundation piles for this section is literally

non-existent, consequently, an evaluation of this portion of the
substructure was not made.
The timber foundation piles supporting the timber section of the pier
are in generally good condition. Of the interior piles inspected, ap-
proximately 31 percent exhibited evidence of decay in the outer
fibers, but beyond that depth, the piles appear to be sound.
The fender piles around the perimeter of the North Pier have suf-
fered the greatest deterioration and damage due to past usage and
exposure, particularly in the tidal zone. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 80 percent of these piles, including the clusters at the north-
east and southeast corners and along the south side of both the tim-
ber and the concrete sections of the pier will require replacement.

Recommendations

Based on limited historical information concerning the North Pier,
articularly the timber portion, it appears that the design capacity for
p OPM W."
that portion may have been as high as 500 pounds per square foot.
An analysis of the components in perfect condition appear to sub- e.*
'00,
stantiate a design figure of this magnitude. A
On that basis and considering the current condition of the concrete
and timber sections of the North Pier, rehabilitation appears to be
feasible. The requirements for the concrete section are basically cos-
Al
metic, except for the replacement of the timber fender piles.
For the timber section of the pier, rehabilitation can be accomplished
by replacement of the pile bracing members, repair of the deteriorat
ed or unsound decking, and replacement of the timber fender piles
and pile clusters. The decay noted in the bearing piles can be arrested
with the use of an internal fumigant. This action will prolong the ex-
pected life by approximately ten years. -4p:
Consideration should be given to replacement of the guard timbers
around the perimeter of the deck where required, installation of t
mooring hardware compatible with anticipated usage and the instal-
7 :7
lation of perimeter railings for the protection of pedestrians using the
facility. Figure 39 North Pier

South Pier (Timber Construction)

Description
This pier, located approximately 110 feet south of the North Pier, is
constructed entirely of timber. It measures approximately 330 feet in
length extending from the approximate center of the face of Building
#2, to the Pierhead Line of the Potomac River. The width of the MA
4
A", A
structure i
s 25 feet. 0
According to a limited number of available drawings and other histor-
ical information, this pier may have been built as early as 1919 with
major modifications and rehabilitation occurring as late as the 1940's.
The original construction included the use of timber foundation piles
driven in bents of five piles each with the bents spaced 10 feet center-
to-center in an east-west direction. In each bent, the piles were
spaced at 6 feet center-to -center and a total of 33 bents were utilized
to develop the approximate 330 feet of length. In addition to the five Figure 40 South Elevation View
vertical piles, every other bent has two spur piles driven on a batter of South Pier
from the outside toward the center of the pier.
Each bent was cross braced and supported a 12-inch by 12-inch tim-
ber header. The headers in turn, supported by 6-inch by 12-inch
stringers, spaced at 3 feet center-to -center, running longitudinally to
support a 3-inch timber deck.
6T

4d; A4

0
0

0.
5 b Af9 W C I

0 0 4Z C AT 14 k

2 J

4 W 10
41
4112

5ECOON A-A
Figure4l Sections -South Pier Fop- 15rmr Z To 35 1waLuiVE 51DE: f:LFVAnON
590wwc- LONGITUDINAL DIZAr-ING FOV_ ALL
qmrrBoApm PbsTs FrNDEqF P1 LE5 AND Ctioc_K3
MaT SHaWN

All

ff-crlaA, A4.

.4
Figure,42 Corner details- South
Pier R(AIV

The pier was protected by timber fender piles driven at the ends of Existing drawings, depicting modifications of the pier, are dated as
each bent. These piles were driven at a batter of 1 to 12. At the river early as 1927; however, it is believed that the actual work may not
end of the pier, the fender piles were spaced at approximately 6-foot have been completed until the early 1940's. These modifications in-
centers and were supplemented by clusters of piles at the northeast cluded cutting off the original foundation piles at a point 2 feet above
and southeast corners. Each of these clusters included approximately mean low water or elevation + 5.0. It is believed that damaged or de-
10 piles with appropriate banding and other hardware. teriorated piles may have been replaced at this time and cut off at the
The original pier apparently had a 12-inch by 12-inch timber backing same elevation. The piles, at this lower elevation, supported a header
log running around the perimeter of the deck. Mooring bitts were comprised of two, 6-inch by 12-inch timbers positioned with the 12-
spaced 4 to each side of the pier. Cleats were spaced to provide 6 on inch dimension in the horizontal plane.
each side of the pier. Vertical sections of timber, 12-inch by 12-inch by 5 feet, were added
Available drawings indicate that the elevation of mean low water was above each pile location on (6 foot centers) to support a new 12-inch
+ 3.0 (Washington Navy Yard datum) and the elevation of the corn- by 12-inch timber header, which supported 6-inch by 12-inch
stringers.
pleted dock was + 13.25. Other available drawings indicate that
dredging of the area was proposed, or was completed to a level 15 The vertical members were cross braced in each bent and cross brac-
feet below mean low water, or elevation - 12. ing (3-inch by 10-inch) was added between bents on the north and

south sides of the pier. The decking for the rehabilitated superstruc- cases where timber piles have been tested after more than sixty years
ture was 3-inch timbers with 10-foot and 16-foot sections used to ac- of service, they have been found to have retained more than 80 per-
commodate the 16 feet of width. cent of their bearing capability. (See Appendix VI)
The spur piles, located at every other bent, were not compatible for Recommendations
framing into the bents when cut off at a lower elevation. Six-inch by
12-inch stringer members were used to tie the spur piles together in a From available information, it appears that this structure may have
3 bent sequence. been designed to support a live load of 500 pounds per square foot.
Fender piles were used at each bent along both sides and at the end Analysis of the structure components in a new condition appears to
of the pier to protect the structure. These were apparently again driv- support this information. Based on the reported condition of the
en at a batter of 1 to 12. New backing logs, 6-inch by 10-inch, were in- superstructure, it is recommended that the upper portion of the pier
stalled during the rehabilitation, along with the necessary hardware. be demolished down to the top of the foundation piles. This will in-
volve removal of structural timbers, fender piles and utilities. Planned
On the north side of the pier, approximately 85 feet from the north- future use of the pier should be based on reconstruction from this
east corner, there is a separate concrete foundation supported by 9 level following a more detailed investigation of the then exposed
timber piles. A similar foundation exists on the south side of the pier timber bearing piles.
approximately 70 feet from the southeast corner. These foundations
for pillar cranes were constructed independent of the foundations for
the wooden pier.
The details noted above, while obtained from available drawings,
were verified during inspections of the structure. The existence of
numerous unused utility lines on the pier were also noted. These in-
clude sewer, water and electric utility services installed during earlier
use periods of the South Pier.
Condition Dock(Timber Construction)
The timber deck and the backing log timbers are very badly deterior-
ated. The timber stringers and headers are in poor to fair condition. The dock is a timber structure which extends along the concrete bulk-
The 12-inch by 12-inch vertical timbers in each bent, and the related head in front of Building #2 between the north side of the South Pier
cross bracing are in poor condition. The longitudinal cross bracing be- and the south side of the North Pier. The length is approximately 110
tween bents and the fender piles are in poor condition due to decay feet and the width is approximately 26 feet.
or mechanical damage. A major factor contributing to the deteriora-
tion of the vertical and bracing members is the decay which devel- This structure is supported by timber foundation piles arranged in
op@d in the many bolt holes used for connection of the members. bents and stiffened by timber cross bracing. The piles support timber
In general, based on conclusions formed during the site inspections headers, which, in turn, support stringers to carry the timber decking.
and from review of the reports of investigations conducted by others, The edges of the deck are protected by timber backing logs and the
it appears that the condition of the pier superstructure, from the deck east face of this structure is protected by timber fender piles.
to the top of the piles, does not warrant the expenditures for repairs. The details are similar to those noted for the timber section of the
(Fiqure 40.) The foundation piles, while exhibiting some shallow North Pier, and based on limited information available, it is likely that
surface deterioration, are believed to be reasonably sound and in the construction of this structure dates from the same era as that of
good condition. This is not unexpected, since these members are ex- the timber section of the North Pier. This time is believed to be in the
posed for very short periods of time during very low tides. In similar 1940's.

Condition
The framing details of the dock and the large accumulations of debris
under the structure make access for detailed inspection difficult.
From limited investigations conducted in this area, it is reasonable to
conclude that the conditions here are much the same as those noted
during examination of the North Pier members.
Some of the foundation piles appear to be suffering deterioration, but
only to a relatively shallow depth, with the remainder of the interior
of the piles in sound condition. Other members, including the brac-
ing, headers and stringers, are in fair condition with a small percen-
tage of the members requiring repair or replacement as a result of de-
terioration or mechanical damage. The decking is deteriorating, but is
in a usable condition for pedestrian and light vehicle use. Fender
piles, as in other sections of the piers, are suffering deterioration,
primarily in the tidal zone. There also is evidence of mechanical dam-
age likely due to the accumulation of debris, as well as ice during the
winter months.

Recommendations
It is recommended that this structure, if compatible with uses planned
for other sections of the waterfront area, be examined in detail to de-
termine the extent of required repairs. These will include replace- 4
ment of random cross bracing members, stringers and deteriorated
areas of the deck. In addition, consideration should be given to instal-
lation of a railing along the outboard side for the protection of pedes-
trians using the facility. T,
Dolphins
Description
There are three mooring dolphins on the City property. These are lo-
cated north of the North Pier, just inside the Pierhead Line, at ap-
proximate distances of 15 feet, 100 feet and 180 feet upstream of the
northeast corner of the Pier. For purposes of identification in this re
port, they have been designated as N-1, N-2 and N-3, numbering in a
South to north direction.
The dolphins are constructed of nineteen treated piles each, grouped L
in a circular pattern and banded with wire rope to constitute a stable Figure 43 Debris collects at base
mooring unit. ofdock

River Bottom Conditions

It has been reported that under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1910,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintenance of
the channel in the Potomac River. This channel maintenance begins
20 feet east of, and runs parallel to, the Pierhead Line which marks
the east ends of the existing North Pier and South Pier.
It has been further reported that the channel depth is maintained at
24 feet which is usually related to the depth below mean low water.
According to' available information, the river channel was last
dredged in 1965. It has been indicated that a survey of the channel
by the Corps began in June, 1979.
Maintenance of the river bottom in the 20 foot strip east of the Pier-
head Line and the area between the Pierhead Line and the inshore
bulkhead is the responsibility of the City. Limited historical informa-
tion indicates that this area may have been dredged to, and main-
tained at, a depth of 15 feet below mean low water.

Figure 44 Dolphin No. N-1

Condition

At Dolphin N-3, half of the piles in the outer ring were sampled.
While the piles appeared to have a marginal amount of preservative
treatment, they were in satisfactory condition. (See Report by J. In
Taylor, Appendix IV.)
No cores were taken at Dolphin N-2.
Four piles were sampled in Dolphin N- 1. Three were satisfactory. The
fourth had a sound shell approximately one inch thick, but the heart
was rotted.

Recommendations
Results obtained from the site investigations indicate that the three Figure 45 Riverbottorn at
dolphins are in generally good condition and do not appear to re- Torpedo Plant Basin during low
quire expenditures for replacement or repairs at this time. tide

Existing Conditions To meet present requirements, it will be necessary to obtain dredging
permits from the Corps of Engineers, the State of Virginia and other
As a result of surveys conducted during April, 1979, it was learned agencies involved in the permitting procedures. Related to this sub-
that the water depth in the pier areas had decreased considerably as ject is the necessity of learning the type of dredging that will be per-
a result of silting. Where earlier depths may have been maintained at mitted, as well as any restrictions concerning disposal areas for the
15 feet, depths ranging from three feet to zero, were encountered. material to be removed. Though mentioned as the concluding item
While this indicates silting of 12 to 15 feet, the time period is unde- concerning the river bottom conditions, the need to satisfy the re-
fined so that it is not possible to establish a silting rate. quirements for permits, disposal areas, etc. is primary and should be
Near the Pierhead Line, water depths range from 11 to 17 feet, considered in full detail before progressing with plans to improve the
rather than 24 feet which would conform with the maintained chan- water depths at the City's waterfront property.
nel depth.
The material is a sandy silt deposited during various river stages, as
well as by action of the tide, which has a nominal three-foot range in
this area. In addition, the pier areas and particularly the inshore end Dredging: Current Information
of the slips are congested with driftwood and other debris brought in
during high water. This requires that periodic maintenance work be In February 1975, the City applied for a permit from the Corps of En-
done. The City Department of General Services recently had all ac- gineers to dredge in the Potomac. The purpose of the project was to
cumulated debris removed. A sunken boat hull was noted along the obtain the water depth required to dock two vessels with a draft of
north side of the-South Pier during inspections, also located approxi- approximately 12-15 feet at the Torpedo Plant piers. The proposed
mately 200 feet from the Pierhead Line. work was to extend no more than 290 feet channelward of an exist-
ing bulkhead. It was estimated that 6,000 yards of sandy silt were to
Recommendations be dredged by clarnshell method and disposed of at the Alexandria
City landfill. Three months after submission the permit application
To provide a satisfactory water depth for use by small pleasure craft,
dredging the entire area appears necessary. A depth of 10 feet below was withdrawn from the files by the Corps because of Alexandria's
mean low water is recommended to provide satisfactory access for failure to submit necessary revisions of the plan within a thirty-day
the pleasure craft likely to use the facility. Based on the survey infor- time frame.
mation obtained during April, 1979, it appears that dredging to the Robinson's Terminal, located 4 blocks north of the Torpedo Plant, is
recommended depth will result in the removal of 35,000 to 40,000 the only waterborne commerce industry still in operation on Alexan-
cubic yards of material in the slip areas. dria's Waterfront. Robinson's has just completed a major dredging
To provide a satisfactory depth for deep draft vessels calling at the project. A local dredging company was contracted to dredge a depth
City, it is recommended that the area immediately along the Pier- of 24 feet using the clarnshell method. Dredged material was trans-
head Line be dredged to provide 21 feet of water at mean low water. ported to and disposed of at Rainwater Concrete Company in Fair-
To provide a transition from 10 feet to 21 feet, it is recommended fax County, Virginia. In order to maintain a sufficient depth for their
that a distance of 50 feet be used to slope the river bottom material. abundant ship traffic, the river bottom must be dredged once every
The volume of excavation resulting from providing for deep draft four or five years.
vessels is approximately 6,000 to 8,000 cubic yards, with the final fig-
ure dependent upon the amount of clean-up required immediately
north and south of the City's property to provide access for the larger
vessels.

A+0

yv@t

Dredging: Application:
Alexandria is included in the Baltimore District of the Army Corps of
Engineers. Application for a dredging permit would be made to the
District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore, Maryland.

Information Required in a Permit Application:
1) A detailed description of the proposed activity.
2) Names and addresses of adjoining property owners. Typical
3) Complete information about the location. Corps Permit
4) A list of the status of all approvals and certifications required by
other federal, state, and local government agencies. Review Process
5) Reasons that explain denial of any approvals or certifications
required by other government agencies.
Figure 46 Corps Permit Review
Process

Z
N71"
-NO

11 'J
k

_10

Lain T,;x

m-W @11

w w AW=7@'

A
3"V 777 7

F"
@/ 1A,

Figure 47 Annapolis Marina

Appendix I

INFORMATION ABOUT ANNAPOLIS-CITY DOCK
June 1978

1. The City of Annapolis operates 18 finger slips for transient boats.
Each slip provides water and IlOv electricity at 20, 30, and some have
50 amps. Slips are available on a first-come-first-served basis and
the procedure is to pull into a vacant slip not roped off or marked
reserved. Most of the slips are about 12 feet wide; slip #13 is 13
feet wide and slip #19 is about 16 feet wide.

2. Boaters may also tie up to bulkheads where space is available,
although no electricity nor water is provided. Rafting is discouraged
but permitted during periods of heavy congestion. Please obtain per-
mission from owner of boat to which rafted and the Harbor Master or
one of his assistants.

3. The docking fee for transient boats is $12.00 minimum per day,
plus 10% Anne Arundel County tax, or $.50 per hour plus tax for a max-
imum of five hours. All boats are subject to these rates whether in
a si ip, tied to a bulkhead or rafted off another boat. All rates and
conditions are established by City Ordinance and the Harbor Master has
no authority to make exceptions. Boaters requiring electricity will
be required to pay $3.00 minimum per day or $.50 flat fee at the hourly
rate. All rates are subject to change.

4. The City of Annapolis assumes no responsibility for the security,
safety, liability for any loss, damage or personal injury while using
City Dock facilities. Boaters are therefore advised that they are
authorized to use the City Dock at their own risk.

5. Arriving at the City Dock Monday through Thursday, boaters should
normally have little difficulty finding a vacant slip. The other days
of the week find the City Dock crowded by noon. Should there be no
slips available upon arrival, contact one of the Assistant Harbor
Masters at the City Dock who may be able to help you obtain a slip.
Some slips are often used by boaters on an hourly basis.

6. Public showers and toilets are available on the City Dock. This
facility will be open from May through October from 8:00 A.M. to 8 P.M.
Other months the times are subject to change. Boaters not paying the
daily rate may use showers after paying $1.00 per person.

7. Winter daily rates are $7.00 per day plus 10% tax from November I
to March 31. Electricity charge is $3.00 minimum per day. When author-
ized by the Mayor and Aldermen, certain slips may be rented during
this period on a monthly basis. See Harbor Master for details.

Appendix II

MARITIME DISTRICT CODE: CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND
Section
Chapter 10: Harbors, Docks and Similar Facilities 10-3. Refusal to move vessel from public wharf or bulkhead.
Section If the master or skipper of any vessel shall refuse to remove the
same from any public wharf or bulkhead when so ordered by the
10-1. Anchoring boats, etc., so as to obstruct navigation - Prohibited. harbor master or police officer, and unless the vessel shall be
10-2. Same - Duty of harbor master. loading or discharging its load, he shall forfeit and pay one dollar
10-3. Refusal to move vessel from public wharf or bulkhead. for every hour he may remain thereafter. (3-10-69. Sec.2.)
10-4. Sunken Boats.
10-5. Discharge, etc., of refuse into city waters, etc. 10-4. Sunken boats.
10-6. Speed of motor driven boats.
10-7. Retail sale of seafood from vessel lying at city docks or wharves. Boats of any description, not in a condition to keep afloat, which
10-8. Boarding vessel without permission. shall be permitted to sink in any of the waters within the city,
10-9. Tampering with, etc., vessel. and left for more than two days, shall be considered as a public
10-10. Condition and major repairs of boats docked in city harbor. nuisance, and if not removed within five days after notice given
10-10.1. Removal of boats to storage facility. by the harbor master, the boat so left shall be considered as
10-11. Charcoal burning. forfeited to the city, and the harbor master shall proceed to sell
10-11.1. Swimming and water skiing prohibited. the boat at public auction, after giving five days' notice thereof
10-12. Docking, etc., fees for daily, monthly, and yearly mooring. in a newspaper pub] ished in the city, and the purchaser shall
1.0-12.1. Charge for electricity. obligate himself to remove the boat forthwith. The proceeds of
10-13. Leaving property on public wharf. such sale shall be paid into the city treasury. In the event no
10-14. Permit to build wharf, pier, etc. purchaser is to be had for such boat when offered for sale, it shall
10-15. Private wharves and other facilities to be kept in repair. be the duty of the harbor master to proceed to remove or destroy
10-16. Permits for mooring piles, floating wharves, buoys and boats anchored the boat so left, in order to preserve the navigation and appear-
over forty-eight hours - Required; approval of port wardens; expira- ance of the waters. (3-10-69. Sec.2.)
tion and renewal; fees.
10-16.1. Same -Application for buoys, piers and bulkheads; fees. 10-5. Discharge, etc., of refuse into city waters, etc.
10-16.2. Same -Notice of hearing of certain applications; notice of appeals.
10-17. Same -Limit upon number issued. No person shall discharge or permit or allow any other person on a
10-18. Same -Application; notice to nearby owners. vessel under his control or command to discharge any human or
10-20. Same -Numbering permits and moorings. animal excreta or other refuse from any head, toilet or similar
10-21. Same -Removal of unauthorized moorings. facility on a vessel into the waters within the city. No person
10-22. Number of boats at mooring, etc. shall throw, dischage, deposit or leave or cause, or permit to be
10-23. Compliance with orders of harbor master. thrown, discharged, deposited or left, either from the shore or
10-25. Expiration and nontransferability of permits. from any pier or vessel, any refuse matter of any description into
the waters within the city or on the shore thereof where the same
may be washed into the harbor or waters, either by tides, or by
10-1. Anchoring boats, etc., so as to obstruct navigation - Prohibited. floods or otherwise. (3-10-69. Sec.2.)
No person shall anchor any boat or other vessel for any period of 10-6. Speed of motor driven boats.
time within the boundaries of the city in such a location or manner
as to obstruct the free navigation thereof. (6-12-67) It,shall be unlawful for any motor driven boat or vessel to be
propelled or navigated in any of the waters of the city except
10-2. Same - Duty of harbor master. the Severn River at a speed greater than six miles per hour.
Whenever any vessel shall lie at anchor or be moored in the waters (3-lo-69. Sec.2.)
within the city in such a position as to obstruct the navigation 10-7. Retail sale of seafood from vessel lying at city docks or wharves.
thereof, it shal I be the duty of the harbor master to order the owner
or master of such vessel to remove the same immediately. Failure to No vessel shall be permitted to lie at any of the city docks or
remove the same shall constitute violation of this section. wharves for the purpose of selling fish or other seafood for retail.
(3-10-69. Sec.2.) (3-10-69. Sec.2.)

Section Section
10-8. Board vessel without permission. 10-11.1. Swimming and water skiing prohibited.
No unauthorized person shall climb into or upon any vessel moored,
docked or anchored within the waters of the city without the con- No person shall swim or water ski in the city dock waters.
sent of the owner or other person having charge therof. (3-10-69. (Ord . No. 0-47-75. Sec. I . )
Sec.2.) 10-12. Docking, etc., Fees for daily, monthly and yearly moor;ng.
10-9. Tampering with, etc., vessel. Any person who moors or t les hi s ve5se I to any port i on of the
No person shall willfully injure or tamper with, or break or remove city docks or other property belonging to the city des;gnated
any part of or from, any vessel within the waters of the city, or for docking or rafts to another boat or boats moored or tied to
tamper with the lines securing such vessel, without consent of the any bulkhead in the inner harbor of the city dock areas shall
owner or other person having charge thereof. (3-10-69. Sec.2.) first obtain permission of the harbor master for such docking
privileges, and shall pay the following fees:
10-10. Condition and major repairs of boats docked in city harbor. (a) For all transient slips, the minimum sum of twelve dollars
No person shall dock a boat which is not in an operating condition ($12.00) and one dollar (Si.00) extra For each five-foot
in the city harbor. No major repairs shall be made to boats in increment for boats over forty (40) feet not to exceed a
the dock area. The market and harbor master in his sole judgment maximum of fifteen dollars (515-00) per day from April Ist
shall determine major repairs under this provision. (Ord. No. 0- to October 31st, and the sum of seven dollars (57-00) per
112-74. Sec.l.) dav from November ISL to March 31st, in addition the minimum
of three dollars ($3.00) and one dollar ($1.00) e.@tra For
10-10.). Removal of boats to storage facility. each five-foot increment for boats over Forty (40) feet not
to exceed a maximum of six dollars (56.00) per day service
Whenever a boat owner fails to comply with lawful requirements to charge for electricity for those boats using electricity.
remove his boat or the owner cannot be contacted after efforts to
reach him have proved futile, the harbor master shall have the auth- (b) For all commerc;al boats:
ority to have removed and placed in storage any boat warranting
such action after giving notice required by applicable section of (1) The sum of seventy-f;ve dollars ($75-00) per month
the city Code, or, in the absence of any specific provisions, by from April Ist to November 30th.
posting a notice in the local newspaper. Boats removed by direction
of the harbor master sha I I be towed by an estab I i shed operator to (2) The sum of fifty (550.00) per month from December Ist
an operating boat yard for dry or wet storage as deemed appropriate to March 31st.
by management of the boat yard facility and such boat will not be
released with the boat owner or his authorized agent calls for the (c) For all work boats, such as those in the oyster fleet, clam
delivery of the boat with an order for its release signed by the fleet and related uses, the surr. of fifteen dollars ($15.00)
harbor master or his assistant. per month.
The owner shall be liable for the costs of towing and storage and (d) For all buy boats, between September Ist and May Ist, the sum
other expenses incurred such as overtime costs incurred by city of fifty dollars ($50-00) per month.
personne I , ba i 1 i ng cost s to keep the boa t af ioat and other cos ts
which may be incurred by the city. (Ord. No. 05-75. Sec.l.) (e) Port Welcome, the sum of thirty-five dollars ($35-00) each
docking.
10-11. Charcoal burning. (f) For all private boats:
No person shall cook by means of charcoal burning on his boat in
the city dock or on the city dock property. (Ord. No. 0-79-74. (1) The sum of fifty dollars (550-00) per month from
Sec.l.) April Is[ to September 30th.

Section Section

(2) The sum of thirty dollars ($30-00) per month from 10-16. Permits for mooring piles, floating wharves, buoys and boats
October Ist to March 31st. anchored over forty-eight hours in any of the waters within
the city without first obtaining a permit therefor from the
(9) Exceptions to these rates may be granted, by resolution or city engineer. No such permit shall be issued without the approval
lease, by the mayor and aldermen for special types of boats of the wardens of the city, who shall meet at least once each month
or classic boats which are not included in any category to consider applications for such permits. Every permit so issued
enumerated herein. (3-10-69, 2; Ord. No. 0-29, Sec.1; shall expire on April 30th of each year unless renewed in the same
Ord. No. 0-16-74, Sec.]; Ord. No. 0-75-74, Sec.1; Ord. No. 0- manner as provided for the issua7ce of the original permit.
111-74, Sec.1; Ord. No. 0-72-75, Sec.]; Ord. No. 0-34-76, 1
Sec.]; Ord. No. 0-1-77, Sec.1; Ord. No. 0-12-77, Sec.]; The following fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the per-
Ord. No. 0-37-77, Sec.]; Ord. No. 0-44-77, Sec.1; Ord. No. 0- mits for a mooring pile, floating'wharf and buoy each year:
59-78, Sec.l. 10-9-78.)
Resident for private or noncommercial use ................. $50-00
10-12-1. Charge for electricity.
Non resident for private or noncommercial use ...... I ..... $100.00
Any person docking a boat at city property shall pay the sum of
one dollar ($1.00) per day for electricity, where a charge for Rental to others or commercial use ....................... $100-00
the same is not specified in another section of this code or by
contract. (Ord. No. 0-34-77, Sec.].) (6-12-67; Ord. No. 0-25, Sec.]; Ord. No. 0-33, Sec.1; Ord. No. 0-
34-73, Sec.1; Ord. No. 0-26-74, Sec.0
10-13. Leaving property on public wharf.
10-16.1. Same - Application for buoys, piers and bulkheads; fees.
No person shall leave any property on any public wharf, or public
property adjacent thereto, for a period of more than twenty-four Every application for buoys, piers and bulkheads shall be filed
(24) hours. (3-10-69, Sec.2.) with the city engineer. The costs for making such appl ications,
which shall accompany the application and shall not be refundable,
10-14. Permit to build wharf, pier, etc. shall be:
No person shall build any wharf, pier or improvement of any kind (a) Buoys ................................................ $10-00
into the waters within the city or carry out any earth or material
for that purpose, without first obtaining a permit therefor to be (b) Piers ................................................ $15,00
issued by the city engineer with the approval of the port wardens
of the city. (3-10-69. Sec.2.) (c) Bulkheads ............................................ $25-00
Cross references - Building generally, Ch.6; licenses generally
ch.i4. 10-16.2. Same - Notice of hearing of certain applications; notice of appeals.

Whenever an application is filed with the port wardens of the city,
10-15. Private wharves and other facilities to be kept in repair. the port wardens shall cause notice of the hearing of the applica-
tion to be published once in each week for two (2) consecutive weeks
The owners of private wharves, piers, bulkheads or other facilities in one newspaper of general circulation published in the city. The
extending into, or adjacent to, the waters within the city shall second advertisement shall be published at least seven (7) days prior
keep them in proper repair so as to prevent injury, or hazards to to the hearing. The notice shall specify the name and residence of
navigation, and to prevent debris from the same from washing into the applicant, the location of the projected improvement and descrip-
such waters. (3-10-69. Sec.2.) Supp. No. 15, 11-78. tion of the improvement sought and such other information as the port
wardens shall direct. The cost of the publication of notice of hear-
ing shall be borne by the applicant.

Section Section

In the event of an appeal from a decision of the port wardens Any unlicensed mooring pile, floating wharf, buoy or anchored
to the mayor and aldermen, the city clerk shall cause notice of boat found restricting or blocking navigation may be removed
the appeal to be published in the same manner, and the cost shall immediately. (6-12-67)
be borne by the appellant. (Ord. No. 0-8-74. Sec.l.) 10-22. Number of boats at Imooring, etc.
10-17. Same - Limit upon number issued. No more than one boat or other vessel shall be moored at any one
Where the application for a permit as required by section 10-16 mooring pile or buoy. The number of boats at a floating wharf
is for a location in water abutting property owned by the applicant, shall be within the discretion of the port wardens. (6-12-67)
the number of permits to be granted shall be within the discretion
of the port wardens based upon the considerations outlined in sec- No person shall fail to comply with any lawful order of the
tion 10-ig. Where the applicant is not the owner of abutting pro- harbor master. (3-lo-69. Sec.2.)
perty, then no more that two (2) such noncommercial permits, and no
more than seven (7) such commercial permits shall be issued for the 10-25. Expiration and nontransferability of permits.
use of any one person. (6-12-67) A permit issued by the port wardens shall be val ;d for work com-
IOzI8. Same - Application; notice to nearby owners. menced within a period of one year after issuance of the permit
for the work by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; otherwise, it
Applications for all permits as set out in section 10-16 shall be shall be void and of no effect.
made upon such forms and contain such information as may be pre-
scribed by the city engineer, and shall show the proposed location No permit or authorization of the port wardens aforesaid shall
of the mooring applied for in relation to fiKed landmarks or pro- be transferable and must only be used by the original applicant.
perty lines along the shore. Upon receipt of an application for Transfer of the property by the original applicant shall result
such permit, the city engineer shall give notice by ordinary mail in the termination of the permit or authorization to construct.
to all owners of riparian property within one hundred fifty (150) (Ord. No. 0-24-75. Sec.l.)
feet of the location applied for notifying them to file with him,
in writing, any objections@,they may have to the granting of the
permit applied for within seven (7) days from the date of such
notice. (6-12-67)

10-20. Same - Numbering permits and moorings.

Mooring permits issued by the city engineer shall be consecutively
numbered, and the number on commercial permits shall bear the letter
"C"as a prefix. Every mooring pile, floating wharf, buoy or boat
shall also bear the letter ''C'' at least two (2) inches tall.
(6-12-67)

10-21. Same - Removal of unauthorized moorings.

Any unlicensed mooring pile, floating wharf, buoy or anchored boat
found within the water to which this chapter is applicable shall
be posted with a notice requiring the owner thereof to remove the
same within twenty (20) days from the date of the notice. Unless
removed or a permit obtained within the time required by such notice,
the same shall be removed by the police department of the city and
may be disposed of.

Appendix III

Don Keefe - 2
Lab and Tre atmen t Q. C. Manager
884 Blacklawn Road
Conyers, Georgia 30207 There is much sound wood in the plates and the piling cores. If reuse is desired
for a lighter structure, reduction in cross section due to the soft outer shell]
April 27, 1979 must be considered.

If reuse is contemplated, each piling in the pier should be checked for sound
On April 24 and 25, 1979 1 checked the condition of wood in the South pier at wood at extreme low tide. This could best be done after the treated super
the Torpedo Assembly Factory, Alexandria, Virginia. str_uc-ture of the pier has been removed.
Sketches No. I and 2 show pier cross sections for piece identification and The original proposal called for boring each piling to determine creosote reten-
location of check points. tions in the wood. Since the pilings were untreated this was not done.
On April 24 the check was started at a point called location 17 with location Due to inaccessability and short periods of low tide all pilings were not checked.
numbers proceeding shoreward. On April 25, the check was started at a point The original work called for one day's work. The low tide period on two consec-
called location I and the lettering proceeded riverward. (Refer to sketch 2 utive days was used in order to check as much wood as possible.
for orientations.) Pilings and columns were numbered A thru E from South to
north. Although the major emphasis of the work was directed at the water line, it was
apparent that the upper deck stringers contained a large amount of deteriorated
General Comments: wood. This is especially true of one stringer located on the South side of the
The piling and plates of the South pier are untreated (not preserved) wood. South pier at location No. 9.
Both are under water except for short periods at low tide when the tops of the General Comments: North Pier Creosote Borings
piling and all of the plates are exposed to air.
I The first row of piling along the South side of the North Pier were checked by
The water at this location in the Potomac River is reported to be fresh. boring with an increment borer. The piling were numbered I through 17 proceeding
toward the river.
The wood was checked by taking borings with an increment borer and by probing.
Two borings were taken from pilings No. 1, No. 2, No. 5 and No. 7, one boring was
Softwood was encountered in all cases up to a 1/21' depth from the surface of taken from each of the other piling, total 18 borings. Piling No. 3 was not
the wood, and in several cases up to a I" depth from the wood surface. However, sampled due to obvious decay. Piling No. 2 was decayed. No penetration of pre-
after the initial soft core was penetrated, interior sound wood was found. servative was found in piling No. 2. Pilings No. 4 and No. 6 are poorly penetrated
Many of the plates show obvious decay, however, even the plates @howing obvious and contain untreated sapwood.
decay contain much interior sound wood. The retention of creosote in the piling was found to be a 6.64 Ibs/ft3 when
tested by AWPA method 6-76. This is less than the required 12 pounds per cu. ft.
Where holes drilled in both piling and plates were checked by probing, softwood required by AWPA Standard C4 piling used in fresh water.
was found on the wood surface around the holes, but solid wood was encountered
after initial penetration. Recommendations:

The treated 12x 12 wood columns have generally deteriorated at their bases and Due to the above findings it is recommended that at least 40 more piling be checked
at bolt holes. Many of the columns - seven were found - contain serious interior at random on the North Pier.
decay. These columns are at locations 10, 11 and 12.
Note - only one set of borings was taken due to inaccessibility and short duration
The treated x-braces for the most part are decayed. of low tide.

Recommendations: *AWPA - American Wood Preservers Association

The treated columns and all the x-braces contain enough deteriorated wood to make
any question of reuse doubtful. These should be removed.

IBasic freshwater salinity content approximately I part/thousand
measured by the PEPCO Quality Reserach Division.

FINDINGS ON THE SOUTH PIER

Location No. 3 Location No. 7 Location No. 11 Location No. 15
w Piling A-appears sound Piling A,B,E-appear sound Column A,B,C,D,E-decayed Piling B,C-appear sound
Plates-all appear sound Plates-appear sound x-Brace-all decayed Piling D-soft
Plates-contain some decay Column A,B,C-appear sound
Column E-decayed
x-Brace-all decayed
Plates-contain decay
Location No. 4 Location No. 8 Location No. 12 Location No. 16
Piling A,E-appear sound
Column A,B-appear sound Piling A,D,E-appear sound Column A,C,D,E-decayed Piling B,E-soft
Plates-appear sound Column B-appears sound Piling C-appears sound
x-Brace-all decayed Column A-appears sound
Plates-contain some decay Column B,C,E-decayed
x-Brace-all decayed
Plates-contain decay

Location No. 5 Location No. 9 Location No. 13 Location No. 17
Piling A-appears sound Piling A,D,E-appear sound Column A,B,E-appear sound Piling A,B-soft
Column A,B,C,D-decayed Column A-decayed Column C-decayed Column B,E-appear sound
Column B-appear sound x-Brace-all decayed Column C-decayed
x-Brace-all decayed Plates-appear sound x-Brace-all decayed
Plates-appear sound Plates-contain decay

Location No. 6 Location No. 10 Location No. 14
Column A,C-appear sound Column B,E-decayed Column A,B,D-appear sound
Column B,D,E-decayed Column C-poor treatment Column C,E-decayed
x-Brace-all decayed Column D-appears sound x-Brace-all decayed
Plates-contain some decay Plates-appear sound

Z 0

45 d5 45 q5
5 45 ;5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Figure 48 Piling Plan
of South Pier

Appendix IV

James A. Taylor
Timber Products Specialist
3510 Kirkwood Drive 2
Fairfax, Virginia 22030 U.S.A.
703 591-5593
April 30, 1979 The timbers on the top of the bearing piles appeared to be in good coindition.
There may be some decay on the top surface where the planking is nai ed to them
but the timbers appear to be overdesigned and more than adequate even if some
surface softening is found. Minor decay voids, if found under the planking,
Re: Inspection of the wooden pier between can be repaired using techniques developed for railroad bridge trestle repair.
Pierhead line and Bulkhead line projecting Sections of the top planking have deteriorated and in some cases, metal sheets
beyond the concrete pier (North Pier) have been nailed to the deck to presumably cover holes. I did not remove any
On April 28 and 29, 1979 1 sample inspected a total of seventy-five piles of these to inspect underneath.
in the 'North Pier' behind the Torpedo Plant at Alexandria, Virginia. Sixty- Some of the plank bracing between the piles show signs of deterioration. If
two of these were bearing piles or braces and thirteen were fender piles. A the engineers felt that they were essenalial and should be replaced, It is esti-
grid of the piles which I inspected is attached. This grid has a key to indi- mated that about 10% would be in this c egory.
cate the results found.
The decay in the bearing piles can be arrested with an internal fumigation
Of the sixty-two bearing piles or braces inspected, nineteen of them or approx- using EPA fumigants. This treatment is placed inside the pile and should
imately 31% had some decay in them. This was in the springwood or earlywood protect against decay for at least ten years.
part of the wood. The glossary of the Wood Handbook describes this as being
less dense and weaker mechanically than latewood. None of the decay found was As top decking is replaced theltop surfaces of the timbers should be given a
severe and so this decay would have only a small effect on the strength of the coating of hot creosote as a routine procedure. In addition a dry sheet pre-
piece. servative is available which can be cut in strips and nailed to the top of the
The pine in these piles was generally slow grown with narrow annual rings, typical timbers before the new decking is installed.
of virgin pine. This type of pine has the usual characteristic of a high resin It is my opinion that this pier merits renovation and should be kept in repair.
content which gives it a great deal of natural durability. These piles appeared The current planned use for the pier is one reason. Perhaps more important
to have been originally well treated with a high residue creosote. In many cases is the fact that it is usually a routine matter to obtain permits to repair
the creosote smell was apparent in the borings. An assay will be run on the existing facilities but should these facilities deteriorate beyond repair it
composited borings to determine the residual creosote remaining in the wood. might be impossible to obtain permits to remove a deteriorated facility and build
In my opinion the design of the pier appeared to be in excess of the current a replacement.
planned use. This observation should be confirmed by engineering evaluations. If repairs and renovations are approved I would be glad to offer advice on the
selection of the materials and the quality control procedures which should be
I inspected thirteen fender piles and found tel of them or 77% needed replace- followed to assure the long life of the renovated pier.
ment due to decay or mechanical damage or both. In my opinion the fender piles
were considered to be expendable. They would be subject to mechanical abrasion
and damage and therefore during the periodic repairs a marginal treatment was
probably considered to be adequate.

There are three dolphins north of the pier. These were designated as N-1, N-2
and N-3 starting with the dolphin nearest the pier and working north. I sampled
six piles in the outer ring of twelve piles in the N-3 dolphin. These piles
had a marginal treatment but were in generally satisfactory condition. I sampled
four piles in N-I dolphin and found one with an inch of shell and the heart
rotted.

The top timbers on the river side of the pier were in poor condition and will
need to be replaced. These timbers probably were also considered to be expend-
able using the same reasoning as the fender piles.

AAA 8 C 0 E F G H I J JJ
iso 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 o
L9 Ho
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro-I
rol
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
moo 00 %o 0
11 go o o M M oo

12 o
0 0

13 0 0

14 0 g 0 M 9 M o

0
15 No 0

tow
7- 16 0 0 0 g 0 0
0
0
17 q 0 0 PO mo 0 00

0 pile
0 pile inspected Figure 50 Condition of Piles-
Figure 49 North Pier Pil ing 0 pile-reject
0 pilew/decay North Pier

Appendix V

SITE INSPECTION BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE

A field inspection trip was made on April 19, 1979 by Dr. A] Debonis and
@Mr. Fred Lamb of the Department of Forest Products, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute.

Based n a two hour examination, the following observations were made regard-
0
Ing the wood structure of the South Pier:

a) The timber piles which had been cut off at the low
water level, (probably 40 years ago) may still be
usable. This is based on a very limited sample of the
piles. Damage below the water level due to decay was
not evident in the increment cores which were taken.
A more rigorous sampling will be needed to make a
reliable evaluation. The cores which were taken were
returned to VPI & SU for microscopic analysis. No
decay was found In these samples.

It must be assumed that some of the original pile
strength has been lost, however, the residual strength
may be sufficient for intended use. This is subject
to further investigation.

The top sections of the piles sampled were found to be
"spongy." This is typical of wood end grain which
has been subjected to constant water submersion. This
section, therefore, is limited in bearing capacity
and Is also subject to further investigation.

Additional Sampling tests are required to make any
additional recommendations. VPJ may be able to finance
a supervisor to coordinate these tests. P

b) The timber structure above the piles is not expected
to be salvageable. The effective cross-section of
the structural members has been considerably reduced N_
due to internal decay at the holes for the steel
connecting bolts.

Figure 51 VPl Consultants check-
ing surface conditions of South Pier

Condition Of Pine Piling
Submerged 62 Years In
River Water

14th Street Bridge Over Potomac River, Washington, D.C.

THEO. C. SCHEFFER, Pathologist
C. G. DUNCAN, Pathologist'
and
THOMAS WILKINSON, Engineer
Forest Products Laboratory,2 Foiest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Madison, Wisconsin

N 1963, THE question was raised sections had never been encased in shortleaf (Table 1), one could conclude
1)). the bridge engineers as to concrete, since the concrete encase- that the wood above mudline tended
%khe(her the Piling under the old 14th nient on these particular piles started to have less than one-half its original
Street Bridge in Washington, D.C.. several feet below mudline. The sec- strength and that below mudline no
@@as sufficiently sound to warrant con- tions were all from pier 9. Two of more than about 80 percent of its
StruCting, a new bridge on it. Our ex- them, which will be referred to here original strength. Thus, it seems that
animations in 1903 and 1967 of wood its pile 1-1 and pile L2, came from there was a definite and substantial
from representative piles indicated that just above the mudline; the other two, reduction in crushing strength of the
it Probably was not, but it was de- pile L3 and pile L4, came from just piles above mudline and a moderate
cided in 1968 that this should be cor- below the mudline, according to Mr. reduction in strength below mudline.
rohorated with a third set of samples, Ernekli. The species of pine Could Although the apparent reduction in
and strength evaluations of the wood. not be established, but it seems logical strength below mudline may not be
The conditions of the piling was of to assurne that it was one of the four statistically significant, it probably is
more than practical interest because major southern pines. a real one in view of microscopical
it oave its an opportunity to observe The sections were tested for evidence of bacterially caused changes
the condition of untreated wood with strength in compression parallel to the in the wood.
an authenticated history Linder fresh grain. Specimens were I by I by 4 The microscopical observations are
%%ater for lk long period of time, inches and they were tested in the Summarized in Table I Bacteria were
In response to our desire to analyze green condition in accordance with present in all portions of all pile sec-
more of the piling, Mr. George Mc- the procedure Outlined in ASTM tions. They were more prevalent in
S%kain of the Washington office of the D143. The location of the specimens sections below mudline than in sec-
Forest Service. in collaboration with is shown in Figure 1. The results are tions above, and the wood below mud-
the engineer on the 14th Street Bridge, shown in Table 1. line was correspondingly altered to a
Nlr. H. Enickli. arranged to have four The residual strength of the piles greater degree microscopically. The
moic sections of piling sent to the cannot be analyzed relative to known greater residual strength in the wood
Laboratory. These were examined initial values, but it is possible to ob- below mudline cannot be accounted
Microscopically and specimens from tain some estimate of strength change for on the basis of the microscopical
theni "ere tested for strength. The by referring to the average crushing- appearance of the wood, which was
lindings. and conclusions derived from strength (parallel to grain) values for not as good as that of the wood above
both the present and the earlier assays, Southern pines. Using for reference
are the suhjcct of this report. the average strength of the weakest Deceased
Accordim, to Mr. Emekli. the four of the Southern pines. loblolly and -Maintained at Madison, Wis., in coopera-
tion with the University of Wisconsin.

A t
Al

IMM,
1_1@ it
Pile Ll Pile L2

V
Z
J/

The pilings that are on the barge are a few that were pulled when
the 14th Street Bridge was razed.

Pit. L3 Pile L4

Diagram for cutting I" by I" compression parallel to grain specimens
from pile sections obtained from pier 9 of the 14th Street Bridge,
Washington, D.C.

Table 1 - Results of compression parallel to grain test of 1 by 1 specimens
cut from pile sections obtained from pier 9 of 14th Street Bridge,
Washington, D.C.

1111.1(flinC. It can only be Suggested at Location Crushing strength
this time that microscopically visible Pile In Type of Moisture Specific Average of
alterations of pine wood induced by No. structure wood 'content gravity Individual specimenall,
bacteria are not a reliable index of the Pct. P.S.i. P.S.i.
changes in wood strength of the mag- Ll Above Sapwood 113 0.430 1,380 -
nitude found in this piling. mudline 132 .394 1,200 1,290
Fungus hyphae were present in the Sapwood 120 .395 1,140 -
sapwood and Outer heartwood, but 115 .402 1,420 1,280
not in the inner heartwood. Heartwood 142 .420 1,320 -
We conclude from the total evi- 108 .434 1,680 1,500
dence that the pine sapwood below
niudline in the river water for 62 L2 Above Sapwood 139 .421 1,550 -
Z
Z

years had been substantially weakened mudline 89 .465 1,310 1,430
in crushing strength by bacteria. The Heartwood 154 .381 1,370 -
heartwood was affected less: judging 182 .380 1,250 1,310
from the condition of wood recovered Heartwood 184 .369 1,040 -
from lakes and river bottoms after 153 .399 1,280 1,160
Much longer periods than 62 years, U Below Sapwood 120 .390 2,230 -
however, the heartwood also probably mudli 138 .367 2,180 2,200

Table 2 - Summary of microscopical observations of thin sections from pine piling obtained from pier 9 of 14th Street
Bridge, Washington, D.C.

Location Miscroscopical examination
Pile in Type of
No. structure wood Bacteria Fungi Wood deterioration

Ill Above Sapwood Few Occasional hyphae Nothing to indicate wood deterioration. There are
mudline (outer) a few ray parenchyma cells gone but appear to be
torn out by cutting rather than due to attack.
Ll Above Sapwood Few Occasional hyphae Nothing to indicate wood deterioration. There are
mudline (inner) a few ray parenchyma cells gone but appear to be
torn out by cutting rather than due to attack.
Ill Above Heartwood Few Occasional hyphae Ray cells intact, as well as fibers, but there are as
mudline many bacteria in heartwood as in sapwood.
L2 Above Sapwood Few Occasional hyphae Bacteria mostly in rays or in fiber ends adjoining
mudline rays. Very few parenchyma cells attacked.
L2 Above Heartwood Many Many Some of ray cells attacked. Bacteria and a few
mudline (outer) fungal hypha in rays. Many hyphae also in fibers;
these have caused bore holes and a thinning of
wall. Clamps on hyphae also indicate this is a
basidiomycete fungus and probably a white rotter.
L2 Above Heartwood Few None found Rays and pits essentially intact and no fungal
mudline (inner) deterioration found.
L3 Below Sapwood Many Few Definite bacterial attack - mostly in vicinity of
mudline rays or in fiber ending of rays. Many pits are
being attacked or are gone. Around pits and in
general area there are minute elognated cavities
-many of which follow the microfibrils. These
cavities contain bacteria.

L3 Below Heartwood Few Few Bacteria in rays have caused some deterioration
mudline (outer) but not extensively like in sapwood.
L4 Sapwood Many Moderate No, of Same as L3 sapwood.
hyphae
L4 Below Heartwood Few Few Fibers and rays free from deterioration.
mudline (outer)
I-A Below Heartwood Few None found Fibers and rays free from deterioration.
mudline (inner)

AMERICAN WOOD PRESERVERS INSTITUTE

2600 VIRGINIA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
@WZRICAN
WOOD PRESERVERS
U4STITUTS

DISTRICT OFFICES:

1021 Yeon Building, Portland, Oregon 97204
681 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105
P. 0. Box 426, Picayune, Mississippi 39466
3000 Fornam Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68131
420 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10017

Un
@10

I
1@
"
t111
I

I
.- I.
I

I , I
Y)
0
I

, I
- 3 6668 00-001 4698