hdbq McTFATT&,MCHor,

h
I .r !
i

May 4,2011

.J
1l

.t

) .t

BilI Cecil City of Coronado 1825StrandWay Coronado CA, 9211 8-3005 Subject: Glorietta Bay Marina - Dock C Inspection M&NFile: 6330-01 DearMr. Cecil: We arepleased to presentthis draft letterreportto the City of Coronado summarizing the structuralandelectricalassessments of Dock C at GloriettaBav Marina. The marina topsideinspection occurredon March 28thandthe below wateiinspectionon March 30th. providebackground The following sections on the marina,the methodology for our evaluation and summaries of our findingsandrecommendations. BACKGROUND The GloriettaBay Marina facility includesthe conjoinedDocksA andB and the separate Dock C. Dock A andB werereplaced n2007. Dock C contains approximately 34 slips rangingfrom 26 to 50 feet in lengthwith oneslip I l0 feet long (seeimagebelow). Dock C is a timber dock systemsupported by polystyrene foam filled plastic floats anda smallernumberof concreteencased foam floats. The marinawas constructed in the early 1980's andis beyondthe midpointof its service life, with mostsimilarwoodendock systems historicallylastingfrom 30 to 40 yearsbeforeneedingto be replaced.

Glorietta Bay Marina - Dock C

'il

Copiesof marinadrawingsfor the existingmarinawere obtainedfrom the City of Coronado, anddrawn in AutoCAD for usein this report. The drawingsprovidedthe dock layoutplan as well as approximate locationsofpolystyrenefloats. The existingdock systemwas designed andbuilt beforethe original California Department of Boating and Waterways Layout and Design GuidelinesforSmall Craft BerthingFacilities (1984)was developed.Recommendations for repairsarebased on the (July 2006),aswell as currentelectricaland most currentversionof theseguidelines building coderequirements and industrystandards.

MARINA STRUCTURAL INSPECTION Structural Methodology RobertSherwood, P.E., a civil engineer with over 10 yearsexperience in designingand inspecting marinas,alongwith AmandaDel Bello, E.I.T., performedthe structural inspection was to evaluate of the existingdock system.The purpose of this inspection the existingconditionof the dock system everyother dock finger along by inspecting with adjacent sections of the marinawalkways.A rankingsystemwas established accordingto the conditionof dock elements with an associated assessment of their remainingservicelife.
(

For eachareainvestigated the deckingwas removed(seePhoto2), the structural were tappedwith a hammerto checkthe soundness members of the wood, pokedwith a metalawl to explorefor dryrot and termitedamage, andbolted connections were turned with an adjustable wrenchto checktheir tightness. Areaswere chosen basedon the points,aswell aspossible locationof typicalconditions andcriticalconnection areas of concern.Removaland replacement of deckingwasperformedby marinapersonnel. Eachdock was walked and notesandphotosweretakento document the conditions found at the areasinspected.Graphicdock illustrations were prepared for eachdock sectioninspected to showthe general conditionsfound. Dock illustrationsandstructural assessment and floatationconditionfiguresare enclosed asAppendixB of this report. Components of the dock system were evaluated with the generalconditionsnoted. The gradedincludethe pressure dock components pine (andoccasional treatedsouthern inciseddouglas-fir)2x6 deckboards,4x6 stringers ,2x12 fascia(or fender)boards,and connections.The generalconditionsof components wererankedaccordingto the following categories, N, G, W or R, as described in Table l:

(--

ableI -DockAssessment

(N) Component foundto benewor in like-new condition, freefromnoticeable wear. Newcomponents havean estimated service life of morethan 20vr. NEW
Component found to be lightlyworn due to normalwear andclimatic conditions. Good components have an estimated servicelife between5 and 20 yr. WORN foundto exhibit cracking, 0\D Component corrosion, or other indicatorsof deterioration. The component is still serviceable but requires maintenance attention. Worn components may have to be replacedin 2 to 5 years. REPLACE (R) Component found to be worn to the stateof needingimmediate replacement or major repair. Thesecomnonents shouldbe renlacedwithin 2 vears. Eachdock systemcomponent was thenassigned a value for the conditionevaluated, with (R) = l. The sumsof the values. New (N) = 4, Good (G) : 3, Worn (W) = 2, andReplace for the threecomponents of the dock were calculated to determine the overallstructural condition(or "total value") for the marinadock furgersand walkways. Total values, based on the sum of the component values,aregradedas follows: N G W R for totalvaluesfrom 1l to 12, for total valuesfrom 8 to 10, for total valuesfrom 5 to 7, for a totalvalueof 4 or less. GOOD (G)

The photosthat were takenareincludedin AppendixA of this report. The photosare intended to illustratethe generalconditionsfoundthroughoutthe marina,with areas of concernalso documented anddescribed accordingly. Structural Findings (similar to The basicconstruction of the dock consists of4x6 and2x6 timber stringers joists beams and in an elevated floor) supported on edgeby floatation. Fascia boardsare typically 2xl2 throughoutthe marina(seePhoto3) andare usedto give the dock system additionalstructuralintegrity as well as help restrainandprotectthe floatationunits. The deck boardswere generallyin worn condition(a rating of2) and in needof replacement in the next 5 yearswith limited areas of boardsin needof immediate replacement. Deck boardsareregularlyreplaced by the marinaoperatorandsome cracked boardssplit during the removalof boardsfor the inspection andwill needto be replaced.

No significantdryrot or termitedamage appeared in key structural areas of the dock such as the pressure treatedstringers or aroundfinger-to-walkway connections. The original wood treatment, most likely a CCA wolmaniztng,is holding up fairly well and hasnot seensignificantleachingover time which hashelpedkeepthe existingstructuralwood elements from beingsusceptible to termiteand dryrot damage. The main structural wood stringers and fasciaboardswere observed good to typically be in condition(a ratingof 3 for the majority of the components) andtheboltedconnections were obserryed to be generallyin good conditionwith somesporadic components worn or in needof (a rating of 3 or lower). replacement Bolted connections and anglebrackets were inspected during the structuralobservations alongwith the conditionof the woodenmembers (seePhoto4). The majority of bolted connections inspected appeared to be goodcondition(a rating of 3) andtypically ableto be turned%to a full turn with an adjustable wrenchindicatingthe majority of threads on the bolts can still function (seePhoto 5). In someinstances, the throughbolts were in a worn conditionand exhibitedcorrosionandsomesectionloss(seePhoto6). Bolt heads tpically found on the outsideof the dock connections were foundto be moderately coroded. A smallpercentage of nutswere foundto be caulifloweringwith rust, having disintegrated to the point wherethey haveexperienced significantsectionlossandwere (seePhoto7). In general, no longeradjustable no major crackswere foundrunningacross bolt-holelocations,sometimes found at the endsof woodenmembers in other marina inspections.
(

The steelanglebrackets tlpically exhibitedminor corrosionor lossof steelsectionwith somegalvanizingcoatinglost. At more exposed locations,suchasat the endsof fingers, the brackets were more likely to exhibit corrosion(seePhotos7 and 8). It was alsonotedthat whereinternalanglebrackets were expected to be foundat less critical connections, for example at cross-bracing elements of fingerswhich tendto increase the torsionalstability of the furger,theywere not. Insteadtoe nailedgalvanized nails were found at theseconnection points,which tend to loosenwith flexing over time. Also worth noting, to makea new woodendock systemmeetthe currentCalifornia Department of Boatingand Waterways Layout and Design Guidelines for Small Craft BerthingFacilities, the dock hasmore rigid structuralelements thanwas obsemed at Dock C, includingglu-lam stringers, a ply-wood skin top and/orbottomof the stringers to producea laminatelayer to betterdistributeforces,and metaltorsionbarsalongthe lengthof the fingersto counterwarpingof the dock within a crossslopetolerance of half an inch per foot underload.

MARINA GUIDE PILES AND FLOATATION SYSTEM A dive investigation was conducted on March30, 2011to assess the condition of marina guidepiles and floats. MNB engineer diversvisually inspected100%of the guidepiles that anchorthe floats and the underwater portionsof the dock floats. The inspection includeda morerigorousevaluation of 3 piles (10% of the marinapiles) which involved

the removalof growth rn 12* bandsaroundthe piles nearthe surface and at the mudline. The dock systemis held in placeby twenty-six l2-inch square guide reinforcedconcrete piles. The piles were foundto be in good conditionbelow water (seePhoto9) with only one instance of corrosiondamage notedon a pile abovewater. No damage to the piles wasobserved nearthe mudline. The polystyrene foam filled plastic floats and concreteencased foam floatswere foundto be in an overallsatisfactory conditionwith instances plastic floatsnotedon of damaged the figuresin AppendixB. It is recommended that the polystyrene floatswith cracksand exposed foambe replaced. Tlpical cases of damaged floatsareseen in Photos10to 12. Instances whereexposed foam floatationwas seenthroughthe concrete shouldalsobe repairedwith an epoxygrout. In one casea 55-gallonplasticdrum float was foundon one ofthe fingersasa substitute fora concrete float (seePhoto13).

MARINA STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT of the dock systemare in good condition,while the Qualitatively,the bones(stringers) fasciaboardsare showingwearbut are still in good condition.Thejoints (bolted connections) are generallyin good conditionbut needattentionin portionsof the marina, which may includereplacinga smallpercentage of fasteners andbrackets. The skin (decking)is in worn conditionand in needof constant (floats) upkeep. The feet are in needof somenew shoes in places. A quantitative structuralassessment of Dock C is shownbelow,basedon the figuresin AppendixB. The total numberof the threedock components was addedup and observed thepercentage for eachrankingagainstthe total is shownin Table2. Table2 - Dock C StructuralCondition(exclud Condition of Marina AverageComponent Components Inspected Combined Ratins (xfv*z) New (4 Ratins) I l-12) (8-r0) Good (3 Ratine) (5-7) Worn (2 Ratine) (4 or less) Replace(l Ratine) Total Dock SvstemRatins 7.75

Percentage of Total Components Insnected

0.0%

s9.2%
40.0%
0.8%

Thetotaldock system ratingis7-75,with an estimated 12to 15yearsofremaining servicelife predictedfor the dock systemwith regulardeckboardreplacement. If the deckboardswerenew pressure treatedwood (or hardwood)andthe boltedconnections tightened andbrackets reconditioned, the dock systemwould receivean overallrating closerto 10,with a prediction of l4 to 20 years of remaining service life. This also assumes the 36 dock floats in needof replacement, repairor adjustment would be addressed aswell.

MARINA GANGWAY RAMP AI\D PLATFORM The marinais accessed from a 12' xl4'-3" elevated timber platform alongthe bulkhead wall (seePhoto l4), with a 30 feet long by 4 feetwide woodengangwayramp leading down to the marina(seePhoto l6). The elevated platform is supported by four 12 inch square piles.Atop the piles are 12 inch by 12 inch treatedtimberpile reinforcedconcrete capbeams, 2x8 timber stringersand2x6 timber decking(seePhoto 15) which makeup the platform. All structuralwood elements arein good condition(a rating of 3) with the exception of somedeckboardsexhibitingsomecrackingor dry rot. All four concrete pileswere inspected for reinforcingsteelcorrosionrelateddamage and damage due to regularwear and tear,with nonefound. The woodengangwayramp is connected to the platformby four hingeswhich aresteel plateseachwith four bolts boltedthroughdouble2x8 stringers. The gangwayis composed of two 3x8 internalstringers, two 2x8 externalstringers,two 2x fasciaboards varying in depth, and2x6 deckboardsperpendicular to the stringers. The entirespanhas timberguardrailscomposed of 4x4 postsand 2x6 railing,with no internalhandrails requiredby today's codestandards. The dockside bottomof the ramp is supported by four 6 Yzinch diameterplasticrollers.A transitionplate is connected to the endof the rampand slidesalongtrackson the dock which are screwed to the deck (seePhoto l7). The rollers, transitionplate andtracksare in goodconditionwith minimal corrosion noted. The tracksare effectivein protectingthe deckboardsfrom the transitionplate. Howeverthe gangwayrollers beardirectly on the deck andadditionalwear wasnotedon thedeckboards in this area(seePhotol8). All the connecting hardwareis in good condition. The timber structuralelements of the gangway are generallyin good condition.The westerndrywoodtermite,Incisitermes minor, is the most commonstructure-infesting drywood termitein the southwestern United States, and colonieshavebeenknown to infestwoodenboatson occasion in Southern California.Minimal termitedamage was notedon the gangwayguardrailposts anddeckboards.

MARINA ELECTRICAL INSPECTION ElectricalMethodology Stefanos Measho,a staff engineer with over 5 yearsexperience in designingmarina performed electrical systems thevisualinspection of the existingdock electricalsystem. The purposeof this inspection was to identifu any problemareasthat needimmediate attentionand evaluate the dock electricalsystemfor present/future demand andcode compatibility.Stefanos inspected the power centerat eachslip, photo-documenting typical elements as well as areas inspected of concern.The dock electricalcomponents junction includeelectricalswitchgear, distributionpanels,power outlet receptacles, boxes, conduits andwiring methods.
,1

ElectricalFindings A main switchboard "4MSB" is locatedin the first floor of the marineoperations building.It feedsDocks A, B and C andhousepanels.It is fed from a SDG&E l2kv 277/480Vtransformer. The systemvoltageis277/480Y, 3-Phasq 4W with a 16004 main breaker.SectionA of the switchboard serves a 480-120/208V, 3-Phasq 4W transformer anddistributionpanelwhich feedsDocksA andB; SectionC servesa480-120/208V, 3Phasg 4W transformer anddistributionpanelwhich feedsDock C. Both Sections A and C of the switchboard are metered. The fourth sectionof the switchboard is equipped with six utility meters(seeattached electricalfield notesandpicturesin AppendixC). TheDock C electrical system consists of a dockmounted120/208V,3-Phase, 4W,225A distributionpanel.This panelis fed from an 8004'circuit disconnect breakerandpad mountedtransformer labeled"Trans-TC" locatedsouthof the marineoperations building. The transformer and 800.{ distributionpanelare servedby SectionC of the main switchboard "4MSB" at the marineoperations building (seePicturesI & 2). The Dock C distributionpanel feeders areroutedvia the Dock C gangway(seePictures 3 & 4). The Dock C distributionpanel hasfive circuit feederbranches (seePictures5-7). (3)-100A,3-Phase, serving all Dock C slipsup to 50' long, (l)-100A, 120/208V 2-Phase serving110'slip - serving (l)-20A, 1-Phase gatelights. (4MSB), the transformer The main switchboard and 8004.disconnect breakerarein good condition.The 8004 disconnect breakerandDock C distributionpaneland circuit branches do not haveidentificationlabelsper currentNEC requirements. The Dock C distributionpanelfeedercablesfrom the main switchboards to the marina run alongthe undersides (seePictures4 and 8). The properway of of the gangways supporting the wiring under the gangways is feedercableinsiderigid PVC conduit supported by a stainless steelconduit supportto the underside (asshown ofthe gangways in Picture9 and tlpical gangwaydetail in Picture l0) to keepthe wiring out of the water asper NEC requirements. As shownin Picture3, excess feedercablesunderthe rampare immersed underwater. The electricalwiring to all feedercablesand dock power receptacles runs underthe deck (seePicturesI I and 12).Eachpower receptacle pedestal is fed from a branchcircuit and all underdeckconduitsare in good condition.However,the coverplatesof somejunction boxesservingthe docks(i.e. at Slip #26 and#32)were found to be openwith conductor cables and connection underwater (seePictures13and l4). This hazardous situation shouldbe remedied to conform to NEC requirement. Additionally, all exposed electrical conduitsneedproper supportper NEC requirement. As shownas in Picture 15,the conduitshouldbe supported with a new corrosionresistant hanger.

The Dock C distributionpanel,as shownin Picture5, shouldbe properly labeledandany openpower centers with no propercovers,as shownin Pictures16 and 17, exposed to the public or to the electricalmaintenance personnel shouldbe properlycoveredper guidelines manufacturers' assembly andper NEC requirements. Our surveyfoundthat a few of the existingpower centers do not haveadequate coveringnor circuit or breaker sizeidentificationlabels,and arerustedwith someof thembadly damaged. This canbe hazardous and shouldbe remediedas soonaspossible. More picturesthat depictpotentialelectricalhazards similar to Pictures18, 19 & 20 are attached with this report.Dock electricalassessment exhibitsareshownin AppendixC of this report anda cumulativerating of the dock pedestals is shownbelow in Table 3. Table 3 - Dock C ElectricalCondition Condition of Pedestal Number of Pedestals New 0 Good 2 Worn l4 Reolace 6

Percentageof Total

0% t0% 63%
27%

SUMMARY AND RBCOMMENDATIONS Electrical The existingpower to the dock distributionpanelin the marinais a 120/208V3-Phase, 4wire service.GloriettaBay Marina existingmarinaelectricalneedsare servedas follows: Docks A & B: SIipSize: 22', 26', 32', 34', 36', 40' 50' 60' 70' 106' Existine Receptacle Size: (1)30A l20V l-Phase (l) 30A l20V l-Phase (l) 30A l20V l-Phase (2)30A l20V 1-Phase (2)30A l20V l-Phase (2)30A l20V l-Phase (l) 30A 120Vl-Phase (1)50A208Vl-Phase (l) 30A l20V l-Phase (l) 50A208Vl-Phase (2)50A208V1-Phase (l) l00A208Vl-Phase (l) 50A208V l-Phase
Existine Recentacle Size: (l) 30A l20V 1-Phase

Dock C:

Slip Size:

26', 30'
I

(l) 30A 120Vl-Phase

37', 38' 40' 50'

I l0'

(l) 30A l20V l-Phase (l) 30A l20V I-Phase (l) 30A l20V l-Phase (l) 30A l20V l-Phase &#31 Except Slips #2,#14,#20,#27,#30 (2)30A l-Phase Except Slip#28; (l) 30A l20V l-Phase (l) 50A208Vl-Phase (l ) l00A 208Vl-Phase (C1-feeder)

Moffatt andNichol, from our pastprojectsandexperience, hasprovidedthe following pertainto slip sizedistributioq power demand recommendations and voltagesizes. We havesuccessfully designed numerous marinapower systems using theseguidelines.

SlipSizes 30' 40' 5 0 '- 6 0 ' 65'- 90' 1 0 0 '120'

Recommended Powerat EachSlip. (l) 30A l20V 1-Phase (l) 30A l20V l-Phase & (l) 50A 208V l-Phase (2) 50A 208V l-Phase (l) l00A 208V 1-Phase & (2) 50A 208V l-Phase (l) l00A 480V 3-Phase & (l) l00A 208V3-Phase

This is only a recommendation for future docksto meetevolving industry/vessel demands. The 106' slips at DocksA andB andthe I l0' slip at Dock C arecurrentlynot power andhavebeenperformingadequately served with a 480V 3-Phase for the vessels personnel. berthed thereaccordingto marina Structural The marinahasbeenin servicefor around30 years,andbasedon our structural observations, shouldlast another12 to 15yearswithout extensive retrofitting andnormal maintenance. An additional2 to 5 yearsmay be realizedif the boltedconnections could and corrodedbolts andbrackets be tightened replaced. The removal(andrecommended replacement) would facilitateaccess of the existingwood deckingin sections to the boltedconnections. Somelesscritical cormections within the main body structure of the with nails, a practicenot typically usedin modern furgersandwalkwaysareheld together marinaconstruction due to the tendency of nailedconnections to loosenup relatively quickly in a flexible woodendock system. Adding somemetalbracketsin theselocations may help increase the stability of the dock system, thoughprobablynot as muchas addingtorsionbarsalong the lengthof the fingers. The anticipated cost of restoringthe original structuralintegrity of the existingdock systemto getthe maximumservicelife is $20 per squarefoot basedon materialcostsof approximately foot (of which roughly $8 is deckingmaterialcosts)anda $12 per square per laborcostof $8 square foot, with a crew of threeworkers(onesupervisor at $30 per
(

hour and two laborersat $25 per hour) working approximatelyI hour to repair 10 square feet of dock. This work involvesreplacingsomeof the fasciaboardsandreplacingall of the deckwith 2x6 pressure treateddouglas-fnboards,replacing2 to 5o/o of the angle brackets, replacingl0 to 20%o of the bolts, nuts andwashers, andtightening80 to 90% of theboltedconnections. A numberof floatationunits needto be repairedor replacedto keepthe dock from sinkingandnot losefoang eitherfrom sloughingoff or deterioration and by the elements plastic fuel slicks.The materialreplacement costfor the typical size float found at the marinais approximately laborper float $300per float with shipping.The anticipated installed is $100andremovalanddisposal of the existingfloatsanother $100per float. The existingdock surfaceareais approximately 8,000squarefeet,andthe estimated cost for replacingthe deckwith pressure treateddecking(fastened down with stainless steel deckscrews)and refurbishingboltedconnections at around$160,000. is estimated To replace roughly30 floatsat $500per float is estimated around contingency at A $15,000. andmanagement allowanceof 15%of the restoration costwould be appropriate for this level of estimating(addingan additional$26,500). The anticipated total cost for restoration to extendthe dock life an additional2 to 5 yearsabovethe 12 to I 5 year remainingservicelife is estimated at approximately cost (or $175,000bareconstruction with contingency added). $200,000 The City may alternativelygo with a higherendoption and chooseto put a hardwood deckdown (suchas 5/4 x 6IPE at $6 per boardfoot) which would doublethe decking materialcost to $ l6 per squarefoot andthe labor costwould increase by $2 per square foot due to the difficulty in cutting the hardwood,for an alternative dock restoration cost ofapproximately$30 per squarefoot which would equateto approximately $240,000. The IPE deckingwould likely last the remainingservicelife ofthe dock, lessening the needfor continualmaintenance of the decking.Adding the floatationreplacement costof (or closeto around thebareconstruction costfor this optionwould be $255,000 $ 15,000, with a l5% contingency plastic lumberdeckingcould alsobe added).Structural $300,000 considered, thoughthereare inherentissues with expansion andstaticchargewith this materialin additionto cost.Also worth noting is that thesetwo materialsare heavierthan the existingpressure treatedwood andwould haveto be properlyengineered to maintain thefreeboard of the dock. Ultimately,the existingdock systemwill needto be replaced with a new modemdock system by 2030,as mandated underthe masterleaseagreement with the Port of San Diego. The addedcost associated with prolongingthe life of the existingsystem2 to 5 yearsmay be outweighed by the addedvalueofputting that moneytowardsthe purchase ofa higher enddock systemand/orreplacingthe dockssooner,andthe current"as programmay be the most economical needed" deckreplacement if aesthetics are lessof a concern to the City and majority of the boaters in the marina. purposes, For comparison the in-kind replacement costof the woodendock system,in the sameconfiguration,is estimated at approximately foot, basedon current $35 per square
ll

l0

local installedcostswithout piling, gangways or utilities. The estimated cost for dock utilities (includingassociated landside utility improvements) is approximately $5,000per per slip for electricaland $1,000 slip for water and fire service.Dock boxesandother appurtenances would run approximately $500per slip. For a new 34-slip marinaof approximately the samesquarefootage(around8,000square feet),without additional piles or gangways, the anticipated replacement costwould be aroundS500,000.Note that gate(approximately this amountdoesnot accountfor a new gangwayand entrance (approximately permitting with consultant), to $100,000 engineering $25,000), $50,000 costs(approximately Cityprojectmanagement costs(approximately $50,000), $100,000) (typically or contingency 15 to 20Toof the construction cost at this level of estimating). A replacement in-kind for the entiremarinawith a woodendock system, with contingency, is estimated at approximately As with the existingsystem,the $900,000. anticipated servicelife would be between30 and40 yearswith increasing maintenance coststowardsthe endof the life cycle. The replacein-kind cost of a new concretedock systemis approximately $60 per square (based foot or $200,000 morethanthe costof a woodensystem, for a total on 34-slips), costof around costswithoutpiling. A concrete on currentlocal installed $1.IM based dock system hasthe advantages of: . More solid feelingwalking surfacedue to relativelyhighermassof system o 40 to 50 yearproven service life . Lessmaintenance periodictighteningof thanwoodendock system,still needs connection bolts o Structurallystrongerandmore rigid o Narrowerfinger sections than comparable wood dock allowing for wider slips Summary of Costs A comparison of optionsfor maintaining,upgradingor replacingDock C in-kind is as followsin Table4. Costsincludea lSYoto 20%o contingency for this levelof estimating. Table4 - S
o f Costs

Marina Options No Retrofit Structural Retrofit + Deckine Sbructural Retrofit * PremiumDeckine with New WoodDock Replace Svstem andNew Utilities with New Concrete Replace Dock SystemandNew Utilities

Cost Maintenance Costs

$200,000 $300.000
$900,000

ServiceLife 12 to 15 vears 15to 20 years 15to 20 vears 30 to 40 years 40 to 50 years

$1,100,000

We hopeyou havefound this informationuseful. It hasbeena pleasure working with you to prepare this evaluation.We look forward to your comments.Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or for additionalinformation.

lt ll

Bestregards, MOFFATT & NICHOL ENGINEERS

RobertSherwood, P.E. Project/ Civil Engineer Attachments: Appendix A - DockStructural Photos Appendix B - DockAssessment Figures Appendix C - DockElectrical FieldNotes andPictures

t2