Grand River Dredge Study

Grand River Waterway Dredging Feasibility Study

Prepared for: State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Department of Technology, Management & Budget May 3, 2017

Prepared by:

Edgewater Resources LLC 518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, Michigan 49085 269 932 4502

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 5 DATA COLLECTION & PROCESSING ............................................................................................................. 10 DREDGE VOLUME ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 18 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 24 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES .................................................................................................................. 32 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 32 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 34

Table of Figures Figure 1. Grand River Waterway Project Map ............................................................................................. 5 Figure 2. Grand Haven Harbor entrance at Lake Michigan (USACE, 2016) ................................................. 7 Figure 3. USACE Dredging Project Map at Grand Haven Harbor (USACE, 2016)....................................... 8 Figure 4. USACE Hazard Map (USACE, 1978) .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 5. Hydrographic Surveying Schematic.............................................................................................. 11 Figure 6. Example Plan View from AutoCAD ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 7. Side Scanning Sonar Schematic .................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8. Typical image produced from side scanning sonar survey .......................................................... 14 Figure 9. USGS Gauge Data at Grand Rapids Station ................................................................................ 16 Figure 10. Applicable Values from Grand Rapids Gauge Data ................................................................... 17 Figure 11. Portion of Project Profile........................................................................................................... 17 Figure 12. Design Vessel and Proposed Channel Concept ........................................................................ 19 Figure 13. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map with applicable flooding elevations ...................................... 20 Figure 14. Typical Cross Section (AWL - 6').............................................................................................. 21 Figure 15. Utilization of existing depths schematic .................................................................................... 22 Figure 16. Hydraulic Dredging Schematic (USACE, 1983) .......................................................................... 26 Figure 17. Mechanical Dredging Schematic (USACE, 1983) ........................................................................ 27 Figure 18. Concept of Proposed Channel with Buoys ............................................................................... 30

Appendices Appendix I: Hydrographic Survey Exhibits Appendix II: USACE content Appendix III: FEMA FIRM Information Appendix IV: USGS Hydraulic Data GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ABSTRACT This study has been performed to evaluate the feasibility of creating and maintaining a safe, navigable waterway along the Grand River between the Fulton Street Bridge in downtown Grand Rapids and the Bass River inlet. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) considers this nearly 40 mile reach of river to be a navigable waterway, however, only the lower 17 miles are currently maintained (Grand Haven Harbor to Bass River Inlet). The remaining reach of unmaintained waterway is nearly 23 miles long and is scattered with abandoned pilings, structures, and areas of extensive shoaling making it unsafe for recreational navigation beyond shallow draft vessels. Edgewater Resources (ER) has been retained to perform an existing conditions survey and initial feasibility analysis for creating a safe navigation channel through this section of the Grand River Waterway.

PROCESS A hydrographic survey was conducted using GPS positioning to gather the existing conditions data necessary for initial site investigation. Over 550,000 survey points were collected from an area of roughly 540 acres over several weeks when weather and site conditions were allowable. Side scanning sonar imagery was also collected during the survey process and analyzed in conjunction with river hydraulic data sourced from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produces flood studies which were also used to better understand flow GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

2

hydraulics along this reach of the Grand River. Upon analyzing the supporting data, project depths and orientation were successfully developed.

CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Through processing of the collected data, it has been observed that dredging work and the removal of submerged logs, piles, structures and objects will be required to achieve a safe and navigable waterway.

The upper portion of the project area would require the majority of the total dredging quantity, whereas the lower half is considerably deeper and in turn would require less dredging. Submerged obstructions have been identified throughout the entire project area, however further investigation to determine specific details about the objects may be necessary. A further exploration would yield better detail on exactly how involved the removal of these submerged obstructions may be and enable better quantification of these efforts.

DREDGING The hydrographic survey and hydraulic data that were collected provided the information necessary to create a three-dimensional comparative model. Between the use of field equipment and computer software, a detailed calculation of dredge volumes for three alternative plans was accomplished. A form of hydraulic dredging is recommended to remove the accumulated riverbed material along with the supplemental use of mechanical dredging equipment to extract the submerged objects within the project limits. Hydraulic dredging is typically a faster process that allows for easier disposal over long distances but it is anticipated that submerged objects will require alternate equipment for removal.

MAINTENANCE & REGULATION To keep the channel clear from sedimentation and potentially new submerged obstacles it is expected that routine maintenance dredging may be necessary. In conjunction with maintenance dredging, a semiannual hydrographic survey should be performed to accurately quantify sedimentation rates and their respective locations. Estimates of accumulated material required for maintenance dredging have been formulated based off comparable USACE reports as a preliminary measure, however, a semi-annual hydrographic survey is the recommended approach to better understand maintenance requirements throughout the length of the proposed channel. A breakdown of the anticipated maintenance schedule is outlined herein. To establish and regulate, it is recommended that the proposed channel would be equipped with buoys and signage along this 23 mile reach to assist mariners in identifying the navigation channel limits and their location along the waterway. Seasonal installation and removal of floating buoys is recommended to prevent damage from ice and harsh winter conditions. Coordination of these navigation aids with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is recommended to most appropriately determine who will undertake the responsibility of buoy maintenance along with coordinating these navigation aids.

PROJECT FEASIBILITY Environmental, private, and public concern is anticipated throughout the permitting process due to the notoriety of the waterway. Due to the expansiveness of the project area, a detailed review of the proposed project will be required and therefore all environmental background testing and information

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

3

will need to be performed prior to application. The project’s constructability and associated costs are challenging to estimate at this point due to uncertainty of the submerged objects identified. Deeper investigation of the submerged obstacles during final design will help to better define these estimated costs. Initial project costs as well as future maintenance measures will need to be considered as part of a cost benefit analysis. Estimations have been made on the anticipated future maintenance measures required in terms of semiannual dredging quantities but because of the nature of alluvial systems in general, the estimated quantities may vary greatly.

This initial feasibility study reports the respective quantities of material that would be required for removal in order to create a 50 foot wide navigation channel. The anticipated means of construction and the anticipated process to create such a channel are also outline herein. The final determination of feasibility of the project will require further site investigation, market analysis, engineering design, and approval of the necessary permits. It is recommended that further initial site investigation be performed to more accurately quantify and understand the existing site conditions specifically regarding potentially hazardous submerged obstructions. An extensive market study is recommended in order to provide an understanding of the estimated value of this project and how it will benefit surrounding economies. The USACE, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) are the primary agencies to review permitting applications. Sampling and testing of the site material will be required as part of the permitting process and will vary based upon the proposed activities. Once these components are more clearly understood, a more detailed construction plan and associated cost estimate can be prepared as part of the final design process to better refine and represent the associated costs to assist in determining overall project feasibility.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

4

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Figure 1. Grand River Waterway Project Map

PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze the feasibility of establishing a navigable channel for recreational boating along the Grand River between the Fulton Street Bridge in downtown Grand Rapids and the Bass River inlet, located approximately 23 miles downstream. While various constituents are involved, the goal of this study is to investigate and present the most pragmatic and technically sound approach for the creation of a navigable channel. This report has been developed to present the engineering, economic and environmental constraints and feasibility of creating and maintaining such a waterway based upon available and collected data. Currently, much of the river’s natural channel is unsafe for navigation due to submerged obstacles and areas of broad shoaling. If cleared and maintained, the waterway may have a positive impact on local economies, draw attention to and promote the use of one of Michigan’s most beautiful natural resources. Mariners would be able to safely and comfortably captain a vessel along the channel, gaining access to the lower portions of the Grand River and Lake Michigan from Grand Rapids, one of the state’s largest metropolitan areas. In the interest of outdoors enthusiasts and sportsmen, the proposed navigation channel will also provide adequate access to regions of the lower Grand that previously had limited access, facilitating more opportunity for recreational activities. Edgewater Resources has been retained to coordinate a hydrographic survey and perform an initial feasibility analysis for the proposed Grand River Waterway Project.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

5

BRIEF HISTORY The Grand River is Michigan’s longest river, weaving a length of roughly 260 miles and encompasses a watershed drainage area of approximately 5,572 square miles (2, the Grand River Watershed – MI). It serves as home to many species of fish and wildlife, and anglers can be found along the lower, middle and upper reaches of the river. Several major tributaries are contained within the larger Grand River System and provide environmental significance that affects Lake Michigan and arguably the entire Great Lakes area. In addition to the significant recreational contribution to Michigan’s natural resources, the Grand River has also served as a navigation route for the travel and transportation of goods and resources since the state’s early settlement. Currently, this reach of the river between downtown Grand Rapids and Bass River inlet has essentially been abandoned. Many submerged obstacles left over from the early 1900’s construction and developments pose a navigation hazard (USACE, 1978). Over the years, the desire for an accessible recreational waterway has grown in popularity to the extent that its feasibility has been previously investigated by others and presently by this study.

PREVIOUS STUDIES In 1978 the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published a preliminary feasibility study for shallow draft navigation of the Grand River section between Grand Rapids and the downstream Bass River inlet (see Appendix II). The study was conducted to develop a document that would present adequate information on the evaluation of available data for the feasibility of shallow draft navigation through several alternative plans. The study reports findings of extensive shoaling, numerous pilings and wing walls that collectively restricted safe navigation. Alternative plans included a channel dredging plan, pile removal / limited dredging plan, piling removal plan, valley preserve-recreational plan, and no action plan each, having an associated cost benefit ratio. The pile removal / limited dredging plan was found to be the most feasible and best resembles the techniques outlined and studied herein. This hybrid plan involved a scaled back modified dredging plan with the spot removal of submerged objects and piling.

Findings and costs estimates associated with recommendations produced from the 1978 publication could not be applied in the present day, however, much of the same concerns and project motif still remains today.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

6

SECTION 10 As defined in Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, “navigable waters are administratively defined to be waters that have been used in the past, are now used, or are susceptible to use as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce up to the head of navigation.” And expanded upon in the congressional document 33 CFR Part 329 Definition of Navigable Waters of the US, “A determination of navigability, once made, applies literally over the entire surface of the waterbody and is not extinguished by later actions or event which impede or destroy navigable capacity.” This quotation describes the definition of a section 10 waterway but also indicates that once established, a section 10 waterway will remain, even if navigation capacity is diminished. Navigable waters are typically maintained and regulated by the USACE. The USACE has established a portion of the Grand River as a navigable waterway with the upper jurisdiction located at the Fulton Street Bridge in downtown Grand Rapids and the lower jurisdiction being Lake Michigan (USACE, 2014). Although the entire reach spanning from Lake Michigan to Grand Rapids is considered a section 10 waterway, only the 17 mile reach between Grand Haven (mouth of the Grand River) and an upstream location at the Bass River inlet is regularly maintained by the USACE.

Figure 2. Grand Haven Harbor entrance at Lake Michigan (USACE, 2016)

As depicted in Figure 2, two heavily reinforced breakwaters form the river mouth entrance at Grand Haven which serves as a deep draft harbor for over 2.5 miles upstream where a turning basin is located.

Extending 14.5 miles further inland beyond this turning basin is a designated shallow draft channel that provides a recreational navigation route for small craft vessels. Depths maintained by the USACE in these sections of river are 23 feet within the harbor entrance channel, 21 feet throughout the harbor and extending two miles upriver, 18 feet at the turning basin and channel into Spring Lake, and 8 feet for the remaining 14.5 mile shallow draft channel ending at the Bass River inlet. See Figure 3 for the USACE’s dredging project map for clarification of the specific location of these maintained depths.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

7

Figure 3. USACE Dredging Project Map at Grand Haven Harbor (USACE, 2016)

Annual and semi-annual dredging plans are produced and executed by the USACE to maintain the navigation channels and project depths that occupy the lower portions of the Grand River. The Grand Haven Harbor and Lower Grand River serve as a deep draft commercial harbor which generates $1.57 billion in business revenue each year supporting 9,518 direct and indirectly related jobs that create $472 million in personal income annually according to the USACE. The harbor is a substantially important regional shipping and receiving port among the Great Lakes with over 751,000 tons of total material passing through in 2013. The harbor also supports a huge basis of recreational tourism that could potentially otherwise be absent if it weren’t for the regulation and maintenance measures taken by the USACE. The City of Grand Haven reports an annual revenue equaling $49 million alongside 3,100 jobs that solely rely on harbor tourism. Figures reported are according to the USACE’s publication (USACE, 2016) that can be seen in Appendix II. Since the USACE’s established jurisdiction line extends upstream to downtown Grand Rapids, a bustling local and regional economic hub, the middle reach of the recognized navigable waterway studied herein has potential to better link these vibrant areas.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

8

POTENTIAL HAZARDS Hazards identified in the 1978 Study included pilings and wing walls and were thought to be a result of numerous construction projects during the early 20th century. Investigation by the USACE resulted in an abundance of hazardous object which can be seen in Figure 4. There are no hazards identified upstream of Grandville in Figure 4 from the 1978 Study, which does not match findings of the current analysis, however, many of the same obstacles still exist in the downstream portion. Uncertainty of the constantly changing conditions and unidentified submerged objects may deter even experienced mariners from utilizing this resource. Additional potential obstructions are made up of things like old retaining walls, submerged logs, structures, debris and other foreign objects that reside on the river bed.

It should be noted that hazards may include new objects that have been freshly deposited or also subterranean objects and structures that have been covered up by continued shoaling. Shoaling was a hazard previously identified that still remains and will continue to require attention and maintenance in future years. The challenge is in accurately identifying and locating these potential objects and then deciding if they pose risk to shallow draft vessel navigation based upon their orientation in relation to the proposed navigation channel. In order to exactly identify the hazardous objects along this navigation route, a large scale physical investigation would need to be conducted and even then some uncertainty could remain. Due to the scope of this study, this thorough of an investigation has not been conducted, however with the aid of modern-day technology a very accurate approximation has been achieved. An estimation of this degree was only obtainable after collecting the pertinent information required within the existing project area.

Figure 4. USACE Hazard Map (USACE, 1978)

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

9

DATA COLLECTION & PROCESSING As the project area covers roughly 23 miles of the lower portion of Michigan’s largest fluvial system, there is a very complex and dynamic network of factors that were considered. A large quantity of data was collected, sourced, processed and analyzed to develop a thorough understanding of the project area’s current hydrographic conditions. The data collection process involved the establishment of a control network of GPS benchmarks, a hydrographic survey using a hydrographic depth sounder and a hydrographic survey using side scanning sonar technology. Additional sourced data included an extensive quantity of historical stream flow data gathered from United States Geological Survey (USGS) public resources and FEMA flood plain information to support hydraulic data. The hydrographic survey data was used to create a digital triangulated irregular network (TIN) model of the existing riverbed elevations and ultimately produce an existing conditions site survey exhibit that shows the surveyed area as a surface containing contour lines and labeling (see Appendix I, sheets 3-26). The side scan survey was performed to create a 3-dimensional image of the bed surface that allowed for the detection of submerged existing objects along this section of river. Hydraulic stream flow data was gathered and analyzed to gain an understanding of previous stream flow measurements and used to calculate an average water level during boating season. Each piece of data was gathered separately, however, all of the information was analyzed with respect to the other. The collective set of information was then used in analyzing the entire project feasibility.

HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA The survey was performed during the late summer and fall of 2016 using a small Boston Whaler survey vessel equipped with modern GPS controlled hydrographic surveying equipment. The survey vessel had roughly 8” of draft making it excellent for navigating the varying depths of the river. The hydrographic surveying equipment consisted of a Syqwest brand Hydrobox HD dual-frequency sounder with transducer that was working in conjunction with a Vector VS131 GPS receiver and Hypack software.

The Hypack software was utilized to process the information collected by the Syqwest Hydrobox. A simple schematic representing the hydrographic surveying set up implemented can be observed in Figure 5.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

10

Figure 5. Hydrographic Surveying Schematic

To create a hydrographic model surface for analysis in estimating dredging feasibility, a compatible output file had to be processed and arranged by the Hypack software. Through collection and processing, the resulting data was received in the form of a GPS coordinate point (.txt) file which gives Northing, Easting and Elevation information. Prior to collection, the instrument settings are adjusted to the appropriate collection system and referenced to an established National Geodetic Survey Continually Operating Reference Station (NGS CORS) in the project area’s geodetically known region.

The NGS CORS are spread throughout the United States and serve as a geographical reference to the surveying device enabling it to produce more accurate field measurements. All data was gathered in reference to Michigan State Plane Coordinates, South Zone, U.S. feet; North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). A hydrographic sounding instrument (or transducer) is typically mounted to the watercraft just below the water’s surface; it emits sound waves in a fan shape which then bounce off the river bed and back towards the device. The time it takes for the sound waves to travel away from and back to the instrument is the information used to translate where the bed is in proximity to the sounder. From these fundamental principles of sound wave travel, an elevation is computed for that location along the riverbed. The benefit of a hydrographic sounder is that hydrographic technology uses more information (multiple sound waves) to accurately approximate an average of how far away the bed surface is from the device. More information results in a better average approximation and potentially less percent error from outlier or faulty recordings. Specific depth accuracy tolerance of the equipment used varies with the frequency setting ranging from within roughly 0.5 inches at 200 khz to 2.75 inches at 33 Khz. This tolerance represents the equipment’s capability and not necessarily the exact degree of accuracy in data gathered.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

11

The survey was broken up into smaller segments of the overall project area to accommodate the typical eight hour working day. Smaller segments of information where preferred in order to better manage an overall relatively massive data set. Upon receiving data, the units were converted from U.S. feet to International feet to ensure a comprehensive and cohesive set of all the separate collection data sets.

Collectively over 0.5 million GPS survey points were gathered during the survey and implemented into AutoCAD Civil 3D; a three dimensional computer aided drafting, modeling and analysis software program. The use of this software was absolutely crucial in establishing the existing conditions of the project area. Each dataset containing the GPS information was implemented and separately processed to its best resemblance of the river bottom. These segments were then merged together to create one large “master surface.” The master surface is a TIN surface of the surveyed river bed along the entire project area. Figure 6 depicts a small portion of one of the plan view survey exhibits with supporting data clearly defined. Complete plan view sheets seen in Appendix I (sheets 3-26) show the geographical contours of this river bed surface with their elevations labeled. Three dimensional definition of this surface can be better observed in the profile and section view sheets 27-35, Appendix I.

Figure 6. Example Plan View from AutoCAD

As part of the hydrographic survey, side scanning sonar imaging was also performed with the intent to use this information in identifying any foreign objects that may pose a hazard to the proposed navigable channel. An Edgetech brand 4125-P model side scanning device was used to survey the project area.

Side scanning sonar technology works similarly to a sounding instrument. Sound waves are utilized in producing a two dimensional picture of the river bed, but don’t actually determine a geolocation. The instrument is towed behind the water craft (traveling at a very low speed) as sound waves are sent down and outward towards the bed and sides slopes. The side scan surveying setup can be made clear by the simple schematic presented in Figure 7.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

12

Figure 7. Side Scanning Sonar Schematic

The sound waves bounce off the bed or any foreign objects and are then received by the instrument.

Upon receiving the returning sound waves, the instrument will measure the loudness of their echo and produce an image, where harder material like bed rock or a structure is recognized by a loud or strong echo and a weak echo is typically acknowledged as a soft object or surface such as sand. If there is a large difference in the material, the device recognizes this and shows contrast among the image produced, where typically harder material shows up darker and softer material is produced as a lighter hue. The image will also cast a shadow beyond an object that protrudes above the river bed, allowing for the distinction of foreign and natural features along the river bed (with a small degree of uncertainty). See an actual image that was produced from the side scanning survey in Figure 8.

According to the manufacturer, the Edgetech 4125-P is a high frequency lightweight instrument that produces high resolution images making it suitable for numerous applications including search and rescue, port security, geo-hazard surveys, geological, archeologic, and route surveys. The device transmits in 400/900 Khz, giving it a great balance of range and resolution. Image resolution quality differs widely among different levels of side scanning sonar devices, site conditions and quality of the survey performed.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

13

Figure 8. Typical image produced from side scanning sonar survey

The variation of these factors can result in greater or worse image clarity and ultimately a more or less accurate determination of foreign objects versus natural characteristics within the surveyed area. Due to natural processes of the project area and more specifically, geomorphological changes among the riverbed, objects were sometimes difficult to decipher. Nonetheless, many objects where identified as potential hazards and categorized as a submerged log, object, or structure that may require removal.

Some uncertainty is present in the percentage of identified objects that are guaranteed to need removal and this will remain the case until further investigation is performed prior to the proposed dredging operation. These objects are depicted and labeled in the plan view sheets 3-26 of Appendix I. A portion of the objects identified as potential obstructions lay outside of the proposed dredge channel limits but should still be investigated before dredging to ensure that they will not act as a hazard.

Collection and processing of the hydrographic survey data allowed for a thorough understanding of the geographic and physical characteristics of the river bed surface, providing an accurate basis of what present conditions are like beneath the water’s surface. This information is but one crucial component to the further analysis of the project’s feasibility. Advanced field instruments employed were integral in collecting accurate data that served as the basis for this study. Without the use of this innovative technology in both gathering and processing information, accuracy of the results would be null.

Hydrographic data is a crucial element in this study however another equally as important data set had to be obtained to fully understand the existing site conditions; the Grand River’s stage heights and water flow characteristics.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

14

HYDRAULIC DATA The USGS is a scientific agency established in 1879 to study natural environments and the hazards that they may face. Professional scientists work to develop and improve methods and tools that are used to efficiently provide accurate, relevant information pertaining to the Earth’s natural processes. As an important entity within the agency, the USGS water resources division uses hydraulic and hydrologic measuring tools to monitor and collect data on over 7,000 surface water systems across the country.

Reasons to study such an extremely important natural resource include topics such as watershed management, water resources management, sea level and climate information, water cycle measures, water quality, etc. Gauging stations along streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs are a way that the USGS collects and records data among surface water systems. The government agency’s publicly accessible surface water data is one of the most reliable and historically abundant information available and was utilized to approximate average water elevations in the Grand River project area.

For the fluvial system encompassed within the project area, there are two USGS gauging stations; one situated near the blue bridge crossing in Grand Rapids (just upstream of the Fulton St Bridge) and another station located just downstream of the Bass River inlet near Riverside County Park in Ottawa County. These two locations are suitable for use in our analysis considering that they provide information just upstream and just downstream of the project area in the form of stream flow and gauge height measurements taken at various frequencies throughout the day and year. The gauge station at Grand Rapids has been in place since 1901, which provided a significant amount of historical information.

Since the station at Grand Rapids was established before 1988, it therefore is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). In order to preserve consistency in the analysis, a conversion was performed to establish all of the gauge readings in relation to a common datum (NAVD88). While analyzing the gauge data, an apparent datum shift occurred in1954, making for potentially discrepant data, therefore all information recorded prior to this date was not included in the refined dataset. However, over 60 years of remaining data was utilized from this gauge which provided a broad range of values and served to be very useful in analyzing the Grand River’s hydraulic behavior in this area. The Eastmanville station was established much more recently and uses the vertical datum NAVD88 with available information dating back to 2011. Being that this is the only gauging station between Grand Rapids and Lake Michigan, the data was utilized in calculations. When collecting the stream flow data from USGS’s website, it was noticed that the stage height was reported to be higher in elevation than at the location at Grand Rapids. Since this seemed incorrect, the local USGS representative Tom Weaver of the Michigan-Ohio Water Science Center was contacted for clarification of this issue. Tom determined the issue as a simple display error and assured that the correct gauge elevation was properly input into their recording system and only displayed incorrectly on the public website (displayed as 596.09’ instead of the correct 569.09’). After confirming the integrity of all existing data, the Grand Rapids gauge station data and specifications were confirmed to be valid while speaking with the USGS representative (station elevation of 585.237’). Tom’s explanation clarified the discrepancy and allowed for final processing of the gauge station data.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

15

It is assumed that the boating season in this geographical region lasts from the beginning of May through the end of September, therefore only the data collected during this time of the year was considered while calculating an average water depth during boating season. In addition, ice flows cover the river for much of the winter months making data collection during the off-season very challenging. Analyzing this time period of data results in a more applicable average water level as opposed to considering yearly averages where stages can be very high during the early spring melt and rainy season. After appropriately reducing this data set, a simple average or mean number was calculated for the stage heights at each gauge location to establish an average water level during boating season. From this calculation, a hydraulic gradient line was assumed from an elevation of 589.47’ (NAVD88) at the Grand Rapids location to an elevation of 580.59’ (NAVD88) at the Eastmanville location. Figure 9 shows a graph of all the data analyzed from the Grand Rapids gauge station and Figure 10 displays the applicable calculated values from this data set.

Figure 9. USGS Gauge Data at Grand Rapids Station

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

16

USGS Grand Rapids Gauge Station (1954 2016, During Boating Season Only) Avg. Gauge Height = 4.24' Max. Gauge Height = 19.2' Min. Gauge Height = 2.66' *VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88, CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED DURING BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAY SEPTEMBER) Figure 10. Applicable Values from Grand Rapids Gauge Data

Since the downstream gauge station is located roughly two miles beyond the project area, the water elevation profile was conserved between the two stations but the true average water elevation at the downstream limit of the project area was interpolated to be 581.25’. Occurring over a length of approximately 25 miles, this 8.88’ difference in elevation of average water levels between gauges equates to a slope ratio of 6.5x10-5. See Appendix I, sheet 36 for an informative gauge station schematic representing the hydraulic gradient. This slope profile equates to an assumed “normal” water surface profile along the project area. In the world of river hydraulics, this reach’s flow regime is assumed to be gradually varied flow, making it suitable for an idealized simplistic approach in this analysis. The term “AWL” is used to define the calculated average water level along this surface level gradient and is used within this report and the appendices. The uniform hydraulic gradient serves as the basis for the proposed dredging depth scenarios which are established as AWL-5’, AWL-6’, and AWL-7’. A small portion of the project profile produced using AutoCAD can be observed in Figure 11, where the hydraulic gradient and alternative dredging depths are clearly labeled.

Figure 11. Portion of Project Profile

The significance of this hydraulic gradient is important to understand because it is essentially the control gradient line for offsetting alternative dredging depths. Each option is geometrically oriented based upon where this gradient is located. It should be noted that in general, the study of river hydraulics is an

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

17

extremely intensive topic which can only be approximated by the most advanced three dimensional flow models. Hydraulic flow is often simplified down to one and two dimensional models based on years of experiments and the formulation fundamental principles. For this study, no areas of curvilinear and unsteady flow were considered in the analysis because it is out of the scope and would require a much more complex analysis of the river’s hydraulics. The approach of this study has taken many dynamic factors into consideration while executing this analysis and even though further investigation could be done within the project area, the level of information processed is sufficient to analyze project feasibility.

SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION The hydrographic survey provided the required information to create an existing conditions model and site survey exhibits of the river bed surface within the 23 mile project area. The TIN surface model complete with northing, easting, and elevation data serves as an exceptional tool in calculating proposed dredge channel volumes. The long range historical water data collected from USGS was analyzed and used to formulate a realistic average water elevation during the boating season. Having established the mutually utilized vertical datum (NAVD88) among each of these data sets, it was possible to compare the mean water level with the river bottom model by offsetting a corridor surface from the average water level surface to the three alternative depth options. Comparison of the existing river bed surface and proposed dredge channel corridors can be observed in the profile and typical cross section sheets 27-35 of Appendix I. When establishing a recreational navigation waterway that encourages municipal use, safety is paramount, and a large part in why the side scanning sonar imaging survey was performed.

Any potential navigation hazards where identified and outlined in the survey exhibits (see Appendix I).

The survey performed possesses limitations of accuracy when comparing what the survey represents and what actually exists in and around the proposed dredge channel. Further investigation of potential submerged objects should be performed on a case by case basis prior to dredging to further evaluate the removal efforts required. It should also be understood that if a navigation corridor is created on this large body of flowing water, there is always potential in the future for additional submerged or hazardous objects to be deposited within the navigation channel due to the nature of the water body.

DREDGE VOLUME ANALYSIS DESIGN VESSEL & COSNTRAINTS The appropriate dredge channel alternative has to consider certain existing conditions and the properties of the intended design vessel. Formulating a basis for the applicable design vessel requires consideration of geometric and functional limitations that are currently present or are anticipated in future years. This design must be formulated considering what can physically fit, what is suitable for safe navigation and capability of the required mobility getting to and from access points along the channel.

The design vessel chosen for analysis was a 26’ powerboat with an 8.5’ beam and a draft of just less than 42” as represented in Figure 12. The proposed channel would not be restricted to this size or type of watercraft but it serves as a basis for geometric design of the channel. Other vessels may be permissible however it would be up to the mariner to verify depths based upon the existing water levels. The 1978 USACE study states in their piling removal/limited dredging plan, “Implementation of this plan would still benefit large motorized craft up to 49 feet in length, which have an estimated draft of just 47 inches or

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

18

just under 4 feet.” This statement is applicable for the proposed channel, however, mariners will need to be cognizant of their draft depth along with the existing channel depth to ensure safe navigation. The proposed channel design would not support deep keeled vessels and sailboats with large masts.

Watercraft smaller than the chosen design vessel would be able to adequately utilize the waterway.

Figure 12. Design Vessel and Proposed Channel Concept

Constraints that have been recognized in choosing the design vessel include the width, height, draft and mobility of the watercraft. The proposed dredge channel is intended to support the largest vessel in the range of small craft that are practical for trailering to established boat launches. Due to a lack of marinas along this stretch of the Grand River, mariners will often need to tow their vessel behind a vehicle to a boat launch for access. While most recreational vessels can be trailered in some form, the largest regularly trailered vessel is generally considered to be a 26’ powerboat and therefore was used as the design vessel for this process. Along with this constraint, there are a total of nine fixed bridge crossings within the project area. The Fulton Street Bridge for example has a deck elevation of around 615’ (NAVD88). It is assumed that beams spanning the river hang four feet below this elevation making the allowable clearance at an elevation of around 610’ (NAVD88). The average water level calculated from the gauging station near Fulton Street is 589.47’ (NAVD88) meaning the total clearance available (during average water) has been approximated at roughly 20’. This assumption correlates with FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) lines shown in the plan view survey exhibits (sheets 3-26 of Appendix I). The base flood elevation produced by FEMA is shown to resemble the 100-year flood stage height. The BFE just downstream of the Fulton Street Bridge is at an elevation of 609’ (NAVD88) which correlates with the clearance elevation assumption that has been considered. See Figure 13 for an example of the FEMA flood insurance rate maps used.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

19

Figure 13. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map with applicable flooding elevations

Signage may be needed at the locations of bridge crossings to provide mariners with information to determine clearance tolerances based on bridge heights in relation to current water levels at the time of their passing or warnings issued during times of high water levels. Specifics on the location and geometry of the bridge crossings may limit the proposed channel’s allowable watercraft. It is recommended that for future recreational use of the channel and potential expansion in later years, further investigation be performed in order to ensure that bridge clearance tolerances are uniform throughout the proposed waterway. Also when considering clearances, there are several locations where utilities and pipelines span across the river and although these are not foreseen to pose a problem, their elevations should be determined to ensure navigation and environmental safety during construction and for recreational boaters. Financial and environmental impacts were considered when determining the proposed dredge depth scenarios. As a function of economics and functionality, three proposed dredge depths have been presented at AWL – 5’, AWL – 6’ and AWL – 7’. The minimum recommended dredge depth (ASCE, 1994) should accommodate vessel draft plus an additional 2 feet of clearance. This clearance should be considered when determining the best alternative dredging option.

When applied to the design vessel draft, the recommended clearance results in a minimum project depth of nearly six feet (66”) from the average water level. To account for variability among manufacturers, a minimum depth scenario of AWL-5’ was considered.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

20

CHANNEL GEOMETRY & ALIGNMENT Considering the size and dimensions of the established design vessel, a channel width of 50’ was determined to be adequate for safe and comfortable navigation. ASCE design guidelines recommend a minimum lane width of 1.3 times the vessel beam width, with a vessel clearance between the lanes of 1.5 times this beam width and an additional 0.5 times the beam width for clearance from the limits of navigable water depths. Considering the design vessels beam width of 8.5’ this recommendation results in a minimum channel width of 43.4’. ASCE also recommends that the minimum overall channel width for two-way boat traffic should be 50 feet or five times the beam width of the largest vessel anticipated therefore, a 50’ channel width is projected to be adequate. This channel width is classified as the width along the bed in which full project depths are maintained and does not include the additional width that extends beyond 50’ due to channel side slopes (ASCE, 1994).

See Figure 14 which depicts a typical cross section of the existing surface and proposed channel. A width of 50’ provides enough room for anticipated boats to maneuver passed and by each other on the proposed waterway. It is not anticipated that frequent congestion will occur within the proposed channel but should be considered as a potential expansion measure if the issue arises in future years. In cross sectional view of the dredge cut, the proposed channel is designed to have a 2:1 side slope ratio and will extend as far horizontally as required until intersecting the existing river bed surface. This ratio was formulated based on previous project experience to achieve a constructible side slope that would reduce slumping of the channel limits while being financially viable.

Figure 14. Typical Cross Section (AWL - 6')

The alignment of the proposed dredge channel was strategically placed with the objective of utilizing existing depths throughout the project area. After creating the river bed’s existing condition model, it was apparent where the current low elevation areas exist and where to take advantage of these deeper regions. There are some limitations in utilizing these existing depths because of navigational and constructability purposes. For instance, having sharp angles along the proposed channel would be a navigational drawback and is unrealistic due to the limited precision of dredging techniques. Instead, GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

21

sweeping gradual curves were placed along the proposed channel to help ensure that boaters can easily stay within the limits as well as to accommodate for constructability limitations. Another limitation in making use of the existing depths is present when considering proximity of the proposed channel to the river’s banks. For example, in some particular areas where obvious degradation has created a fairly deep channel, the river bank sits directly adjacent. For the safety of navigation and potential maintenance purposes, the channel was placed at a reasonable distance to not infringe upon the bank while still advantageously using the greater depths present at these locations. Figure 15 illustrates how the proposed dredging corridor was strategically placed.

Figure 15. Utilization of existing depths schematic

The benefit of placing the proposed dredge channel along the deepest portion of the natural channel is not only economical, but also provides ecological and environmental advantages. The less material required to be extracted results in less disruption of natural habitats throughout the river. The Grand River is a key route for migrating salmon, steelhead, and walleye, and also provides habitat for other marine life. Micro and macro invertebrates spend a crucial portion of their lifecycles within the bed material and serve an important role in ecological processes as they are considered to be the foundation

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

22

or base of the food chain for many species. An environmental impact study may be required by the permitting agencies to further analyze any potential impacts.

DREDGE VOLUMES & ANALYSIS TOOLS The computer software package AutoCAD Civil 3D was used in setting up the hydrographic model as explained in the previous section and also served as a necessary tool in analyzing the removal volumes required for each of the dredge scenarios. To compute quantifiable dredge volumes for the three alternate dredging options, module tools of Civil 3D had to be utilized. A skeletal framework of each alternative option was formed by employing assemblies and subassemblies that were created to form a typical cross sectional shape for each dredge area. These components were dynamically linked to the alignment that was strategically placed along the river reach. The side slope subassemblies were directed to extend vertically towards the hydrographic model until intersecting with it to create a cut area which resembles the proposed dredge channel. Typical cross sections are included in the survey exhibit, see sheet 35 of Appendix I. The proposed dredge channel model surfaces are multi-dimensional including information from the alignment, assemblies and subassemblies, and profile definitions. Three separate corridor surfaces were created based upon the three alternative dredge depths AWL-5’, AWL-6’ and AWL-7’. These hypothetical surfaces were then compared against the surveyed existing conditions surface to produce removal volumes. A volume report was produced for each dredging scenario. The volume computations were performed using the Average End-Area Method. This method cuts a dynamic cross section through the existing hydrographic surface and the proposed dredge channel every 50 feet along the alignment. From each cross section, an end area is computed and averaged against the areas of the next 50’ interval to form an average between the two. The average end area is then extended between the two cross section intervals to produce a volume for this segment and allow for an overall volumetric computation. This number was compared with another volume computation that’s performed by calculating the amount of three dimensional space between the existing bed surface and the proposed corridor surface (Surface to Surface Method) to ensure similarity. Each function is intensive due to the large size and quantity of data contained within the model, therefor software was utilized in the calculations as it takes far less time and is much more accurate than performing similar approximations manually. The dredge quantities reported for each scenario have been produced by the average end area calculation method and the one step three dimensional calculations serves as a comparison number to double check results. When comparing the quantities from each calculation method only a 0.001% variance was observed. The dredging volumes for the alternate options AWL-5’, AWL-6’, and AWL-7’ are 10,263 CY, 40,956 CY and 97,732 CY respectively. See the Table 1 for presentation of these results. As depth alternatives are increased linearly by one foot, the required dredge quantity increases exponentially due to the variable riverbed hydrography.

Grand River Waterway - Alternative Dredging Quantities Design Depth* AWL-5' AWL-6' AWL-7' 10,263 40,956 97,732 Estimated Dredge Volume (CY) *Average water levels based upon record water level gauge data recorded at USGS Eastmanville and Grand Rapids Gauges from 1954-2016 during boating season (May September) Table 1. Alternative Dredging Quantities

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

23

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PERMITTING & APPROVAL In order to legally perform any type of proposed construction along a navigable waterbody below the established Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), approval must be granted from both the State and Federal agencies. In Michigan, proposed project applications must be sent to the MDEQ and USACE. To facilitate the review process of proposed construction projects, the governmental agencies have created a joint permit application, meaning that one application package is sent to both agencies for review. Once each agency has reviewed the application to obtain an understanding of what is being proposed, they will ask for more information to clarify any subjects that may be open for interpretation.

The agencies then decide to either reject the application or move forward with the approval process, however, before approval is granted by either agency, the proposed project typically goes out to public notice for major projects. This part of the process gives other agencies, citizens, businesses, adjacent property owners and entities of interest an opportunity to get familiar with the proposed project, ask questions, and possibly draw attention to important points not addressed. Following the public notice, the agencies will ask that the applicant and/or their representatives address any concerns raised during the public notice process. A permit application for a dredging project should define exactly where the dredging will geographically occur, existing conditions of this location, the affected surface area, the proposed project depths, the resulting quantity that is proposed for dredging, a location for the disposal of this material and any new structures or modifications proposed within the project area. Underlying specifics of each of these general points are required within the application. The reviewing agencies may choose to put restrictions on what time of year is allowable for dredging and the removal of submerged objects. This is done primarily to account for migrant fish and wildlife species that may use portions of the proposed dredging area as a passageway or habitat during their reproductive cycle. The spawning cycle may occur at different times for specific fish species but often occur during the spring and fall season and may affect permitting and allowable dredging time windows. Though this study doesn’t involve an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts and feasibility of the proposed project, it is anticipated that this will be required by the agencies to analyze the existing species present within the project area. Since the project area covers nearly 23 miles of river, passes through two counties, multiple municipalities, and past many parcels, there is potential for a large number of parties to be interested in the project. While the time required for an applications review process is always variable, a minimum period of six months should be anticipated for permitting in any project scheduling or forecasting for the proposed channel.

SAMPLING & TESTING When performing a dredging operation, the material removed may contain anything ranging from rich nutrients and minerals to macroinvertebrates to harmful chemicals and pollutants. Prior to implementation of construction activities, samples of the material must be taken at various depths and locations throughout the project area. Ideally this process is completed prior to submitting the joint permit application in order to notify the government agencies with results of the sampled material. The MDEQ requires a minimum of six samples be collected for the first 10,000 CY of proposed dredge material and one additional sample for every 5,000 CY thereafter. Typically sample depths are required to extend down to the proposed dredge elevation and are to be uniformly scattered throughout the

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

24

project area to provide even survey coverage of the proposed dredge material. The samples are tested to identify the soil’s properties and to determine the presence of toxic materials. A sieve analysis is performed to understand the grain size distribution and from this, a classification of the soil type can be made (this determination also influences the type of dredging techniques that are chosen). If the sieve analysis results in less than 10% material passing the # 200 sieve, the soil type is considered to be 90% sand or a very granular material. It is difficult for contamination and pollution particles to attach and remain on this grain size, therefore if the testing results in 90% sand, typically no contaminant testing is required unless the sampled area has been known to contain contaminants in the past, where further sampling is often mandatory. The contaminants that samples are tested for include toxic metals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium and zinc), polynuclear hydrocarbons (PNAs) and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The main concern is the disposal site of this dredged material and how to ensure that these potential contaminants are not leached back into the environment. These toxins are a result of different industries releasing waste before government regulations such as the Clean Water Act and NPDES were implemented to stop these actions. Contaminants are most commonly harmful to humans and other species of the environment when they are released into a water body that is used for consumption. Contaminants that are isolated within the bed material pose a minor risk compared to when they become disturbed, suspended and moved to a new location during actions such as the dredging operation proposed. The installation of a turbidity curtain that fully encloses the construction equipment is mandatory to contain suspended sediment that arises during the dredging operation. This helps to mitigate additional suspended sediment potentially containing contamination and reinforces an environmentally conscious operation in the best interest of all parties.

DREDGE TECHNIQUES Mechanical dredging and hydraulic dredging are the two methods widely used among the marine construction industry. Each has their appropriate applications that allow for an efficient and effective dredging process in different situations. Factors in determining the proper equipment selection include the physical characteristics of proposed dredge material, quantity of material to be removed, dredge depth, proximity to disposal site, physical environment between the dredging and disposal site, contamination level of material, method of disposal, production required, and the type of equipment available. There have been numerous techniques and specific equipment developed for each method and due to natural characteristics of the project area it is expected that the use of both methods will be required in order to create the designed navigation channel.

Hydraulic dredging is successfully completed with the use of large pumps, a piping transportation line and some form of a suction head that extracts material from the bed surface. A floating dredge rig controls the suction intake which is positioned to remove material and ultimately creates the designed channel. The suction system usually requires some process of agitating the bed to efficiently extract material which is often achieved with a cutter head or dustpan attachment. See Figure 16 for an example of a cutter head hydraulic dredging rig. From this agitation, a slurry mixture of 10 to 20 percent solids is typically targeted to allow for efficient travel through the pipeline. Hydraulic dredging systems can most often handle a wide range of material sizes making its use viable in many applications. After bed material has been sucked through the piping intake, high horsepower pumps move the slurry through from dredge location towards the intended disposal site. Production rates are dependent on many factors, however, the USACE reports that a cutter head assembly with a 16 inch dredge should produce GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

25

between 240 and 875 CY of dredged material per hour and a 24 inch dredge should produce between 515 and 1615 CY per hour in ideal conditions. Dustpan assemblies typically use larger intake lines and have reported production rates that exceed 3,000 CY per hour in ideal conditions (USACE, 1983). This continual dredging practice makes for a relatively quick process of extraction and transportation of material when compared to mechanical dredging techniques. Hydraulic dredging streamlines the process of transporting spoils and serves as a good option if disposal sites are a significant distance from the dredge area and accessible by pipeline. The length of the piping network can be increased through the addition of pipeline, a larger number of pumps, greater horsepower pumps or a combination thereof. The piping system has limitations that restrict its size due to maintenance and functionality. As more pumps and lines get added to the system, it facilitates more required attention and monitoring to ensure that system is running efficiently. Equipment failures and improper assembly may result in a leaking or jammed pipeline which can lead downtime and possibly misplaced material. To help mitigate the issue of unpractical, lengthily and intensive transportation routes, hopper systems can be used as a storage center for holding excavated material while dredging continues. This basically creates a relay system that breaks up the hauling process into smaller segments. The drawback to hopper storage is that the unit’s typical sit on large floats or barges that require a significant draft depth that limits their mobility, however, certain systems can be assembled to job specific conditions making it a potential option for dredge operations in more shallow conditions.

Figure 16. Hydraulic Dredging Schematic (USACE, 1983)

A mechanical dredging operation does not utilize hydraulic pumps or suction but instead uses digging equipment such as clamshell buckets or long-reach excavators to remove the desired material. See Figure 17 for an example of a mechanical dredging rig. Digging equipment sits above water on an adequate float or barge and scoops material from the proposed dredge area onto an adjacent scow or

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

26

hopper barge. The hopper barge scow is a separate receptacle that hauls the material from the dredge area to the disposal site. Mechanical dredging is a good option where areas of hard compacted material, course granular soil, rock or other solid materials are to be removed. The rugged machines used in mechanical dredging make it more capable method for the removal of large submerged objects such as old piers, foundations, pilings, roots, stumps, etc. The limitation to mechanical dredging is that the fine material is more difficult to contain in the equipment used in extraction methods. As the bucket or clamshell device digs and lifts material, small particles get suspended in the waterbody and become difficult to contain and recover. Due to this characteristic, it is not the recommended method for dredging an area of fine grained or potentially contaminated material. Mechanical dredging production rates are often slower when compared to a hydraulic operation however, mechanical rigs are capable of removing larger and more diverse objects, making them necessary in certain applications.

Figure 17. Mechanical Dredging Schematic (USACE, 1983)

Features of the project area’s existing conditions and characteristics of the proposed waterway make for a dynamic site that will require both mechanical and hydraulic dredging techniques to thoroughly create the designed channel. Existing bed material makes up a large majority of the dredge quantity in each alternative option, which is anticipated to consist primarily of accumulated sediment. In addition to the bed material, numerous submerged objects have been identified as items that may potentially require removal. It is recommended that hydraulic dredging be used to remove the majority of riverbed material. However, it is anticipated that a mechanical rig will be required in order to remove the submerged objects that are scattered throughout the project area. Due to the project area’s vast 23 mile length, disposing of both bed material and submerged objects is anticipated to be a challenge. A fairly central location has been identified as a potential disposal site on the north side of the Grand River, just northwest of Grandville at the site of a former landfill. This location has an estimated capacity of roughly 100,000 CY of material. As per MDEQ requirements and regulations, a large earthen perimeter wall would be created to contain the slurry mixture. A spillway constructed to contain a natural filtering outflow route would allow for clean drainage of the dredge spoils. The proposed disposal site would require approval from the MDEQ and the dewatering system would have to be periodically monitored to ensure that discharge water quality is kept within an allowable tolerance. The potential disposal site is a former landfill site and is a viable option, although if not permissible, another disposal option may be to land apply the spoils to the local agricultural industry.

Dredged material is often used as fill to replenish low areas and supplement crop fields. These options are contingent upon both a formal acceptance from the land owner and approval from the regulatory agency. It is anticipated that the permitting agency will also regulate the disposal of the submerged objects. Some objects may be required to be disposed into a landfill, some may be okay to place on an

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

27

approved property and other objects may be salvageable for recycling scrap metal. Further investigation is required to better determine the objects composition and what regulations will be applicable. The various dredging scenarios all require the removal of these objects, however, each of them vary greatly in regards to quantity of sediment that is proposed for removal. The shallower option may seem the most cost friendly however, poses a navigation pitfall for deeper draft vessels in a hydraulically variable environment. The deepest option has an exponentially larger quantity of material proposed for removal and disposal as well as the associated costs and permitting involved.

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Due to natural alluvial processes in the Grand River, it is anticipated that a maintenance dredging program will be necessary to keep the proposed waterway clear of annual sediment deposition and accumulated debris. Sediment movement along a river channel is generally categorized by either a suspended load or a bed load whose quantities combine to give a total load of solid material that is transported within the channel. The suspended load is made up of very fine soil particles that are small enough to be carried by the velocity of the flowing waterbody. The initial motion of these particles lifting from the bed is defined in terms of critical shear stress and can be given as a function of submerged specific weight of the particle, the grain size, density and dynamic viscosity of the fluid and shear velocity of the particle. Once the particle has become suspended and free flowing, the motion is extremely difficult to model and approximate due to the variability in fluid dynamics within river hydraulics. A particles fall velocity or speed at which it can no longer be carried by the rivers flow is defined in terms of the specific weight and density of the fluid, specific weight, drag coefficient and diameter of the particle, and of course gravity. The bed load is made up of larger particles that are still carried by the rivers flow but remain grounded and slide along the bed. Another form of motion that is often over looked when calculating a total sediment load is when a particle becomes suspended falls back to the bed and then repeats this motion. A new relationship among the set of principles are used to approximate the mechanics of this incipient motion. Incipient motion is defined as the ratio between shear velocity and fall velocity of the particle (Sturm, 2010).

As can be imagined, this form of sediment transportation is also very difficult to model. Several different approximation methods have been developed and are used for both suspended and total load including the first method that was pioneered by Einstein. However there are often extremely large differences in numerical value between the results of each method. There are numerous formulas for approximating the total load, but again their results often not only don’t parallel each other, but aren’t even in the same ballpark. In 2007, the USACE conducted a sediment transport modeling study that encompassed the entire Grand River. The results of sediment delivery within the entire 5,700 acre watershed using two separate methods were presented as a range of values; 518-1425 t mi-2yr-1 for one method and 518-777 t mi-2 yr-1 for the other (W.F. Baird, 2007). The results are in fact equal at the lower approximation but near double the other at the high end. The difference is reported to be methodological and could be dependent on many issues. The explored information on sediment transport rate estimations has been presented to describe how difficult this process is and how some results remain untrustworthy. It is rumored that Einstein abandoned the study of sediment transport and moved on to develop the principles of quantum physics because of the complexity of sediment transportation.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

28

The USACE publishes information on the dredging plan that it maintains for the Lower Grand River and Grand Haven Harbor. Rates of aggradation will differ from the deep draft harbor as this is where stream flow is met by Lake Michigan and periods of ebb flow direct water back into the river. The upper 14.5 mile reach of this 17 mile section of the Grand River that is maintained by the USACE, is designated as a shallow draft channel (8’ Depth). This 14.5 mile shallow draft section most closely resembles the properties of the proposed 50’ navigation channel analyzed herein. While annual dredging requirements of the upper 14.5 mile section are not reported by the USACE, the dredging requirements can be approximated using USACE record dredging reports. According to the record dredging reports, the majority of this reach was last dredged in 1995 (see Appendix II for record dredging reports). Prior to that, this reach was dredged in 1974 and 1975. Assuming the 1974-1975 work and the 1995 were dredged to project depth, the volume dredged in 1995 represents the amount of accumulated sediment in the overlapping area of these two dredging projects. Around 91,000 CYs were removed from a 5,016,000 SF area in 1995, indicating that this volume accumulated in this area over the 20 year time period between 1975 and 1995 at a rate of 4,550 CY/year. The total area of the proposed 23 mile upper channel is approximately 6,072,000 SF. If the estimated accumulation rate of the lower portion is applied to the upper and prorated by area (a factor of 1.211) the resulting accumulation rate for the upper 23 mile portion of river would be an estimated 5,510 CY/year. Based upon this approximation, funding should be allocated for maintenance dredging of 4,000-8,000 CY annually. Maintenance dredging may not be critical on an annual basis depending on the degree of navigation restriction caused by the sedimentation, however, dredge volumes would be expected to increase by the estimated annual rates and funding should be allocated proportionally. The annual maintenance dredging quantity estimates created are part of a conceptual preliminary exercise and in order to more accurately quantify anticipated maintenance volumes, an extensive hydraulic study with years of supporting measurements and surveys would be needed. However, this approach would be costly, time consuming and likely unfeasible, so alternatively, to gain a more accurate understanding of the sediment accumulation rate within the proposed channel, semi-annual hydrographic surveying should be performed. Based upon previous USACE dredging reports it is anticipated that a full project area hydrographic survey should be performed annually for the first three years after construction and then semi-annually every two to three years thereafter. This will allow for a more precise measurement of sedimentation rates and their locations, ultimately making for cost effective maintenance dredging in the future. The conceptual cost estimate in the preceding section of this report has the costs of performing the recommended survey embedded in the annual design and contingency estimation.

In order to preserve a safe and navigable waterway, the constructed dredging depth will need maintenance from year to year. In addition to this, adequate channel markers and navigation signage should also be monitored and maintained each season. Traditionally, a waterway such as the one proposed is charted on navigation maps and equipped with navigation markers for the safety and comfort of its users. Due to the natural characteristics of the proposed meandering channel, it is recommended that simple port and starboard seasonal buoys should be placed to clearly outline the channel limits. There also may be a need for signage at bridge crossings to warn/ inform boaters of tolerable clearances at each location. This may be possible by marking of bridge foundations to show current clearance based upon water depth. Another signage consideration would be to mark waypoint distances along the channel to assist mariners in navigation. This could be achieved by markings located on the seasonal channel buoys.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

29

To ensure that designated waterways are clearly marked and maintained, the USCG provides a service know as PATON or Private Aid To Navigation to legitimately regulate and maintain a safe navigable channel. A permit must be obtained through the USCG to classifying the navigation aids and their respective locations, identify their intended use and how they will be maintained/ regulated. The proposed navigation channel would likely be considered a Class II waterway meaning it would be used for general navigation, may be charted, and would be inspected every 3 years by qualified Coast Guard Auxiliary Members. An individual or organization must be established in order to act as the private entity responsible for the buoys and signage for the navigation route. Their responsibility would be to own and maintain the channel’s navigation aids. This service is typically provided to privately maintained channels, marine obstructions, or other similar hazards to navigation. Funds will need to be allocated towards purchasing the buoys and signage. A floating buoy is recommended due to its versatility, easy installation and removal. The river often develops large ice flows that could possibly jeopardize the integrity of an alternative fixed post style marker. Green can and red nun seamless polyethylene buoys are available from multiple manufacturers that would be a good candidate for such channel marking buoys. While final buoy requirements would be determined by the USCG, it is anticipated that buoys would be required at 500’ intervals. See Figure 18 for a representational schematic of the proposed channel with buoys.

Figure 18. Concept of Proposed Channel with Buoys

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

30

With the need for seasonal removal due to the possibility of damage, floating buoys are suitable because they can be placed and adjusted with minimal equipment. A basic weight and chain could be used to anchor the floating buoys, but designed with enough length to remain functional during a range of high and low river stage heights that are estimated to occur during the typical boating season. The buoys would need to be removed after the boating season each year to make sure that they are not damaged or lost due to ice during the winter months. Adequate storage will be necessary during the off season to keep up quality and safeguard them from any vandalism. Buoys could then be re-installed annually by using known GPS locations to identify the channel limits.

Alternatively, the USCG is responsible for the U.S. Aids to Navigation System (ATON) which is intended for navigable waters that are established in nautical charts. This is another potential option for regulating and maintaining the proposed channel’s navigation aids. If the proposed channel becomes a publicly maintained waterway, there is potential that the USCG would add it to their ATON system, in which case the USCG would take responsibility for maintaining and regulating the buoys from year to year.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Unidentified Objects It should be understood that only the objects depicted in the side scanning sonar imagery have been identified and additional objects may exist. There is potential for objects to have been misrepresented in size or missed completely by the side scanning process. Contract terms for removing both identified and unidentified objects would be required as part of the construction process. Each figure (as presented by the side scanning sonar images) that has potential to be an object requiring removal is identified and clearly denoted within the survey exhibits. Upon completion of any dredging and/or object removal, the project area should be resurveyed to ensure the proposed channel is free of navigational hazards.

The exact locations of utility pipelines that may cross the proposed project area will also need to be identified. There are several natural gas and petroleum pipeline crossings in the area which will need to be located along with any other form of unknown underground utility lines. Aid from power and utility companies should clarify the location and position of any crossing lines and mitigate the concern of this potential issue.

Dam Restoration and Removal Projects Dams are often considered to be a negative aspect to a river’s health and quality. Flow control structures can back up the water and trap sediment from moving downstream and also block the passage of any migrating fish. River restoration projects are becoming more abundant in an effort to bring back the natural state of a river and its surrounding habitat. Numerous dam removal projects have taken place across the United States, in Michigan and even along the Grand River. One such project in consideration is the Grand Rapids Whitewater Project. Project officials have advised that during this project, no changes are anticipated within the proposed waterway downstream of the Fulton Street Bridge.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

31

CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES Based upon the project considerations and findings identified above, the associated costs are estimated for the project in Table 2:

Annual

Initial

Grand River Waterway - Preliminary Cost Estimate

Notes: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Item Description Mobilization Channel Dredging & Disposal 4 Buoys & Signage

Quantity 1 97,800 1

Unit Unit Cost LS $ 50,000 $ CY $ 15 $ LS $ 250,000 $ Initial Project Subtotal $ Initial Design & Contingency (20%) $ Initial Project Total $

Maintenance Dredging Buoy Maintenance

6,000 5 1

CY $ LS $ Annual Subtotal Annual Design & Contingency (10%) Annual Total

20 30,000

Total Cost 50,000 1,467,000 250,000 1,767,000 353,400 2,120,400

$ $ $ $ $

120,000 30,000 150,000 15,000 165,000

This preliminary cost estimate is for general information only, costs estimated hereon are based upon the best information available Cost of land acquisition and/or leases for disposal are not included Disposal costs assume use of existing site, additional earthwork costs not included Assumes 245 pairs of anchored buoys 4,000-8,000 CY estimated annually

Table 2. Dredging Preliminary Cost Estimate

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The primary goal of this study is to analyze the feasibility of creating a navigable waterway along a 23 mile section of the Grand River, from the Fulton Street Bridge to the Bass River inlet. Data was collected from reputable sources and from the field, then processed, and analyzed to support the findings of the study. By considering all of components involved, there are a few critical points that have been identified. The existing site water depths are not suitable for shallow draft recreational vessels.

During the normal boating season (May-September) average existing river water levels reflect varying depths, with some locations having as little as one foot of clearance. In order to provide a safe and navigable waterway, dredging and the removal of existing submerged obstructions is required to achieve the sufficient draft depths and clearances for the intended vessels. Three dredging scenarios were generated to evaluate the volume of material that would be required to be removed. These scenarios all have similar horizontal geometries, including a 50’ wide channel with side slopes that is positioned along the deepest portions of the river with smooth sweeping curves. This channel runs the entire length of project, for a distance of nearly 23 miles. The dredging scenarios differ by having different proposed depths from average water level (AWL) of AWL-5’, AWL-6’ and AWL-7’ respectively.

A hydrographic survey was performed to document the existing conditions in order to evaluate existing depths, identify submerged objects, and to support the calculation of proposed dredging volumes. In correlation with the hydrographic data, hydraulic gauge data was analyzed to establish the average water

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

32

levels along the river during boating season. This information was then used to create a three dimensional river bed surface of the existing riverbed elevations. Overlapping surfaces representing each of the dredge scenarios were created and compared against the existing conditions to compute the required dredge quantities for each depth alternative. The navigational depths created by each scenario were compared to the draft requirements of the largest vessel anticipated to regularly use the channel.

Overhead structures, such as the multiple road crossings scattered throughout project area, were another factor considered when establishing a design vessel. In consideration of these physical constraints along with functionality and intended use, a 26’ powerboat with 8.5’ beam and 42” draft was established as the design vessel. The limiting factor on the design vessel chosen is the draft depth dimension whereas there may be potential for vessels larger in length to navigate the channel.

Additional survey efforts beyond this study would be required to confirm bridge clearances and foundation dimensions. When considering the draft requirements of the design vessel, the fluctuation of the river’s water levels, and appropriate clearances, the AWL-7’ dredge scenario was selected as the preferred scenario and used in the final volume calculations and cost estimates. This scenario resulted in a total dredge volume of 97,800 CYs. Dredging required for the preferred alternative (AWL-7’) would impact an area of roughly 50 acres compared to the 140 acres that makes up the entire proposed channel meaning that of the area encompassed by entire proposed channel, 36% of it would be disturbed by dredging. Regulatory approval from both state and federal agencies would be required prior to the implementation of this dredging. The regulatory agencies will require testing of the proposed dredge material to determine its disposal location applicability. Side scanning sonar was used to map the underwater physical conditions of the project area. This imagery allowed for the identification of potentially hazardous objects that lie within and nearby the proposed channel limits. Since all of the dredge scenarios have the same proposed width and location, the removal efforts required would remain constant for each scenario. The cost of removing the identified submerged objects was incorporated into the estimated dredging unit pricing for the purposed of this study. In order to mark the channel limits for its users, a series of navigation buoys are proposed to identify the areas in which dredging and obstruction removal was performed from the remainder of the river.

When considering the efforts described above along with the efforts that would be required for final design, regulatory approval, and construction administration, the total estimated cost of the initial project is approximately $2.15M. Additionally, efforts to maintain the channel depths, remove accumulated debris, and install the seasonal navigation buoys will be required on an annual basis. While the maintenance dredging requirements will vary year to year based upon outside factors, the annual required volumes are estimated to be between 4,000 and 8,000 CYs. Buoys will need to be removed and replaced seasonally to avoid winter ice damage. The estimated annual cost of these efforts is $165,000. These annual maintenance budgets should be considered as averages and should be allocated annually regardless of the frequency of maintenance work performed.

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

33

REFERENCES (1) Sturm, T.W., 2010, Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York City, 546p.

(2) “The Grand River Watershed – Michigan”, can be found at: http://www.grandlearningnetwork.org/about-the-grand-river-watershed.html (3) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1983, EM 1110-2-5025 Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal, USACE, Washington D.C., Chapter 3, p. 1-34 (4) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2016, Grand Haven Harbor and Grand River, MI, can be found at: http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Missions/Operations/Grand-Haven-Harbor-MI/ (5) U.S Army Corps of Engineers, revised 2014, Navigable Waters of the United States within the Regulatory Jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District, USACE, Washington D.C. (6) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Engineer District Detroit, 1978, Preliminary Feasibility Report on Shallow-Draft Navigation: Grand River, Michigan, USACE, Detroit MI (7) W.F. Baird & Associates LTD, 2007, Grand River Sediment Transport Modeling Study, USACE Detroit District (8) American Society of Civil Engineers Task Committee on Marinas, revised 1994, Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors, ASCE, New York City, 291p.

(9) Photo Credit (page 2): “The definition of billowing clouds, perhaps” by Rachel Kramer, 2014, copyright © Creative Commons, made available by flickr.com, can be found at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rkramer62/14226053048/in/photolist-6ehrZM-BSHCe7-oVxPYk4o6uW2-4oaxqw-6ZPRsw-6XQiEN-yJbEBu-aevneJ-BV1JMR-AqEZHN-AKSN8k-AW4KWL-BvbcEv28wgPn-6ZJVJH-AKSDsz-AVASXM-C37GJr-AKSmY2-4J7xJp-BCteja-p1kY3w-7V5ctt-B4Xt3Z-4J7xrtoYm11q-xPdiwt-tJKKgA-85Y1eT-Ei7ecj-LgRgVT-AF3M4a-AJdK37-yrudxA-E9Z1j3-uwZEAV-Kt3z6QJXQnSi-KRow27-KRotpJ-Kt3D75-mqCXZn-qLqdWa-nF7eWG-npwQkz-dPPia1-aewjHH-8EywXu48jXyW

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

34

COMSTOCK PARK DOWNSTREAM (TO LAKE MICHIGAN) UPSTREAM (TOWARDS HEADWATERS)

WALKER BASS RIVER INLET

ALLENDALE FULTON ST. CROSSING GRAND RAPIDS

HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT AREA

GRANDVILLE

Grand River Waterway Survey Michigan DTMB

May 2017

N

Overall Project Area 0

0.75

1.5

3 miles

APPENDIX I

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

I-96

EASTMANVILLE

SHEET 3 SH

7

SHEET 8

WALKER EE SH 0 T1 T EE SH

ALLENDALE

GRAND RAPIDS

E

SH

2 ET

SH E SHEET 14

3 NO. DATE

REVISION

SHEET 24

16

T 21

SH

ET

SHEET TITLE:

T EE SH

15

PROJECT TITLE:

2

T SHEE

25

M-11

T1

EE

SH

SHEET 13

SHE

ET 2 6

11

LAKE MICHIGAN DR

OVERALL PROJECT AREA

R VE I R

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

T9

SS A B

LAMONT EE SH

SHEET 4

SH EE T6

EET

MARNE

GRA

SHEET 5

ND R IVER

IVE R

EE

SHEE

T1 7

ET SHE

22

FINAL

8

T1

EE

SH

SHEET 19

ISSUED FOR:

M-11

0

DR

ET 2

AN

HWY 131

SHE

GR

KENT COUNTY

OTTOWA COUNTY

COOPERSVILLE

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

GRANDVILLE

SEAL:

WYOMING

M-121

HUDSONVILLE HWY 131 6 9 1 I-

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

M-6

2

MATC AT STA H LINE - 4 TION 208+00

-5 INE +00 H L - 235 TC MA TION ST A AT

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

T E L

R E V

S S A

STATION 208+00 - 235+00

IN

RI

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

3.0 57

E-6 MATCH LIN 2+00 N - 26 AT STATIO 00

NO. DATE

REVISION

574 .

00 574.

M AT ATCH STA L TIO INE 5 N235 +00

0

B

SCALE: 1" = 100'

PLAN VIEW STA 208+00 TO 262+00

50'

50' 573.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 235+00 - 262+00 SCALE: 1" = 100' LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

3

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

0 570.0

3.0

0

.00 571

57

57 3

50'

.00

572

.00

573.00

571 .

00

.00

574

MATCH LINE - 6 AT STATION - 262+00

57 4

.00

573.00

.00 572

.00 573

573

.00

573 .00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

STATION 262+00 - 289+00

572.00

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

.00

1 57

573.00

0

NO. DATE

571 .00

571.0

MATCH LINE - 8 AT STATION - 316+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

50'

PLAN VIEW STA 262+00 TO 316+00

574.00

-7 MATCH LINE - 289+00 AT STATION

0

0 2.0 57

57 1.0

571.00

573 .00

REVISION

573.00

572.00 573.0 0

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 289+00 - 316+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

4

596' MATCH LINE - 9 AT STATION - 343+00

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

574 .0 0

573.00

573.00

0 574.0

573.00

573.00

.00 573

0

57

.00

573.0

0

2.0

574.00

0 3.0

57

572

MATCH LINE - 8 AT STATION - 316+00

50'

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

PLAN VIEW STA 316+00 TO 370+00

596'

STATION 316+00 - 343+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

596' 572.00

50'

573.00

57 3

572

573.00

.00 574

57

3.0

0

572

.00

NO. DATE

REVISION

00

572.0 0 572.00

68th AVENUE BR IDGE

574.00

573.00

596'

-9 MATCH LINE - 343+00 N IO T A T S T A

572.

.00

MATCH AT STA LINE - 10 TION 370+00

573.00

.00

571.00

SHEET TITLE:

.00 572

PROJECT TITLE:

00 572.

575.0 0

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 343+00 - 370+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

5

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

50'

57

573.00

MATC AT ST H LINE - 11 ATION - 397+ 00

572.00

2.0 0

572 .00

573.0 0

571.00

574.00

572.00

575.00

573.00

574.00

575.00

575.0 0

574.0

0

573.00

STATION 370+00 - 397+00

574.00

5.0

0 573.00

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

MATCH LINE - 12 AT STATION - 424+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

57

PLAN VIEW STA 370+00 TO 424+00

575.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

0 INE - 1 0 L H C 0 MAT - 370+ N O I T A AT ST

574.00

NO. DATE

REVISION

50' 573.00

0 .00 73

5

571

.00

.00

570

- 11 MATCH LINE 397+00 AT STATION -

572.

00

571.00

572.00

572.0

571.00

0 572.0

569

.00

ISSUED FOR: 572.0 0

0 571.0

FINAL

572 .

00

SEAL:

STATION 397+00 - 424+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

6

13 MATCH LINE 51+00 AT STATION - 4

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

575.00

576.00

577.00

578.00

578.00

578.00

577 .

50'

00 575. 4.00 57 573.0 0

00

577.

.00

5 57

577.00

576.00

.00

0

4.0

57

00

572

STATION 424+00 - 451+00

57

6.0

0

572.00 573.00

577.00 7 .0

574.00

57

577.00

0

.00

575.00

REVISION

575

576.00

.00

NO. DATE .00 575

50'

574.00

573.00 .00 572

574

.00

575.00

576

.00

575.0

576.00

0

577

.00

ISSUED FOR:

577.00

597'

MATCH LIN E - 13 AT STATIO N - 451+00

576.00

575

SHEET TITLE:

570.00

PROJECT TITLE:

.00

575.00

572.00 571

597'

E - 14 0 N I L H +0 MATC ION - 478 TAT AT S

SCALE: 1" = 100'

576.

00

PLAN VIEW STA 424+00 TO 478+00

. 00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

572

573.

57 2. 0 0

MATCH LINE - 1 2 AT STATION - 4 24+00

00

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 451+00 - 478+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

7

0

0

574.

00

57 2.0

.00

3.0

57 2. 0

597'

574

0

0 1.0 57

573

.00 574.00

57 0.0 0

575.00

573.00

572.00

574

573.

.00

00

578

575.00 579.0

0

.00

571.0 0

0

577.00

.0 0 577

578.00

578.00

0 8.0 57

50'

579.0

.00 577

MATC AT ST H LINE - 1 4 ATION - 478+ 00

577.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

SCALE: 1" = 100'

.0 575

576.00

576.00

576.00

00 75.

5

577

0

577.00

0 576.0

0 7.0 7 5

576

.00

.00

.00 575

574.00 573.00

574.

577.00

572.00

00

0 578.

MATCH LINE - 15 AT STATION - 505+00

00

.00

00

577.

575

SHEET TITLE:

577.00

0

575.00

PROJECT TITLE:

578.00

MATC AT ST H LINE - 1 6 ATION - 532+ 00

598'

50'

PLAN VIEW STA 478+00 TO 532+00

597'

STATION 478+00 - 505+00

579.

57

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

572.00

573.0

NO. DATE

REVISION

0

598'

578.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL STATION 505+00 - 532+00

SEAL:

SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

8

598'

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

570.00

50'

576.00

2.0 0

573.00

0 2.0 57 0 3.0 57

575.00

0 575.0

576.

575.

.00

577

57

00

574.

00

573.00

0 4.0

STATION 532+00 - 559+00

00

575.00

SHEET TITLE:

576.00

575.

00

ISSUED FOR: 578.

0 .00

8.0

0

FINAL

0

580

57

577.00

576.

00

00

.00

.00

57 4 573.00

SEAL:

STATION 559+00 - 586+00 SCALE: 1" = 100' LEGEND 596'

REVISION

577.00

575.00

MATCH LINE - 17 AT STATION - 559+00

576.00

578

574.00

NO. DATE

577.00

5

50'

576.00

575.

00 77.

MATCH LINE - 18 AT STATION - 586+00

PROJECT TITLE:

SCALE: 1" = 100'

575 .

57 8.0

0

6 - 1 +00 NE 32 LI 5 H NTC TIO MA TA S AT

573.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

00

PLAN VIEW STA 532+00 TO 586+00

576.00

572.00

.00 575

57

0 3.0 57

571.00

573.00

598'

576 .00

0 5.0 57

57 4

.00

.00 572 0 .0 573 574.00

.00

MATCH L INE - 17 AT STAT ION - 559 +00

.00

0

572

574.00

571

0.0 57

572 .00

00 575.

571.00

0

570.00

57 2.0

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

9

MATCH LINE - 19 AT STATION - 613+00

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

0 575.0

578

577.00

50'

576

.00

5.0 0

576 .

MATCH LINE - 18 AT STATION - 586+00

00

578.00

574.00

576.00

57

579.00

573.00

578.00 57 7.0 0

0 578.00

578.0

.00

576.00

STATION 586+00 - 613+00

0

50'

00

575.

57

4.0

573 .00

0

0

0 576.0

2.0

5

574.00

.00 574

571.0

57

00 77.

00 577.

00 575.

572.00 573.00 574.00

M AT ATCH STA L TIO INE N2 640 0 +00

0

2.0

.00

5

574.

00

575.00

74.00

573

57

572.00

573.00

575.00 0 573.0

572.

576.00 577.00 578.00

0 4.0

.00

57

575

. 00

REVISION

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

9 E-1 LIN 613+00 CH MAT TION STA AT

575

NO. DATE

00

573.00

574.00

SHEET TITLE:

.00

578

00 576.

573.00

571.00

PROJECT TITLE:

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

PLAN VIEW STA 586+00 TO 640+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

SEAL:

'

599

STATION 613+00 - 640+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

10

00 574.

.00

0 578.0

0

0 4.0 57

574.00

577.00

MATCH LINE - 20 AT STATION - 640+00

0

.00

00 577 .

00

57

6.0 57

574.00

00

575.

576.00

STATION 640+00 - 667+00

0 7.0 57

57

.

576

576.00

00

.00

6 57

576.00 577.00

57

.00

7.0

50'

577.

0

0 .00

0

579

578.00

580.00 579.00

579

.00

578.00

578.00

577.00

NO. DATE

REVISION

ISSUED FOR:

600'

LAKE MICHIGAN DR BRIDGE

MATCH LINE - 21 AT STATION - 667+ 00

SHEET TITLE:

5 57

PROJECT TITLE:

600'

MATCH LINE - 22 AT STATION - 694+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

0 5.0

PLAN VIEW STA 640+00 TO 694+00

599'

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

5 .0

0 7. 0 57 0 6.0 57

57

576.

575

5.0 0

578

0 577.0

50'

MATCH LINE - 21 7+00 AT STATION - 66

599' 577.00

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 667+00 - 694+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

11

MATCH LINE - 23 AT STATION - 721+00 0

578.0

0

8.0

0 9.0

.00

57

6 57

578.00

577 .00

MATCH LINE - 22 AT STATION - 694+00

577.00

576.00

577

.00

57 5.0

0

PLAN VIEW STA 694+00 TO 748+00

57

00

577.

57 7.0 0

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

50'

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

STATION 694+00 - 721+00

- 24 E N I H L - 748+00 C T MA TION TA AT S

SCALE: 1" = 100'

57

7.0

578.00

0

SHEET TITLE:

MAT AT S CH LINE TATI ON - - 23 721+ 00

0

7.0

.00

57

NO. DATE

REVISION

578.00

576

577.00

577.00

575

.00

.00

50'

57 9

.00

579.00

5 76

.00

0 577.0

578.00

0 5.0 57

57 6

PROJECT TITLE:

577.00

579

.00

ISSUED FOR: 578.00

FINAL

578.00

SEAL:

STATION 721+00 - 748+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

12

MATCH LINE - 25 AT STATION - 775+00

601'

577.

578.00

00

577.00

.00 576

577.00

57 8.0

0

58 0.0 0

580

580.00

.00 579

579.

00

.00

MATCH AT STA LINE - 24 TION - 7 48+00

579.00

50'

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

578.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

STATION 748+00 - 775+00

6 E-2 0 N I L 2+0 CH MAT ION - 80 TAT AT S

SCALE: 1" = 100'

.00

576.00 0

575.0

577.

575.0

00

0

575.00

.00 576

50'

576.

00

0

577.00

578

.00

0 0.0 58

0 578.00

577.0

0 576.0 575.0 0

0 9.0 57

MA AT S TCH L TAT INE ION 2 - 77 5 5+0 0

0.0

58

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

57 7

PLAN VIEW STA 748+00 TO 802+00

601'

576.00

00

581.

NO. DATE

REVISION

0 581.0

57

6.0

0

576.00

ISSUED FOR:

577.00

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 775+00 - 802+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

13

MATCH LINE 27 AT STATION 829+00

602'

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

50' 579.00

580.00

0 580.0

579.00

580.00

580.00

581.00

580.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

STATION 802+00 - 829+00

.00 577

0

50' 0

.00 577

57

578

.00

577.00 577

.00

0

.0 578

580.00

579.00

578.00 578.00

577.

578.00

00

577.00

575.00

577.00 576.

00

NO. DATE

REVISION

575.0 0

578.0

8.0 0

.00

.00

602' AT STATION - 829+00

579

578

MATCH LINE - 27

578.00

SHEET TITLE:

579.0

580.00

580.00 . 00 579

PROJECT TITLE:

8 INE - 2 L H C T 0 MA - 856+0 N O I T A AT ST

602'

SCALE: 1" = 100'

580.00

PLAN VIEW STA 802+00 TO 856+00

602'

MATCH LINE - 26 AT STATION - 802+00

581.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 829+00 - 856+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

14

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

602' 579.00

.00

578

8.0 0

578.

00

57

577.00

578.00

50'

.00

577

.00 577 578.00

.00

579.00 580.00

580.00

578.00

578.00 577.

00

579.0 0

0 79.0

580.00

5

580.

0

0

58 1.0 0

STATION 856+00 - 883+00

7.0 0 57

578.00

579.00

578.00

576.0

00

0

577.

SHEET TITLE:

NO. DATE

REVISION

576.00 575.00 575.00 576.00 577.00

0

9.0

57

578.00

0 9.0

0

580.00

57

.0 575

579.00

57 578. 7.00 00

ISSUED FOR:

603'

- 29 MATCH LINE - 883+00 AT STATION

580.00

579.00

57 000 9.0 579.

57 9.

00

0 7.0 57 578.00

50'

0

0 9.0 57

0

581.00 580.00

0.0

582.00

579 .00

580.00

603'

.00

PROJECT TITLE:

582

8.0 0

58

0 0.0 58

58 0.0

MATCH LIN E - 30 AT STATION - 910+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

57

PLAN VIEW STA 856+00 TO 910+00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

578.00

5 57 76.0 5.0 0 0

602'

MATCH AT STA LINE - 52758.0 TION 0 856+00

580 .00

579.00

578

579.00

58 0.0 0

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 883+00 - 910+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

15

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com 575.0 0

574

574

.00

.00

50'

.00

576.00

575.00

576

0 575.0 576.00

575.00

0 5.0 57

576.00

575.00

577.00 .00 578

576.00

.00 575

0 7.0 7 5

6.0

0 6 57

0

.00

00

576.0 0

.

577

0 5.0 7 5

575.00

.00

.00 57675.00 5 57 5

0 6. 0 57 .00 577

MATC AT ST H LINE 3 ATIO N - 93 1 7+00

57

578.0 0

577 .0

577.00

0

6.0

57

.00

575

0 8.0 57

- 3 0 00 INE 0+ H L N - 91 TC MA TATIO S AT

.00 577 0 578.0 579.00

STATION 910+00 - 937+00

576.

0

00

0 0 7 5 7.0

50'

603'

.00 576

57 7 .0 0

.

578

0 5.0 57

580.00 579.00

SHEET TITLE:

NO. DATE

REVISION

.00

580

579.00

577.00 576.00

0 581.0

578.00

57

0 9.0

00

576.

578.00

580.00

- 31 MATCH LINE - 937+00 AT STATION

PROJECT TITLE:

MATCH LINE - 32 AT STATION - 964+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

577.00

PLAN VIEW STA 910+00 TO 964+00

.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

576

57 7

.00 578

578.00

.00

577

.00

ISSUED FOR:

0

.0 577

603'

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 937+00 - 964+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

16

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

578.00

578.00

50'

579.00

00

578.

580.00

579.00

580

.00 576.00 577.00

8.0

0 8.0 7 5 0 579.0

5

579

576

0

.00

57

580

57

8.0

.00

5.0

0

0

.00

0 80.0

.00

57 7

578.00

0 7.0 57

578.00

578.00

577

.00 00 577.

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

578.00

32 0 E - 4+0 LIN - 96 H TC ION MA TAT S AT

576

.00

STATION 964+00 - 991+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

SHEET TITLE:

0

.00

578

NO. DATE 57

578.00

0

9.0

.00 580 00 9.

57

578.00

578.

REVISION

0

0

579.0

577.

0

00

MAT AT S CH LINE TATI ON - - 33 991+ 00

7 .0

PROJECT TITLE:

4 - 3 00 INE 18+ H L - 10 TC N MA ATIO ST

AT

57

PLAN VIEW STA 964+00 TO 1018+00

57

M AT ATCH STA LIN TIO E 3 N991 3 +00

581.00

00 577.

578.00

577 .00

ISSUED FOR: 578 .00

FINAL 577.00

577.00

.00 578

579.0

0

578.00

0 9.0 57

0.0

58

0

0

.0 580

50'

SEAL: 580.00

579.00

579.00 579

.00

578.00

579.00 578.00

STATION 991+00 - 1018+00 LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

SCALE: 1" = 100'

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

17

580.00 579.00

576.00

50'

580.00

.00 75

576.00

579.00

5

0

6.0

57

E - 35 MATCH LIN 45+00 N - 10 AT STATIO

604'

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

577.00

.00

0 9.0 57

MATCH LINE - 34 AT STATION - 1018+00

.00 581

580 .00

00 580.

58

1.0

00 579.

577

578.00

578.00

0

576.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

STATION 1018+00 - 1014+00

E - 36 00 N I L 2+ CH MAT ION - 107 AT T ST

SCALE: 1" = 100'

577.00

.00 576 .00

579.00

0 7.0

.00

0

57

575

578.0

578

SHEET TITLE:

578.00

PROJECT TITLE:

.00

.00

576

575

.00

576.00

578.

00

50'

577.00

MATCH LINE - 35 AT STATION - 1045+00

575

A

576.00

PLAN VIEW STA 1018+00 TO 1072+00

604'

576.00

576.00

577.

00

NO. DATE

REVISION

578.00

579.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 1045+00 - 1072+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

18

E - 37 0 N I L H +0 MATC ON - 1099 ATI AT ST

604' 576.00 578.00

575.

50'

00

579.00

00 580.

581.00

0

5.0 57

578.00 579 58 .

0.0 00 0

0

.00

0

6.0 57

7 57

5.0

0 577.0

57

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

576.00

576.0

0

575.00

575.00

575.00

576.00 577.00 578.00 579.00

604'

57

MATCH LINE - 36 AT STATION - 1072+0 0

5.0 0

577.00

PLAN VIEW STA 1072+00 TO 1126+00

STATION 1072+00 - 1099+00

38 0 ELIN 126+0 -1 TCH MA TION STA AT

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

SCALE: 1" = 100'

579.00

0 578.0 577 .00

0

577.00

576.00

575.0

0

605'

0

6.0 57

M AT ATCH STA L TIO INE 3 N109 7 9+0 0

578

.00

575.00

SHEET TITLE:

6.0

PROJECT TITLE:

57

0

.0 575

00 576.

50'

605'

579 .0 578 0 .

0 0 577 .0 576. 0 00

NO. DATE

REVISION

577.00 .00

577

577 .00 576.

00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 1099+00 - 1126+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

19

9 INE - 3 00 L H C MAT - 1153+ N O I T T STA 28th STREET

9.0

0

582.00

.00 575

MAT C STA H LIN E TIO N - - 38 112 6+0 0

576.00

582.00

583.0

50'

581.00 581.0

.00

AT

0

578.0

582

0 579.0

0

581.00

580.00

580.00

57

582.00

605 '

.00

.00

7 57

57 6. 0 0

578

BRIDGE

A

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

0

.0 582

582.00

0

579.0

0

.00

580.00

578

583.00 582.00

582.

00

582.

00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

581.00

.0 580

0

0 578.0 577.00

580.00

.0 57 9

577.00

579.0 577.00

0 578.0

5

578.

0

0 80.0

00

NO. DATE

REVISION

580.00 581.00 0 582.0 0 0 .

583

578.00 579.00

580.00 581.00 0 582.0

00

583.

606

ISSUED FOR:

'

MATCH 5 AT STA LINE -831.090 TION - 1 153+00

0 579.0 578.00

0

578.00 579.00

SHEET TITLE:

'

50'

PROJECT TITLE:

606

MATC AT ST H LINE - 40 ATION - 1180+ 00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

580.00

PLAN VIEW STA 1126+00 TO 1180+00

'

605

STATION 1126+00 - 1153+00

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 1153+00 - 1180+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

20

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com 00

.

578

577

578.00

50' 578.00

580.00

6 60 '

58 1.0

0

.0 0 579

00 578.

579.00

MATCH LINE - 4 AT STA TION - 1 1 207+00

.00

577.00

581.00

0 582.0

0

580.0

58

580.0

0

1.0

0

583.00

582 .00

58 1.0 0

58

2.0

0

580.00

0

8.0 57

.00

580

581.00

58

57 578.9.00 0 57577.000 6.0 0

0.0 0

579 .

00

580

.00

SHEET TITLE:

50' 581.00

PROJECT TITLE:

MATCH L AT STAT INE - 42 ION - 123 4+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

0 9 .0 57

PLAN VIEW STA 1180+00 TO 1234+00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

58 0.0 581 0 .0 582. 0 00 583.0 0

0 - 4 00 6' E 80+ 60 LIN - 11 H TC ION MA TAT S

AT

STATION 1180+00 - 1207+00

NO. DATE

REVISION

.00 580

580.00 580.00

582.00

579.00

41 INE - +00 L H MATC ON - 1207 ATI AT ST

583.

00

579 5 5818.00.00 5 8 2 5 58483.00.00 0 .00

.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 1207+00 - 1234+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

21

- 43 0 E N I 0 CH L - 1261+ T A M TION A T AT S

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

.00

581

57 9.0 0

0

0 580.0

57

MA AT S TCH L IN TAT ION E - 42 - 12 34+0

581.00

9.0

580

0

.00

57 9.0 0

5 58 58 583582.801.000.00 4.0 .00 0 0

579.0 0

578.0

0 .00 578

50'

578.00

579.00

577

.00

.00 578

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

578.00

STATION 1234+00 - 1261+00

0 582.0

580.00 581.00 0 582.0

580.00 579.00

.00

583

SHEET TITLE:

MAT AT S CH LINE TATIO N - 12 44 88+00

607'

579.00

PROJECT TITLE:

SCALE: 1" = 100'

50'

PLAN VIEW STA 1234+00 TO 1288+00

578.00

NO. DATE

REVISION

0

583.0

.00 579 00 .

580 .00 581 .00 582

.00

580

581.00

0

00

58 0.0 0

ISSUED FOR:

579.00

607'

.00 579

582.0

581 .

578.00

FINAL 578.00

580.00

E - 43 MATCH LIN N - 1261+00 IO T A T S T A

SEAL:

STATION 1261+00 - 1288+00 SCALE: 1" = 100' LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

22

GE KENT TRAILS BRID

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

580 . 00

578.00

579.00

0 578.0

577

578.00 579.00 580.00 581.00

50'

.00

579.00

57 7.0

578.00

0

0 575.0

0

.00 577

0

583.0 0

576.00

57 7.0

576 .00 575.0 0

581.

00 580.00

0.0 58

MATCH AT STA LINE - 44 TION - 1 288+00

580.00

578.00

578.

576.00

00

0

57 7.0 0

.00

0 0.0 58579.00

578.00

57 7.0

577

578

.00

577.00

580.0

0

8.0 57

0

577.00 578.00

STATION 1288+00 - 1315+00

578.

00

579.00

.00

578.00

578.00

0 8.0 57 9.00 5780.00 5 1.00 58 .00 582

579

578.00 579.0

0

58

NO. DATE

REVISION

580.00

2.0 0

579.00 0 579.0

SHEET TITLE:

577.00

607'

MATCH AT STA LINE - 45 TION - 1 315+00

578.

00 579 58 .00 0 581.00 .00

578.00

.00

578.00

581

578.

00

577.000 578.0 579.00 0 0.0 58

PROJECT TITLE:

607'

578.00

MATCH LINE - 46 AT STATION - 1342+00

SCALE: 1" = 100'

50'

PLAN VIEW STA 1288+00 TO 1342+00

576.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

.00 579

581.00 582.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

SEAL:

STATION 1315+00 - 1342+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

23

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

581.00

0

582 .00

582.00

582.00

581 .00

582.00 .00 583

0

58

0. 0

58

1.0

0

0

58

1.0

0

58

581.00

0 8.0 57 0 579.0

580.

00

58 1.0 0

.0 577

581.00

I-1 9 6B R ID GE

58

1.0

58 1.0 0

580.00

582.00 .00 583

50'

581.00

580.00 581.00

00 578.

57 9. 00 0 0.0 58

00

580.00

581.00

580.00

582.

MAT AT ST CH LINE 4 ATIO N - 13 7 6 9+ 00

580.00

580.00

0 2.0

58 583.00 581.0 0

0

4.00

1.0

583.00

580.

58

57

.00

00

583.00

58 6.0 0

581

582 .00

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE: NO. DATE

REVISION

.00

581

583.00

.00

0 8.0

0

585.00

4.0

582

584.00 .00 583

00

585.

585.00

584.00

583.00 582.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

608'

MATCH LINE - 47 AT STATION - 1369+00

58

.00

.00

579

581.00

00

580

580.00

584.00

582.00

583 .

585.

00

.00 584

578.00

583.00

0 1.0 58

0 581.0

582.

.00

581 .00

50'

585

581.00

585.00

00

608'

INE - 48 L H C T MA 1396+00 N O I T AT STA

SCALE: 1" = 100'

582.00

PLAN VIEW STA 1342+00 TO 1396+00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

- 46 0 INE 2+0 H L - 134 TC MA ATION ST

AT

7' 60

STATION 1342+00 - 1369+00

SEAL:

STATION 1369+00 - 1396+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

24

585.00

580.00

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

.00

MATCH LINE - 48 AT STATION 1396+00

581

.00

0 581.0

583.00

582 .

580.00

00

.00 583 .00 582

.00 580

582.0 0

.00

50'

0

5

00 83.

584.00 0 585.0 586.00

0

584.00

582

1.0 58

7.0 58

585.00

580

582.00

581.00

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

STATION 1396+00 - 1423+00

MATCH LINE - 50 0 AT STATION - 1450+0

SCALE: 1" = 100'

WE 00 581.

0

00

581.

AIL

BR

583.00

580.0

E IDG

582.00

0

0

TR

582.00

.00

581

.00

0

NO. DATE

583.00

581.

00

REVISION

582 .00

0

0 580.

0

9.0

57

580

ST AT E

3.0 0

0

581.0

582.0

581.00

582.0

581.00

LOCOMOTIV

609'

OX FO RD

58

00

1.0

0

580.0

581.00

580.

.00

580.00

.00

58

MATC AT ST H LINE ATIO 4 N - 14 9 23+00

581.00

GE

ID

BR

581

50'

581

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

ET

RE

609'

ST

580.0 0

Y TH AL

580.00

PLAN VIEW STA 1396+00 TO 1450+00

580.00

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL

E BRIDGE

SEAL:

STATION 1423+00 - 1450+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

25

580.00

0 1.0 58

579.00 580 .0

0 0

50'

581.00

0.0

0

0

581.00

DGE

BRI

.00

580

582.00

EET

579.0

STR

58

0 4.0 58 0 3.0 58

MATCH L AT STAT INE - 50 ION - 145 0+00

9.0

TON

581 .00

57

FUL

580.00

581.00

.00

582.00

580

0

582.0

SHEET TITLE:

582 .00

58 3. 0 0

PROJECT TITLE:

58 0 3.0

PLAN VIEW STA 1450+00 TO 1478+80

E

HWY 131 BRIDG

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

LOCOMO

51 E0 LIN 477+0 1 TCH MA TION STA

AT

TIVE BR IDGE

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

NO. DATE

REVISION

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL STATION 1450+00 - 1477+00 SCALE: 1" = 100'

LEGEND 596'

FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) APPROXIMATE RIVER BANK REFERENCE MATCH LINE

PROPOSED DREDGE CENTERLINE PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL LIMITS

SUBMERGED OBJECT KEY L S U

LOG STRUCTURE UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT

SEAL:

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD83, MICHIGAN STATE PLANES, SOUTH ZONE, INTERNATIONAL FT 3. LATEST SURVEY PERFORMED ON 11/1/2016 BY OTHERS 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88) 6.

AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 7. SEE SHEET # 2 FOR OVERALL PROJECT STATIONING

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

26

610 518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

570 560 254+00

255+00

256+00

257+00

258+00

259+00

260+00

261+00

262+00

263+00

264+00

265+00

266+00

267+00

268+00

269+00

270+00

271+00

272+00

273+00

274+00

275+00

276+00

277+00

278+00

279+00

280+00

281+00

282+00

283+00

284+00

285+00

286+00

287+00

288+00

289+00

290+00

291+00

292+00

293+00

294+00

295+00

STATION 254+00 - 295+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

610 600

PROFILE VIEW STA 254+00-421+00

590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

570 560 295+00

296+00

297+00

298+00

299+00

300+00

301+00

302+00

303+00

304+00

305+00

306+00

307+00

308+00

309+00

310+00

311+00

312+00

313+00

314+00

315+00

316+00

317+00

318+00

319+00

320+00

321+00

322+00

323+00

324+00

325+00

326+00

327+00

328+00

329+00

330+00

331+00

332+00

333+00

334+00

335+00

336+00

337+00

STATION 295+00 - 337+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

SHEET TITLE:

600

PROJECT TITLE:

610

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

NO. DATE

570

REVISION

560 337+00

338+00

339+00

340+00

341+00

342+00

343+00

344+00

345+00

346+00

347+00

348+00

349+00

350+00

351+00

352+00

353+00

354+00

355+00

356+00

357+00

358+00

359+00

360+00

361+00

362+00

363+00

364+00

365+00

366+00

367+00

368+00

369+00

370+00

371+00

372+00

373+00

374+00

375+00

376+00

377+00

378+00

379+00

STATION 337+00 - 379+00

ISSUED FOR:

SCALE: 1" = 150'

FINAL

610 SEAL:

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

570 560 379+00

380+00

381+00

382+00

383+00

384+00

385+00

386+00

387+00

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. GREY HATCH RESEMBLES PROPOSED DREDGE (AWL - 6') 3. HYDRAULIC WATER LEVEL DATA OBTAINED FROM USGS 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88)

388+00

389+00

390+00

391+00

392+00

393+00

394+00

395+00

396+00

397+00

398+00

399+00

400+00

401+00

402+00

403+00

404+00

405+00

406+00

407+00

408+00

409+00

410+00

411+00

412+00

413+00

414+00

415+00

416+00

417+00

418+00

419+00

420+00

421+00

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

STATION 379+00 - 421+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

27

610 518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

570 560 589+00

590+00

591+00

592+00

593+00

594+00

595+00

596+00

597+00

598+00

599+00

600+00

601+00

602+00

603+00

604+00

605+00

606+00

607+00

608+00

609+00

610+00

611+00

612+00

613+00

614+00

615+00

616+00

617+00

618+00

619+00

620+00

621+00

622+00

623+00

624+00

625+00

626+00

627+00

628+00

629+00

630+00

631+00

STATION 589+00 - 631+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

610 600 590 580

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

570 560 631+00

632+00

633+00

634+00

635+00

636+00

637+00

638+00

639+00

640+00

641+00

642+00

643+00

644+00

645+00

646+00

647+00

648+00

649+00

650+00

651+00

652+00

653+00

654+00

655+00

656+00

657+00

658+00

659+00

660+00

661+00

662+00

663+00

664+00

665+00

666+00

667+00

668+00

669+00

670+00

671+00

672+00

673+00

STATION 631+00 - 673+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

SHEET TITLE:

590

PROJECT TITLE:

610 600

PROFILE VIEW STA 589+00-757+00

AVG. WATER ELEVATION

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

NO. DATE

570

REVISION

560 673+00

674+00

675+00

676+00

677+00

678+00

679+00

680+00

681+00

682+00

683+00

684+00

685+00

686+00

687+00

688+00

689+00

690+00

691+00

692+00

693+00

694+00

695+00

696+00

697+00

698+00

699+00

700+00

701+00

702+00

703+00

704+00

705+00

706+00

707+00

708+00

709+00

710+00

711+00

712+00

713+00

714+00

715+00

STATION 673+00 - 715+00

ISSUED FOR:

SCALE: 1" = 150'

FINAL

610 SEAL:

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

570 560 715+00

716+00

717+00

718+00

719+00

720+00

721+00

722+00

723+00

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. GREY HATCH RESEMBLES PROPOSED DREDGE (AWL - 6') 3. HYDRAULIC WATER LEVEL DATA OBTAINED FROM USGS 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88)

724+00

725+00

726+00

727+00

728+00

729+00

730+00

731+00

732+00

733+00

734+00

735+00

736+00

737+00

738+00

739+00

740+00

741+00

742+00

743+00

744+00

745+00

746+00

747+00

748+00

749+00

750+00

751+00

752+00

753+00

754+00

755+00

756+00

757+00

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

STATION 715+00 - 757+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

29

610 518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION (AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 925+00

926+00

927+00

928+00

929+00

930+00

931+00

932+00

933+00

934+00

935+00

936+00

937+00

938+00

939+00

940+00

941+00

942+00

943+00

944+00

945+00

946+00

947+00

948+00

949+00

950+00

951+00

952+00

953+00

954+00

955+00

956+00

957+00

958+00

959+00

960+00

961+00

962+00

963+00

964+00

965+00

966+00

967+00

STATION 925+00 - 967+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

610 600 590

PROFILE VIEW STA 925+00-1093+00

AVG. WATER ELEVATION

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 967+00

968+00

969+00

970+00

971+00

972+00

973+00

974+00

975+00

976+00

977+00

978+00

979+00

980+00

981+00

982+00

983+00

984+00

985+00

986+00

987+00

988+00

989+00

990+00

991+00

992+00

993+00

994+00

995+00

996+00

997+00

998+00

999+00

1000+00

1001+00

1002+00

1003+00

1004+00

1005+00

1006+00

1007+00

1008+00

1009+00

STATION 967+00 - 1009+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

SHEET TITLE:

600

PROJECT TITLE:

610

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580

NO. DATE

570

REVISION

560 1009+00

1010+00

1011+00

1012+00

1013+00

1014+00

1015+00

1016+00

1017+00

1018+00

1019+00

1020+00

1021+00

1022+00

1023+00

1024+00

1025+00

1026+00

1027+00

1028+00

1029+00

1030+00

1031+00

1032+00

1033+00

1034+00

1035+00

1036+00

1037+00

1038+00

1039+00

1040+00

1041+00

1042+00

1043+00

1044+00

1045+00

1046+00

1047+00

1048+00

1049+00

1050+00

1051+00

STATION 1009+00 - 1051+00

ISSUED FOR:

SCALE: 1" = 150'

FINAL

610 SEAL:

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION (AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 1051+00

1052+00

1053+00

1054+00

1055+00

1056+00

1057+00

1058+00

1059+00

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. GREY HATCH RESEMBLES PROPOSED DREDGE (AWL - 6') 3. HYDRAULIC WATER LEVEL DATA OBTAINED FROM USGS 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88)

1060+00

1061+00

1062+00

1063+00

1064+00

1065+00

1066+00

1067+00

1068+00

1069+00

1070+00

1071+00

1072+00

1073+00

1074+00

1075+00

1076+00

1077+00

1078+00

1079+00

1080+00

1081+00

1082+00

1083+00

1084+00

1085+00

1086+00

1087+00

1088+00

1089+00

1090+00

1091+00

1092+00

1093+00

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

STATION 1051+00 - 1093+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

31

610 518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION (AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 1093+00

1094+00

1095+00

1096+00

1097+00

1098+00

1099+00

1100+00

1101+00

1102+00

1103+00

1104+00

1105+00

1106+00

1107+00

1108+00

1109+00

1110+00

1111+00

1112+00

1113+00

1114+00

1115+00

1116+00

1117+00

1118+00

1119+00

1120+00

1121+00

1122+00

1123+00

1124+00

1125+00

1126+00

1127+00

1128+00

1129+00

1130+00

1131+00

1132+00

1133+00

1134+00

1135+00

STATION 1093+00 - 1135+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

610 600 590

PROFILE VIEW STA 1093+00-1261+00

AVG. WATER ELEVATION

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 1135+00

1136+00

1137+00

1138+00

1139+00

1140+00

1141+00

1142+00

1143+00

1144+00

1145+00

1146+00

1147+00

1148+00

1149+00

1150+00

1151+00

1152+00

1153+00

1154+00

1155+00

1156+00

1157+00

1158+00

1159+00

1160+00

1161+00

1162+00

1163+00

1164+00

1165+00

1166+00

1167+00

1168+00

1169+00

1170+00

1171+00

1172+00

1173+00

1174+00

1175+00

1176+00

1177+00

STATION 1135+00 - 1177+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION

SHEET TITLE:

600

PROJECT TITLE:

610

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580

NO. DATE

REVISION

570 560 1177+00

1178+00

1179+00

1180+00

1181+00

1182+00

1183+00

1184+00

1185+00

1186+00

1187+00

1188+00

1189+00

1190+00

1191+00

1192+00

1193+00

1194+00

1195+00

1196+00

1197+00

1198+00

1199+00

1200+00

1201+00

1202+00

1203+00

1204+00

1205+00

1206+00

1207+00

1208+00

1209+00

1210+00

1211+00

1212+00

1213+00

1214+00

1215+00

1216+00

1217+00

1218+00

1219+00

STATION 1177+00 - 1219+00

ISSUED FOR:

SCALE: 1" = 150'

FINAL

610 SEAL:

600 590 AVG. WATER ELEVATION (AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 1219+00

1220+00

1221+00

1222+00

1223+00

1224+00

1225+00

1226+00

1227+00

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. GREY HATCH RESEMBLES PROPOSED DREDGE (AWL - 6') 3. HYDRAULIC WATER LEVEL DATA OBTAINED FROM USGS 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88)

1228+00

1229+00

1230+00

1231+00

1232+00

1233+00

1234+00

1235+00

1236+00

1237+00

1238+00

1239+00

1240+00

1241+00

1242+00

1243+00

1244+00

1245+00

1246+00

1247+00

1248+00

1249+00

1250+00

1251+00

1252+00

1253+00

1254+00

1255+00

1256+00

1257+00

1258+00

1259+00

1260+00

1261+00

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

STATION 1219+00 - 1261+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

32

610 518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

600 590

AVG. WATER ELEVATION (AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 1261+00

1262+00

1263+00

1264+00

1265+00

1266+00

1267+00

1268+00

1269+00

1270+00

1271+00

1272+00

1273+00

1274+00

1275+00

1276+00

1277+00

1278+00

1279+00

1280+00

1281+00

1282+00

1283+00

1284+00

1285+00

1286+00

1287+00

1288+00

1289+00

1290+00

1291+00

1292+00

1293+00

1294+00

1295+00

1296+00

1297+00

1298+00

1299+00

1300+00

1301+00

1302+00

1303+00

STATION 1261+00 - 1303+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

610 600 590

PROFILE VIEW STA 1261+00-1429+00

AVG. WATER ELEVATION

580

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

(AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

570 560 1303+00

1304+00

1305+00

1306+00

1307+00

1308+00

1309+00

1310+00

1311+00

1312+00

1313+00

1314+00

1315+00

1316+00

1317+00

1318+00

1319+00

1320+00

1321+00

1322+00

1323+00

1324+00

1325+00

1326+00

1327+00

1328+00

1329+00

1330+00

1331+00

1332+00

1333+00

1334+00

1335+00

1336+00

1337+00

1338+00

1339+00

1340+00

1341+00

1342+00

1343+00

1344+00

1345+00

STATION 1303+00 - 1345+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

590

AVG. WATER ELEVATION (AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580

SHEET TITLE:

600

PROJECT TITLE:

610

NO. DATE

570

REVISION

560 1345+00

1346+00

1347+00

1348+00

1349+00

1350+00

1351+00

1352+00

1353+00

1354+00

1355+00

1356+00

1357+00

1358+00

1359+00

1360+00

1361+00

1362+00

1363+00

1364+00

1365+00

1366+00

1367+00

1368+00

1369+00

1370+00

1371+00

1372+00

1373+00

1374+00

1375+00

1376+00

1377+00

1378+00

1379+00

1380+00

1381+00

1382+00

1383+00

1384+00

1385+00

1386+00

1387+00

STATION 1345+00 - 1387+00

ISSUED FOR:

SCALE: 1" = 150'

FINAL

610 SEAL:

600 590

AVG. WATER ELEVATION (AWL - 5.0') (AWL - 6.0') (AWL - 7.0')

580 570 560 1387+00

1388+00

1389+00

1390+00

1391+00

1392+00

1393+00

1394+00

1395+00

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. GREY HATCH RESEMBLES PROPOSED DREDGE (AWL - 6') 3. HYDRAULIC WATER LEVEL DATA OBTAINED FROM USGS 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88)

1396+00

1397+00

1398+00

1399+00

1400+00

1401+00

1402+00

1403+00

1404+00

1405+00

1406+00

1407+00

1408+00

1409+00

1410+00

1411+00

1412+00

1413+00

1414+00

1415+00

1416+00

1417+00

1418+00

1419+00

1420+00

1421+00

1422+00

1423+00

1424+00

1425+00

1426+00

1427+00

1428+00

1429+00

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

STATION 1387+00 - 1429+00 SCALE: 1" = 150'

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

33

600

TYPICAL SECTION AT STATION: 510+00.00

600

TYPICAL SECTION AT STATION: 690+00.00

600

600

590

PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL

590

590

PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL

590

580

580

580

580

570

570

570

570

50

40

30

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

50

40

30

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

EXISTING RIVER BOTTOM EXISTING RIVER BOTTOM

TYPICAL SECTION AT STATION: 1000+00.00

600

590

PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL

600

610

590

600

TYPICAL SECTION AT STATION: 1410+00.00

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

PROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOM (LWD - 6')

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

PROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOM (LWD - 6')

NO. DATE

TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS (AWL - 6.0')

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

REVISION

610

600

PROPOSED 50' DREDGE CHANNEL

ISSUED FOR:

FINAL 580

580

590

590 SEAL: 1 (TYP.)

570

570 50

40

30

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2

580

580 50

40

30

20

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

EXISTING RIVER BOTTOM PROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOM ELEVATION (AWL - 6' NO DREDGE REQUIRED)

PROPOSED CHANNEL BOTTOM (AWL - 6')

EXISTING RIVER BOTTOM DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

NOTES: 1.

VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88 2. GREY HATCH RESEMBLES PROPOSED DREDGE (AWL - 6') 3. HYDRAULIC WATER LEVEL DATA OBTAINED FROM USGS 4. AVERAGE WATER LEVELS CALCULATED FOR BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAYSEPTEMBER) 4. APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT GRAND RAPIDS = 589.47' (NAVD88) 5.

APPROXIMATE AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION AT EASTMANVILLE = 580.59' (NAVD88)

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

SHEET NUMBER:

35

GAUGE STATION PROFILE

USGS GAUGE STATION 04119000 GRAND RAPIDS, MI

SCALE: 1" = 5' @ 24"x36" HORIZONTAL EXAGGERATION = 1/1000

610'

518 Broad Street, Suite 200 Saint Joseph, MI 49085 P: (269) 932.4502 F: (269) 932.3542 www.edgewaterresources.com

APPLICABLE GAUGE STATION RECORDINGS 605'

600'

USGS GAUGE STATION 04119400 EASTMANVILLE, MI

595' AVERAGE WATER LEVEL GRADIENT

590'

590' AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION DURING BOATING SEASON (589.47')

APPLICABLE GAUGE STATION RECORDINGS 585.237' (USGS GAUGE STATION ELEVATION)

585' 8.88' WATER FLOW

132,100' 580'

UPSTREAM TOWARDS HEADWATERS

575'

570' 569.09' (USGS GAUGE STATION ELEVATION)

565'

DO LA WN KE ST MI RE CH AM IG AN TOW AR

SHEET TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE: AM HE TO AD WA WA RD TE S RS

NO. DATE

REVISION

ST RE

N: 560015.48' E: 1547291.75'

HWY 131

UP

I-96

HWY 37

KENT COUNTY

USGS GAUGING STATION 04119400

OTTAWA COUNTY

DOWNSTREAM TOWARDS LAKE MICHIGAN

HYDRAULIC DATA EXHIBIT

AVERAGE WATER ELEVATION DURING BOATING SEASON (580.59')

EXISTING CONDITIONS GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

580'

585'

EASTMANVILLE DS

ISSUED FOR:

BA

SS

RI

VE

R

FINAL

SEAL:

LAKE MICHIGAN DR

GRAND RAPIDS

USGS GAUGING STATION 04119000

GRAND RIVER PROJECT AREA

N: 536564.81' E: 1640523.35'

DATE: PROJ NO.: SCALE: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY:

5/2/17 15-37 MDNR VARIES CH MK CH

M-11 THE REPRODUCTION, COPYING OR OTHER USE OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT IS PROHIBITED.

WYOMING GRANDVILLE HWY 131

GAUGE STATION LOCATION MAP

M-121

NTS I-196

SHEET NUMBER:

36

APPENDIX II

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

Grand Haven Harbor and Grand River, MI Harbor Features  Located on the east shore of Lake Michigan, 180 miles northeast of Chicago, IL and 23 miles north of Holland, MI. The Grand River originates in Jackson County, MI and flows 260 miles west into Lake Michigan.  Authorization: River & Harbor Acts of 23 Jun 1866, and subsequent acts  Deep draft commercial harbor  Project depths of 23 feet in the entrance; 18 to 21 feet in the river channel and turning basin; 8 feet in the upper Grand River channel  751K tons of material shipped and received in 2013  Over 9,000 feet of structures including piers and revetments  Over 2.5 miles of maintained deep draft channel and 14.5 miles of shallow draft river channel  Outer channel dredged material is used for beach nourishment. Inner channel material is placed upland in a site that enables reuse.  Major stakeholders include U.S. Coast Guard, Construction Aggregate Corporation, Grand Haven Board of Light and Power, Meekoff Dock Inc., St. Marys Cement Inc., and Verplank Trucking.

Project Requirements  Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material must be dredged from the outer harbor annually. Approximately 20,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of material must be dredged from the inner channel on a 2 to 4 year cycle. The outer harbor was last dredged in 2015. Maintenance dredging in the inner and outer harbor is planned for 2016.

 The south pier was damaged by significant wave action associated with a major storm that impacted Southern Lake Michigan on October 31, 2014. Sustained winds of 50-60 mph and waves near 30 feet accelerated the deterioration on the breakwater to the point where significant repairs are needed to reduce risks to commercial navigation. Emergency funding was received in 2015 to initiate design of the project. The repairs are planned for 2016.  Work was completed in 2011 on a section of the south revetment that was damaged in a 2009 storm, however a large section is still in need of repair. Additional damage occurred from a storm on October 31, 2014.

Consequences of Not Maintaining the Project  Reduction of bulk commodities that pass through the harbor that generate $1.57B annually in business revenue while supporting 9,518 direct, indirect, and induced jobs that produce over $472M per year in personal income in transportation and commodity related industries.  Light loading; loss of between 4 and 5 feet of channel depth results in increased transportation costs of between $2.2M and $3.2M annually.

April 2016

Transportation Importance  Significant regional receiving port on the Great Lakes  Harbor of Refuge  Large recreational tourism base that relies on the functionality of the harbor; the city of Grand Haven reports revenue of $49M and 3,100 jobs that rely on harbor tourism.  Commodities received include sand, gravel, salt, cement, gypsum, coal, and manufactured goods

 Adequate rail lines do not exist to deliver coal to the municipal power plant, which supplies power to over 13,500 customers.  The harbor is home to the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Grand Haven Station, which is responsible for subordinate commands including: search and rescue, law enforcement, ice rescue, homeland security defense operations.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, 2016 and 2017 Grand Haven Harbor and Grand River, MI Project Requirements and President’s Budget ($1,000)

Work Package Maintenance Dredging Outer Harbor – Primary Work Package Maintenance Dredging Inner Harbor – Primary Work Package Maintenance Dredging – Backlog Work Package Sediment Budget Analysis – Section 111 Repair to Damaged Section of South Pier - Contract South Pier Repair by Contract South Revetment Repair by Contract Other Business Lines Environmental Stewardship

FY17 FY15 FY15 FY16 FY16 Requirement Appropriation Requirement Appropriation Requirement 500

500

400

400

600

600

1,000

1,000

150

150

2,100

250

1,800

1,800

500

FY17 President’s Budget 500

150

1,800

1,800

1,800

22

22

15

15

17

11

5,572

772

5,765

2,815

2,467

511

Recreation TOTAL

Congressional Interests • Representative Bill Huizenga R-MI-2 • Senator Gary Peters D-MI • Senator Debbie Stabenow D-MI

April 2016

As of: 24-Mar-2014

CONTRACT DREDGING REPORT, DETROIT DISTRICT, OPERATIONS OFFICE

FY

START

COMPLETION

CUBIC YARDS

CONTRACT AMOUNT

CONTRACTOR CONTRACT NUMBER

DREDGE AREA

PLACEMENT AREA Place the dredged materials onto the placement site beginning at a point 3000 ft, north of the north breakwater, then extending 2000 ft. northerly.

The dredged material was placed in the near shore contour at a point 3,000 feet north of the north pier, then extending 2,000 feet northerly.

Grand Haven Harbor and Grand River 2013

6/20/2013

8/30/2013

115,954

$809,107

THE KING CO., INC. W911XK-12-D-0011

Outer: STA 22+00 to 14+00 24'+1' OD and Inner: C/S 90+00 to C/S 130+00 to a depth of 21.0' + 1'OD, C/S 76+00 to C/S 81+00 to a depth of 21.0" + 1' OD

2012

5/10/2012

6/5/2012

30,336

$225,724

M.C.M. MARINE INC. W911XK-12-D-0006

Dredging occurred between sta. 25+00W and sta. 14+00W to a depth of 23' plus 1.5' overdepth in the outer harbor.

2011

5/7/2011

5/11/2011

14,000

$130,000

Outer

2010

3/29/2010

4/14/2010

12,000

$118,800

2009 11/24/2009

3/29/2010

122,735

$2,203,770

2009

6/2/2009

6/16/2009

71,466

$443,076

KING COMPANY, INC. W911XK-09-D-0003 LUEDTKE ENGINEERING CO. W911XK-09-D-0002 BAYSHORE CONTRACTORS, LCC W911XK-09-D-0007 KING COMPANY, INC. W911XK-08-D-0001

2008

6/3/2008

6/25/2008

39,165

$274,990

KING W911XK-08-C-0002

25+00W-14+00W TO 23' + 1'

2007

5/18/2007

6/2/2007

42,849

$200,541

KING W911XK-06-D-0001

25+00W-14+00W 23' +1'

2006

8/25/2006

9/22/2006

42,901

$693,939

MORRISH-WALLACE W911XK-06-D-0003

2006

4/15/2006

5/4/2006

61,740

$295,960

MCM MARINE W911XK-06-D-0004

94+00-114+00 & 61+00-72+00 TO 21' +1'OD ALLOWED CONTRACT INCLUDES SITE WORK 25+00W-14+00W

2005

4/4/2005

4/30/2005

35,888

$209,451

LUEDTKE W911XK-05-D-0002

49+98E-21+00W

2004

5/11/2004

5/26/2004

26,654

$177,710

MCM MARINE DACW35-02-C-0004

CRITICAL SHOALS

BEACH 9000-10000' N OF N BREAKWATER 4'CNTR-EXISTING SHORELINE NEARSHORE 6200'-8200'S OF S PIER 8'CNTR BEACH

2003

5/10/2003

5/14/2003

11,943

$103,601

CRITICAL SHOALS

BEACH

2002

5/1/2002

5/14/2002

26,692

$170,824

MCM MARINE DACW35-02-C-0004 MCM MARINE DACW35-02-C-0004

25+00-7+03

2001

5/7/2001

5/20/2001

27,063

$148,565

KING DACW35-99-C-0009

25+00W-14+00W

2000

3/23/2000

4/20/2000

28,927

$157,885

25+00W-14+00W

1999

4/1/1999

4/25/1999

42,402

$225,260

KING DACW35-99-C-0009 KING DACW35-99-C-0009

BEACH 6000'-7000' N OR S OF HARBOR 2-6'CNTR BEACH 0'-1000'N OF N PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 6000'-7000'N OF N PIER

7/22/1998 11/30/1998

55,143

$385,753

KING DACW35-98-C-0018

50+95.74-131+70.13 PARTIAL TURNING BASIN 25+00W-14+00W

1998

OUTER INNER OUTER

25+00W-14+00W

1997

4/1/1997

4/27/1997

46,229

$220,863

MCM MARINE DACW35-96-C-0011

1996

5/28/1996

6/7/1996

30,691

$150,307

MCM MARINE DACW35-96-C-0011

25+00W-14+00W

1995

6/17/1996 11/16/1996

91,227

$794,225

MCM MARINE DACW35-95-C-0072

2.5-12MI FROM ENTRANCE

1995

4/15/1995

5/8/1995

23,858

$135,612

MCM MARINE DACW35-95-C-0007

25+00W-14+00W

1994

4/25/1994

5/4/1994

21,212

$158,258

KING DACW35-94-C-0007

25+00W-14+00W 3' ALLOWABLE OD

1993

4/6/1993

4/23/1993

19,021

$110,675

KING DACW35-93-C-0005

1992 10/20/1992 12/14/1992

95,116

$506,527

EASTERN DREDGING DACW35-92-C-0040

1992

3/16/1992

5/4/1992

57,018

$355,410

ANDRIE DACW35-92-C-0005

25+00W - 14+00W 2' OVERDEPTH ALLOWED LAKEWARD OF PIERHEADS 17+00-131+35 EXCLUDING TURNING BASINS 25+00W - 14+00W

1991

4/14/1991

4/26/1991

23,300

$207,665

ANDRIE DACW35-91-C-0005

25+00W - 14+00W

BEACH 5000'-7000'N OF N PIER BETWEEN 8&12' CONTOURS BEACH 4000'-5000'N OF N PIER 8'CNTR-4'CNTR UPLAND AT VERPLANKS

BEACH 3000'-4000' AND 6000'7000'N OF N PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM UPLAND AT VERPLANK PROPERTY BEACH 7000'-8000'N OF N PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 7000'-8000'S OF S PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM UPLAND SITE - ROBINSON TOWNSHIP 250' FROM NORTH CEDAR DRIVE BEACH 7000'-8500'S OF S PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 5000'-6000' & 7000'-8000' S OF S PIER 50/50 8'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 6000'-7500'S OF S PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM HARBOR ISLAND CDF BEACH 9500'-11500' N OF N PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 4800'-5800' S OF S PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM

FY 1990

START COMPLETION 5/3/1990 5/21/1990

CUBIC YARDS 16,221

CONTRACT AMOUNT $115,704

1989

4/7/1989

5/9/1989

15,359

$146,761

KING DACW35-89-C-0007

25+00W - 14+00W

1988

10/1/1988

5/26/1989

104,909

$482,602

KING DACW35-88-C-0031

1988

5/1/1988

5/21/1988

22,636

$196,852

KING DACW35-88-C-0006

17+00E - 131+00E INCLUDING TURNING BASIN 25+00W - 10+00E

1987

4/13/1987

5/8/1987

22,442

$217,837

KING DACW35-87-C-0012

25+00W - 10+00E

1986

3/12/1986

4/6/1986

33,565

$318,232

DUROCHER DACW35-86-C-0015

ENTRANCE 1+00W - 11+00E + 4' OVERDEPTH IN FLARE AREA

1985

3/18/1985

8/2/1985

49,640

$382,259

LUEDTKE DACW35-85-C-0009

OUTER FLARE AREA

1985

7/3/1985

7/12/1985

14,306

$80,777

51+60E - 131+00E

1984

6/19/1984

7/20/1984

67,988

$219,764

HARBOR MARINE DACW35-85-C-0031 HARBOR MARINE DACW35-84-C-0012

1984

3/4/1984

3/31/1984

25,422

$113,366

CANONIE DACW35-84-C-0009

1983

3/22/1983

5/3/1983

42,064

$103,168

GOVT/HAINS

BEACH 0'-5000' S OF S PIER (5000CY) 6000'-8500'N&S OF PIERS 8'CNTR-OHWM (50/50) 10211CY EACH SIDE OPEN WATER

1983 12/10/1982 12/18/1982

18,456

$45,273

GOVT/HAINS

HARBOR ISLAND CDF

1982 12/15/1981

4/10/1982

70,601

$336,071

LUEDTKE DACW35-82-C-0003

50+41E - 120+50E (INNER)

HARBOR ISLAND CDF

1982

4/10/1982

20,279

$90,324

LUEDTKE DACW35-82-C-0003

OUTER CONTOUR - 14+00W (OUTER)

1981 12/13/1980 12/23/1980

38,565

$136,223

GOVT/HAINS

BEACH 13000'-16000'S OF S PIER 8'CNTR-OHWM HARBOR ISLAND CDF

1980

3/23/1980

29,214

$83,431

GOVT/HAINS

NEARSHORE 18'CNTR

1980 12/10/1979 12/22/1979

33,785

$96,485

GOVT/HAINS

HARBOR ISLAND CDF

3/22/1982

3/17/1980

CONTRACTOR CONTRACT NUMBER KING DACW35-90-C-0007

DREDGE AREA CRITICAL SHOALS 25+00W - 14+00W

61+00E - 131+00E INCLUDING TURNING BASIN (INNER) OUTER FLARE AREA (OUTER)

PLACEMENT AREA BEACH 4800'- 5800' S OF S PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 6000'-7500' S OF S PIER 4'CNTR - OHWM HARBOR ISLAND CDF BEACH 6000'-7500' S OF S PIER 4'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 0'-1000'S (5000CY) 37005000'S AND 13000-15000'N (50/50) 4'CNTR - OHWM BEACH O'-CENTER LINE OF GRAND AVE SOUTH AND 2750'4000'N 4'CNTR-OHWM BEACH 0'-1000'S (10000CY) 6000'S-7000'S AND 9000'N10500'N (50/50) 8'CNTR-OHWM HARBOR ISLAND CDF HARBOR ISLAND CDF

1979

3/19/1979

4/8/1979

131,075

$335,207

GOVT/HAINS

HARBOR ISLAND CDF

1978

4/5/1978

4/16/1978

60,102

$100,167

GOVT/HAINS

VERPLANK'S

1977

4/4/1977

4/15/1977

18,706

$100,391

GOVT/HAINS

VERPLANK'S

1976

4/5/1976

4/18/1976

71,829

$163,397

GOVT/HAINS

VERPLANK'S

1975

4/27/1975

6/26/1975

36,700

$103,394

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

1975

3/17/1975

4/25/1975

134,943

$272,757

GOVT/HAINS

1974

6/4/1974

6/28/1974

45,680

$73,183

1974

3/20/1974

4/22/1974

87,576

$153,593

1974 11/15/1973 11/17/1973

3,600

$20,267

GOVT/TOMPKINS

CDF

CONT/WM STENDER DACW35-74-C-0102 GOVT/HAINS

GRAND RIVER 832+00-421+00

CDF

VERPLANK'S 831+00-413+00

OPEN WATER

INNER & OUTER

VERPLANK'S

1973

4/30/1993

6/6/1993

45,747

$67,056

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

OPEN WATER

1973

4/23/1973

5/8/1973

107,562

$80,015

GOVT/HAINS

OPEN WATER

1973

4/18/1973

4/24/1973

5,525

$47,654

GOVT/TOMPKINS

OPEN WATER

1972

5/23/1972

6/10/1972

44,378

$38,072

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

OPEN WATER

1972

4/20/1972

4/30/1972

64,194

$39,539

GOVT/HAINS

OPEN WATER

1972

3/21/1972

4/4/1972

14,900

$31,147

GOVT/TOMPKINS

OPEN WATER

CUBIC YARDS 54,462

CONTRACT AMOUNT $35,089

1971

15,650

$11,913

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

OPEN WATER

1971

17,310

$39,078

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

OPEN WATER

FY 1971

START COMPLETION 3/22/1971 4/5/1971

CONTRACTOR CONTRACT NUMBER GOVT/HAINS

1970

5/22/1970

6/30/1970

13,823

$50,482

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

1970

12/4/1969

12/8/1969

111,576

$70,124

GOVT/HAINS

1969

5/27/1969

6/30/1969

54,996

$19,878

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

1969

1/1/1969

4/20/1969

78,956

$40,368

GOVT TOMPKINS

1969

3/18/1969

4/8/1969

118,957

$27,000

GOVT/HAINS

1968

5/22/1968

7/7/1968

46,594

$37,025

1968

4/30/1968

5/10/1968

16,200

$40,315

GOVT/DEPOE BAY DACW35-67-C-0070 GOVT/TOMPKINS

1968

3/18/1968

4/2/1968

174,954

$71,473

GOVT/HAINS

16,861

$46,352

RENTAL WM STENDER

201,342

$65,519

GOVT/HAINS

11,860

$24,864

RENTAL WM STENDER

1968

1967

3/25/1967

4/15/1967

1967 1966

6/8/1966

7/31/1966

46,075

$37,765

RENTAL CAPITAL

1966

3/16/1966

4/4/1966

97,895

$62,039

GOVT/HAINS

1966 11/22/1965 11/25/1965

3,300

$12,775

GOVT/TOMPKINS

1966

17,357

$12,092

RENTAL

1966

13,072

$11,320

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

132,490

$69,204

GOVT/HAINS

1965

8,620

$28,277

GOVT/TOMPKINS

1965

41,000

$19,229

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

1965

3/24/1965

4/14/1965

1964

5/19/1964

6/30/1964

80,736

$29,422

GOVT/DEPOE BAY

1964

6/12/1963

7/29/1963

125,195

$32,719

RENTAL E&E DA2064CIVENG6394

1964

140,029

$67,032

GOVT/HAINS

1964

4,825

$12,415

GOVT/TOMPKINS

1963

79,608

$27,618

DREDGE AREA

GRAND RIVER 354+00-791+00

PLACEMENT AREA OPEN WATER

APPENDIX III

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

APPENDIX IV

GRAND RIVER WATERWAY – Dredging Feasibility Study

USGS DATA SORTED FOR BOATING SEASON (MAY ‐ SEPTEMBER)

USGS DATA FROM ALL SEASONS

USGS Eastmanville Gauge Station (2011 ‐ 2016, BOATING SEASON ONLY) Avg. Water Elevation = 580.59' Gauge Elevation = 569.09' Avg. Water Elevation = 11.50'

USGS Grand Rapids Gauge Station (1954 ‐ 2016, BOATING SEASON ONLY) Avg. Water Elevation = 589.47' Gauge Elevation = 585.24' Avg. Water Elevation = 4.24'

USGS Eastmanville Gauge Station (2011 ‐ 2016, ALL SEASONS) Avg. Gauge Height = 12.2' Max. Gauge Height = 20.4' Min. Gauge Height = 8.5'

USGS Grand Rapids Gauge Station (1954 ‐ 2016, ALL SEASONS) Avg. Gauge Height = 5.33' Max. Gauge Height = 21.5' Min. Gauge Height = 2.66'

*VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88, CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED DURING BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAY ‐ SEPTEMBER)

*VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88, CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED DURING BOATING SEASON ONLY (MAY ‐ SEPTEMBER)

*VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88, CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED DURING ALL SEASONS

*VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD88, CALCULATIONS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED DURING ALL SEASONS

USGS Eastmanville Gauge Station 04119400 (BOATING SEASON ONLY) Date Gauge Height (ft) 10/4/2016 12.08 9/14/2016 11.72 8/19/2016 12.41 8/10/2016 11.55 7/13/2016 11.8 6/24/2016 11.94 6/15/2016 12.18 6/15/2016 12.18 6/8/2016 11.95 5/4/2016 13.22 9/16/2015 11.26 8/19/2015 11.66 7/15/2015 12.17 6/23/2015 13.08 8/13/2014 10.71 6/18/2014 11.19 5/2/2014 11.19 8/7/2013 9.64 6/18/2013 13.18 5/9/2013 11.57 9/27/2012 8.47 8/30/2012 8.77 7/25/2012 9.05 7/10/2012 9.26 5/24/2012 9.94 10/28/2011 10.24 9/28/2011 9.77 9/28/2011 9.79 8/25/2011 10.49 7/26/2011 9.96 6/29/2011 10.84 6/2/2011 15.11 5/19/2011 12.97 5/18/2011 12.82 5/10/2011 12.18 5/9/2011 12.56 5/3/2011 16.75

USGS Grand Rapids Gauge Station 04119000 (BOATING SEASON ONLY) Date Gauge Height (ft) 9/22/2016 3.62 7/28/2016 3.29 6/3/2016 3.72 10/22/2015 3.27 8/27/2015 3.47 6/30/2015 8.88 5/8/2015 3.82 9/11/2014 3.50 7/22/2014 4.20 5/28/2014 7.14 4/1/2014 12.49 10/21/2013 3.40 8/21/2013 3.12 6/25/2013 5.04 5/7/2013 8.46 9/21/2012 2.98 9/21/2012 2.98 6/7/2012 3.49 9/9/2011 3.29 6/28/2011 5.02 5/5/2011 13.16 5/2/2011 16.21 9/22/2010 3.37 7/27/2010 3.41 6/3/2010 5.70 10/27/2009 4.92 9/1/2009 3.60 7/7/2009 4.02 5/12/2009 8.55 10/2/2008 4.14 7/29/2008 3.25 6/3/2008 3.47 10/22/2007 3.69 8/28/2007 3.67 7/3/2007 3.26 5/8/2007 5.78 9/26/2006 3.56 7/31/2006 3.55 6/7/2006 4.00 10/5/2005 3.08 6/1/2005 3.39 10/13/2004 2.99 8/31/2004 3.74 7/16/2004 3.87 5/26/2004 19.20 5/19/2004 11.73 9/23/2003 2.85 9/11/2003 2.81 7/22/2003 3.37 5/27/2003 3.81 10/1/2002 2.98 8/26/2002 3.33 6/26/2002 3.48 5/22/2002 7.59 9/12/2001 3.43 7/16/2001 3.08 6/14/2001 5.29 9/13/2000 3.93 7/28/2000 3.14 6/16/2000 7.30 5/23/2000 17.25 5/3/2000 5.12 10/4/1999 3.17 7/16/1999 3.21 10/5/1998 3.01 8/10/1998 3.13 7/1/1998 3.26 10/20/1997 3.12 9/10/1997 3.21 7/30/1997 3.36 6/16/1997 3.65 1/7/1997 6.74 10/7/1996 3.14 8/26/1996 3.38 7/15/1996 3.25 10/12/1995 3.14 9/15/1995 3.06 8/29/1995 3.34 6/6/1995 4.37 9/8/1994 3.54 7/20/1994 5.55 5/4/1994 8.72 9/2/1993 4.08 7/12/1993 3.71 8/14/1992 3.68 6/26/1992 3.38 5/21/1992 3.68 9/12/1991 3.25 8/5/1991 3.39 5/9/1991 6.94 8/29/1990 3.31 6/5/1990 3.87 9/28/1989 3.44 7/10/1989 3.83 10/27/1988 5.12 9/15/1988 3.06 8/5/1988 2.85 6/21/1988 2.92 8/26/1987 3.70 6/2/1987 3.07 9/24/1986 8.14 7/3/1986 4.00 10/24/1985 5.62

USGS Eastmanville Gauge Station 04119400 (ALL SEASONS) Gauge Height (ft) 11.72 12.41 11.55 11.8 11.94 12.18 12.18 11.95 13.22 13.4 14.24 14.91 14.91 12.63 11.39 11.14

Date 9/14/2016 8/19/2016 8/10/2016 7/13/2016 6/24/2016 6/15/2016 6/15/2016 6/8/2016 5/4/2016 4/19/2016 4/13/2016 4/7/2016 4/7/2016 3/9/2016 12/2/2015 11/4/2015 10/14/2015 9/16/2015 8/19/2015 7/15/2015 6/23/2015 4/29/2015 4/29/2015 11/5/2014 8/13/2014 6/18/2014 5/2/2014 4/16/2014 11/13/2013 8/7/2013 6/18/2013 5/9/2013 4/23/2013 4/22/2013 4/19/2013 4/16/2013 12/11/2012 11/6/2012 9/27/2012 8/30/2012 7/25/2012 7/10/2012 5/24/2012 4/26/2012 2/27/2012 12/21/2011 10/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 8/25/2011 7/26/2011 6/29/2011 6/2/2011 5/19/2011 5/18/2011 5/10/2011 5/9/2011 5/3/2011 4/29/2011

11.26 11.66 12.17 13.08 11.48 11.47 11.06 10.71 11.19 11.19 13.17 9.81 9.64 13.18 11.57 20.12 20.38 20.35 17.71 8.61 8.57 8.47 8.77 9.05 9.26 9.94 10.52 10.73 11.46 10.24 9.77 9.79 10.49 9.96 10.84 15.11 12.97 12.82 12.18 12.56 16.75 16.36

USGS Grand Rapids Gauge Station 04119000 (ALL SEASONS) Gauge Height (ft) 3.62 3.29 3.72 9.69 4.35 3.96 3.27 3.47 8.88 3.82 4.82 3.51 3.5 4.2 7.14 12.49 9.23 4.03 3.47 3.4 3.12 5.04 8.46 21.5 20.15 16.91 8.91 4.54 3.19 2.98

Date 9/22/2016 7/28/2016 6/3/2016 3/31/2016 2/19/2016 12/15/2015 10/22/2015 8/27/2015 6/30/2015 5/8/2015 3/12/2015 11/6/2014 9/11/2014 7/22/2014 5/28/2014 4/1/2014 3/20/2014 2/6/2014 12/13/2013 10/21/2013 8/21/2013 6/25/2013 5/7/2013 4/22/2013 4/19/2013 4/17/2013 3/13/2013 1/16/2013 11/20/2012 9/21/2012 9/21/2012 9/14/2012 6/7/2012 4/6/2012 2/1/2012 12/5/2011 12/5/2011 9/9/2011 6/28/2011 5/5/2011 5/2/2011 3/10/2011 1/6/2011 9/22/2010 7/27/2010 6/3/2010 4/13/2010 4/6/2010 2/18/2010 12/22/2009 10/27/2009 9/1/2009 7/7/2009 5/12/2009 3/17/2009 12/30/2008 11/18/2008 10/2/2008 7/29/2008 6/3/2008 4/8/2008 12/20/2007 10/22/2007 8/28/2007 7/3/2007 5/8/2007 4/2/2007 3/13/2007 1/16/2007 11/17/2006 9/26/2006 7/31/2006 6/7/2006 4/12/2006 2/13/2006 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 10/5/2005 6/1/2005 4/6/2005 12/28/2004 10/13/2004 8/31/2004 7/16/2004 5/26/2004 5/19/2004 3/31/2004 12/18/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 9/23/2003 9/11/2003 7/22/2003 5/27/2003 4/15/2003 3/4/2003 12/11/2002 11/4/2002 10/1/2002 8/26/2002 6/26/2002 5/22/2002 4/10/2002

3.49 5.38 7.17 7.48 7.46 3.29 5.02 13.16 16.21 8.64 3.86 3.37 3.41 5.7 9.22 3.66 4.21 4.92 3.6 4.02 8.55 12.95 16.61 3.8 4.14 3.25 3.47 10.46 3.54 3.69 3.67 3.26 5.78 8.24 10.9 7.48 4.29 3.56 3.55 4 6.81 5.4 3.31 3.31 3.08 3.39 8.37 4.02 2.99 3.74 3.87 19.2 11.73 6.67 3.49 3.68 3.72 2.85 2.81 3.37 3.81 4.79 3 3.1 3.12 2.98 3.33 3.48 7.59 9.36