Information for Bidders Attachments 17185_Part1.pdf

State File No.: 751/17185.JBB Eagle Harbor State Harbor – Harbor Upgrades Project

INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS - SECTION 00200

“Proposed Improvements to Eagle Harbor Recreational Boat Harbor” drawing set dated 1967

“Eagle Harbor Public Access Site” drawing set dated 1976

“Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion” by

Coleman Engineering Company dated July 23, 2019

“Potential Lead Paint and Asbestos Containing Material Inspections” by Coleman Engineering Company dated January 2018

Michigan Department of EGLE Permit Number: WRP030756 v.1

Michigan Department of EGLE Permit Number: WRP032627 v.1

Part 1 of 1

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

FOR

PROPOSED EAGLE HARBOR DOCK EXPANSION

EAGLE HARBOR, MICHIGAN

JULY 23, 2019

CEC PROJECT NO. GD‐190380

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE #

I. INTRODUCTION

II. FIELD PROCEDURES

III. LABORATORY PROCEDURES

IV. SITE CONDITIONS

V. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Driven Sheet Pile Wall

Dock Pile

Inspection and Testing

Construction Considerations

VI. LIMITATIONS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A. LOCATION MAPS

‐ Project Location Map ‐ Boring Location Map

APPENDIX B. CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

(UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM)

APPENDIX C. SOIL EXPLORATION‐GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND

APPENDIX D. DESIGN PARAMETERS

APPENDIX E. BORING LOGS

APPENDIX F. LABORATORY TESTS AND BEDROCK PHOTGRAPHS

Coleman Engineering Company 1 Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

Eagle Harbor, Michigan July 23, 2019

I. INTRODUCTION

Edgewater Resources, LLC is performing a feasibility study on behalf of Michigan

Environmental, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) for proposed expansions at the Eagle Harbor

Marina located in Eagle Harbor, Michigan. The expansion will include permanent docks located southwest of the existing concrete boat ramp/launch and a new sheetpile wall located northeast of the existing concrete boat ramp/launch. New docks are proposed to be supported on driven pile foundations.

The purpose of this report is to document/summarize the results of the field investigation and to provide recommendations/guidance for foundation vertical/lateral support, earthwork quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and other relevant geotechnical considerations.

II. FIELD PROCEDURES

The proposed expansion was evaluated with four (4) soil borings. Three (3) located along the area of the proposed docks (B‐1 through B‐3) and one (1) in the area of the proposed sheetpile wall (B‐4). Each of the borings terminated in bedrock or auger drilling at nominal depths ranging from 30.6 feet to 36.6 feet below the water surface. Bedrock was cored at boring location B‐1 and B‐4. Typically a 5 foot rock core is obtained. However, at boring location B‐4 high winds causing wave swells resulted in CEC terminating the rock core run short of 5 feet.

Coleman Engineering Company (CEC) provided a 16 foot by 40 foot sectional barge to perform the offshore borings. The borings were advanced with a Diedrich D‐50 all‐terrain mounted drill unit present at the site on July 9 and July 10, 2019 utilizing 4 ¼‐inch I.D. hollow‐shaft augers

(HSA) and NQ‐sized double tubed rock coring.

The HSA act as continuously‐advancing steel casing to prevent the borehole walls from collapsing in above the depths to be tested/sampled. Sampling tools are lowered inside the augers for testing into undisturbed soils ahead of the tip of the augers.

Bedrock was sampled using NQ‐sized double tube coring methods in accordance with

ASTM D 2113, “Standard Practice for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling of Rock for Site

Investigation”. Bedrock coring consists of a double tube configuration which allows a spinning outer barrel with a diamond impregnated bit to cut the rock while an inner barrel remains stationary to receive the core sample. Coring is conducted in increments or “run” of five (5)

Coleman Engineering Company 2 Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion feet. At the end of a run, the inner barrel is lifted to the surface using a winch or “wire‐line”.

The bedrock core is removed from the inner barrel and placed in waxed cardboard core boxes.

The core is labeled with respect to boring identification, orientation and depth. Spacers are placed in the core boxes to prevent samples from shifting during transport. Upon removal and labeling of the rock core, the inner barrel is replaced and coring resumes. Bedrock was cored at

Boring B‐1 and B‐4.

Drilling and field sampling of soils were performed in accordance with American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) D‐1586, "Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils" with a 2‐inch O.D. split spoon. Thirty‐two (32) such samples were obtained.

A field log was prepared during exploration which contained the work method, standard penetration test (SPT) data, samples recovered and the indication of the presence of various soil types. The field log was submitted to Coleman Engineering Company’s (CEC’s) Iron

Mountain laboratory along with the soil samples for evaluation of the subsurface information and preparation of the final boring logs.

The boring locations were provided by Edgewater Resources, LLC. and established in the field by CEC utilizing a submeter GPS. The elevation at the boring locations were referenced to the lake surface. Refer to the project map and the boring map attached in Appendix A for locations.

III. LABORATORY PROCEDURES

All field samples collected were visually classified in accordance with ASTM D‐2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual‐Manual Procedure).” The bedrock core was observed for bedrock classification and measured to determine the Rock Quality Designator

(RQD) and Rock Mass Rating (RMR), ASTM D‐5878‐08, “Using Rock‐Mass Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes” and ASTM D‐7012, “Compressive Strength – Rock Core.” The RQD is defined as the sum of rock core pieces 4‐inches in length or greater in a given coring run divided by the run length and multiplied by 100. The RMR is a rating system that assigns a rating to the rock core based on six (6) parameters: compressive strength of rock; RQD; spacing of joints;

condition of discontinuity; presence of groundwater; and rating adjustment for discontinuity orientations. The compressive strength test results and bedrock core photographs are presented in Appendix F.

Coleman Engineering Company 3 Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

The final logs contain both factual and interpretive information. It should be emphasized that the recommendations are based only on the final boring logs. On the final logs, horizontal lines designating the interface between differing materials encountered represent approximate boundaries. The transition between soil layers is typically gradual.

IV. SITE CONDITIONS

The proposed project is located on the south shore of Lake Superior at the existing Eagle Harbor

Marina in Eagle Harbor, Michigan.

The lake depths at boring locations ranged from 4.2 feet to 11.0 feet. In general, the borings completed for this project encountered interbedded layers of very loose to very dense granular soils consisting of poorly graded sand with silt (SP‐SM) and silty sand (SM) with varying amounts of gravel. Auger drilling refusal was encountered at Boring B‐2 and B‐3 at nominal depths ranging from 30.6 feet and 33.5 feet below the existing lake surface, respectively. Auger drilling refusal is presumed to be bedrock. Bedrock was cored at Boring B‐1 and B‐4 at nominal depths ranging from 31.2 feet and 31.3 feet below the existing lake surface, respectively. Bedrock is indicated to be part of the Portage Lake Volcanics consisting of interbedded basalt flows and conglomerates.

V. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our analysis and recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project include:

Driven Sheet Pile Wall

Based on Boring B‐4 the anticipated depth to refusal on bedrock will be about 31.3 feet below the existing lake surface.

A translation or rotation of approximately 1/1000 of the height of the fill would be required to develop the active state for granular soils. Backfill within 5 lateral feet of the back of the wall should consist of engineered fill. For concrete anchors we recommend using a co‐efficient of base friction equal to 0.4. For engineered backfill above the water table we recommend a unit weight of 110 pcf with a friction angle of 30 degrees. For engineered backfill below the water table we recommend a unit weight of 50 pcf with a friction angle of 28 degrees. The backfill

Coleman Engineering Company 4 Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion should be compacted to at least eighty‐eight percent (88%), but not more than ninety‐ two percent (92%) of modified Proctor maximum dry density above the water table. Relatively light manually propelled compactors should be used within 5 feet of walls. Compactors used beyond 5 feet should be limited in weight to 3,000 pounds.

External loads on below grade wall foundations have not been taken into account in our recommendations. Surcharge loads imposed by vehicle parking, construction equipment and material storage should be considered during structural design.

We recommend using the soil parameters in Table 1 Design Parameters in the Appendix D for design of the sheet pile wall. The values in Table 1 do not include a factor of safety.

Dock Pile

Drilled Micropile with Rock Socket

Based on Borings B‐1 through B‐3 the anticipated depth to refusal on bedrock ranges from about 30.6 feet to 33.5 feet below the existing lake surface. Drilled Micropile with rock socket will be limited by the structural capacity of the pile itself bearing on competent bedrock. We recommend using a grout/rock bond strength of 150 psi to resist uplift forces. We recommend sufficient embedment to resist uplift forces with a minimum embedment of 5 feet into bedrock.

Pile center to center spacing is recommended to be not less than three (3) pile widths/diameters and preferably seven (7) pile widths/diameters. Further, we recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer or their representative observe the installation of production piles. These observations are to confirm that the installation criteria are properly implemented. Should anomalous or unforeseen conditions occur, the engineer can provide alternative recommendations.

Driven H‐Pile

Driven H‐Pile fitted with a drive shoe driven to refusal on competent bedrock will be limited by the structural capacity of the pile itself.

Based on Borings B‐1 through B‐3 the anticipated depth to refusal ranges from about 30.6 feet to 33.5 feet below the existing lake surface. Piles driven to this depth will be limited by the structural capacity of the pile driven to refusal on bedrock. Table 1 below provides the

Coleman Engineering Company 5 Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion estimated ultimate pile capacities of H‐piles driven bedrock.

Ultimate capacities estimated for driven H piles of the cross section indicated are summarized below based upon the subsurface conditions disclosed by the borings:

Table 1

B‐1

Embedment Depth to Bedrock (Ft)

Ultimate End Bearing

Compression (Kips)

Ultimate Skin Friction

Compression (Kips)

Ultimate Skin Friction Tension (Kips)

HP10 22.8 Bedrock 11 6

HP12 22.8 Bedrock 14 8

B‐2

Depth to Bedrock (Ft)

Ultimate End Bearing

Compression (Kips)

Ultimate Skin Friction

Compression (Kips)

Ultimate Skin Friction Tension (Kips)

HP10 19.6 Bedrock 7 4

HP12 19.6 Bedrock 9 5

B‐3

Depth to Bedrock (Ft)

Ultimate Capacity

Compression (Kips)

Ultimate Skin Friction

Compression (Kips

Ultimate Skin Friction Tension (Kips

HP10 25.5 Bedrock 12 7

HP12 25.5 Bedrock 16 9

Ultimate Capacities do not include the weight of pile.

Ultimate Capacities do not include a factor of safety.

Bedrock – Limited by the structural capacity of the pile itself.

Pile center to center spacing is recommended to be not less than three (3) pile widths/diameters and preferably seven (7) pile widths/diameters. Further, we recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer or their representative observe the installation of production piles. These observations are to confirm that the installation criteria are properly implemented. If the project had various sections and lengths of piles, the engineer/representative can check dimensions and the condition of the pile prior to installation. Should anomalous or unforeseen conditions occur, the engineer can provide alternative recommendations.

Coleman Engineering Company 6 Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

For driven piles, it is recommended that the pile driving hammer selected by the piling contractor be matched to the pile to be driven. As a guide, the pile hammer selected should have a hammer weight in the range of 0.5 to 3.0 times the weight of the pile.

Inspection and Testing

A qualified testing laboratory should be retained throughout the course of earthwork operations for testing and documentation of compliance with the recommendations of this report and related project specifications.

Construction Considerations

If foundation methods other than recommended in this report are to be considered, CEC should be notified to evaluate the method and to prepare any additional recommendations.

During construction, adequate provision should be made for proper drainage, to prevent erosion and possible damage to this site and adjacent property. Post‐construction finished fill pad slopes should be provided with an appropriate vegetative cover as quickly as possible and not exceed about 2:1 with 3:1 preferred.

APPENDIX A

LOCATION MAPS

- Project Location Map

- Boring Location Map

APPENDIX B

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

(UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM)

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 Circle Drive

Iron Mountain, Michigan 49801

CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

ASTM Designation: D-2487 – 83

(Based on Unified Soil Classification System)

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification

Group Group NameB Symbol

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50 % retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels More than 50 % of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels Less than 5 % finesC

Cu > 4 and 1 < Cc < 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF

Gravels with Fines more than 12 % finesC

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF.G.H.

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF.G.H.

Sands 50 % or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands Less than 5 % finesD

Cu > 6 and 1 < Cc < 3E SW Well-graded sand

Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3E SP Poorly graded sand l

Sands with Fines More than 12 % finesD

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG.H.J.

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG.H.I.

Fine-Grained Soils 50 % or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 inorganic Pl > 7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ CL Lean clayK.L.M.

Pl < 4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK.L.M.

organic Liquid limit – oven dried < 0.75 OL Organic clayK.L.M.N.

Liquid limit – not dried Organic siltK.L.M.O.

Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more inorganic Pl plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK.L.M.

Pl plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltK.L.M.

organic Liquid limit – oven dried < 0.75 OH Organic clayK.L.M.P.

Liquid limit – not dried

Organic siltK.L.M.Q.

Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12 % fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay D Sands with 5 to 12 % fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 (D30)

2 L If soil contains > 30 % plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains > 30 % plus No. 200, predominately gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.

N Pl > 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O Pl < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P Pl plots on or above “A” line.

Q Pl plots below “A” line.

D10 x D60 F If soils contains > 15 % sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains > 15 % gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29 % plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant.

APPENDIX C

SOIL EXPLORATION‐GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND

APPENDIX D

DESIGN PARAMETERS

Coleman Engineering Company Table 1: Design Parameters

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

Eagle Harbor, Michigan

Soil

Strain

LL PL W N N60

Cu

(ksf)

Φ c'

(ksf)

Φ'

Static

(pci)

Cyclic

(pci)

E50/

*k_rm

0‐8.4 Water Lake

Superior ‐ ‐ W 0 62.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

8.4‐13.0

(SP‐SM) Poorly

Graded Sand with Silt

Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 115 20 26 2.0 0 34 0 34 60 ‐ ‐

13.0‐31.2

(SP‐SM) Poorly

Graded Sand with Silt

Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 120 44 50+ 4.0 0 36 0 36 125 ‐ ‐

31.2‐36.5 Sandstone Bedrock ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 135

RQD:

RMR:

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ *0.00001

0‐11.0 Water Lake

Superior ‐ ‐ W 0 62.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

11.0‐15.5

(SP‐SM) Poorly

Graded Sand with Silt

Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 100 WOH WOH 0.1 0 28 0 28 20 ‐ ‐

15.5‐30.6 (SM) Silty Sand Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 120 19 24 1.7 0 32 0 32 60 ‐ ‐

0‐8.0 Water Lake

Superior ‐ ‐ W 0 62.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

8.0‐12.5

(SP‐SM) Poorly

Graded Sand with Silt

Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 105 3 4 0.3 0 29 0 29 20 ‐ ‐

12.5‐17.5 (SM) Silty Sand Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 120 18 22 1.5 0 32 0 32 60 ‐ ‐

17.5‐26.0

(SP‐SM) Poorly

Graded Sand with Silt

Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 120 41 50 4.0 0 37 0 37 125 ‐ ‐

26.0‐33.5 (SM) Silty Sand Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 125 50+ 50+ 4.0 0 36 0 36 125 ‐ ‐

Lat / Long

Coordinates

Lake

Surface

See Soil

Boring

Location

Map

B‐2

B‐3

See Soil

Boring

Location

Map

Lake

Surface

Standard

Blow Count

(N/N60)

B‐1

Soil Modulus

Parameter k

Drained

Parameter Estimated

Depth to

Ground

Water (ft)

Pressure‐ meter modulus

(ksi) b

Undrained

Parameter Geological

Description

Depth

Range (ft)

Predominant

Soil Type

Total

Unit

Weight

(pcf) a

Index Properties

See Soil

Boring

Location

Map

Lake

Surface

Boring #

Elev. at

Ground‐ line

F:\Data\190000\190380 ‐ Edgewater Resources ‐ Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion\Report\Design Parameters Table 1 ‐ 190380.xlsx

Coleman Engineering Company Table 1: Design Parameters

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

Eagle Harbor, Michigan

Soil

Strain

LL PL W N N60

Cu

(ksf)

Φ c'

(ksf)

Φ'

Static

(pci)

Cyclic

(pci)

E50/

*k_rm

Lat / Long

Coordinates

Standard

Blow Count

(N/N60)

Soil Modulus

Parameter k

Drained

Parameter Estimated

Depth to

Ground

Water (ft)

Pressure‐ meter modulus

(ksi) b

Undrained

Parameter Geological

Description

Depth

Range (ft)

Predominant

Soil Type

Total

Unit

Weight

(pcf) a

Index Properties

Boring #

Elev. at

Ground‐ line

0‐4.2 Water Lake

Superior ‐ ‐ W 0 62.4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

4.2‐8.7

(SP‐SM) Poorly

Graded Sand with Silt

Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 105 4 5 0.4 0 29 0 29 20 ‐ ‐

8.7‐11.2 (SM) Silty Sand Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 120 27 35 2.3 0 34 0 34 125 ‐ ‐

11.2‐16.2

(SP‐SM) Poorly

Graded Sand with Silt

Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 120 33 43 3.0 0 36 0 36 125 ‐ ‐

16.2‐20.0 (SM) Silty Sand Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 125 30 39 2.5 0 34 0 34 125 ‐ ‐

20.0‐25.0 (SM) Silty Sand Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 115 11 14 0.8 0 30 0 30 60 ‐ ‐

25.0‐31.3 (SM) Silty Sand Lacustrine ‐ ‐ W 0 120 28 36 2.4 0 34 0 34 125 ‐ ‐

31.3‐32.3 Sandstone Bedrock ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 135 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0 ‐ 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ *0.00001

Table 1

B‐4

See Soil

Boring

Location

Map

Lake

Surface

WHO ‐ Weight of Hammer

Design parameters do not include a factor of safety a For effective/submerged unit weight below groundwater level, subtract 62.4 pcf, from the moist unit weight.

b Indicates Estimated Pressuremeter Modulus.

The above parameters were estimated based on soil types and blow counts.

For Index Properties (W): m – moist, w ‐ wet

F:\Data\190000\190380 ‐ Edgewater Resources ‐ Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion\Report\Design Parameters Table 1 ‐ 190380.xlsx

APPENDIX E

BORING LOGS

1.0

1.5

1.3

1.5

1.1

2-5-7

5-13-15

17-24-16

8-22-22

20-20-27

(12)

(28)

(40)

(44)

(47)

WATER

8.4'

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

brown, fine, with gravel, wet, medium dense

...dense

...trace gravel

...fine to medium, very dense

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger 8.4' to 31.2' 2" SPT Sampling 140# wt., 30" drop Auto Hammer 3" casing 8.4' to 30.4'

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

36.3BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-1

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45879140° N., 88.14882817° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Neat Cement Grout & Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger & NQ Rock Core

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/9/19 7/9/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

REVIEWED BY:

B-1

0.1

2.0

3.0

21-36-50/0.3'

6-20-27

50/0.1'

Run 1

Run 2

(47)

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

brown, fine to medium, trace gravel, wet, very dense

...with a 1" lens of sandy silt at ± 26.4', dense

(Lacustrine) 31.2' BEDROCK, Sandstone, brown, fine to medium grained, weak to very strong rock, slightly weathered to unweathered, with slightly weathered to fresh joints, closely fractured to little fracturing

36.3'

End of Boring

Driller's note: Augers grinding at 30.3'

NQ Rock Core 31.3' to 36.3' Run 1: 31.3' to 33.3' Drill: 2.0' Recover: 2.0'

RQD: 80

RMR: 58

Run 2: 33.3' to 36.3' Drill: 3.0' Recover: 3.0'

RQD: 75

RMR: 61

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

36.3BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-1

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45879140° N., 88.14882817° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Neat Cement Grout & Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger & NQ Rock Core

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/9/19 7/9/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

B-1

0.8

1.5

1.5

WOH-1/1'

WOH/1.5'

4-12-8

7-6-8

(20)

(14)

WATER

11.0'

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

grayish brown, fine, trace organic fines to ± 1.5', wet, very loose

...fine to medium

(Lacustrine) 15.5' (SM) SILTY SAND, brown, fine, with gravel to ± 8.0', wet, medium dense

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger 11.0' to 30.6' 2" SPT Sampling 140# wt., 30" drop Auto Hammer

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

30.6BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-2

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45895722° N., 88.14850923° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/9/19 7/9/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

B-2

1.3

1.5

0.1

8-9-13

8-8-8

8-14-10

50/0.1'

(22)

(16)

(24)

(SM) SILTY SAND, brown, fine, wet, medium dense

...gravel-size rock fragment in tip of spoon (Lacustrine) 30.6'

Auger Drilling Refusal and End of Boring

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

30.6BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-2

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45895722° N., 88.14850923° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/9/19 7/9/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

B-2

1.3

0.6

1.5

1.5

1.5

4-2-2

2-1-1

6-8-10

3-6-8

6-19-17

(4)

(2)

(18)

(14)

(36)

WATER

8.0'

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

grayish brown, fine, trace black organic fines, wet, very loose

(Lacustrine) ± 12.5' (SM) SILTY SAND, brown, fine, wet, medium dense

(Lacustrine) ± 17.5'

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

brown, fine to medium, wet, dense

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger 8.0' to 33.3' 2" SPT Sampling 140# wt., 30" drop Auto Hammer

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

33.5BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-3

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45923163° N., 88.14830918° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/10/19 7/10/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

B-3

0.3

17-23-24

13-26-40

23-50/0'

(47)

(66)

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

brown, fine to medium, wet, dense

(Lacustrine) ± 26.0' (SM) SILTY SAND, brown, fine to medium, wet, very dense

...with a 1/4" lens of silt and a gravel-size rock fragment

(Lacustrine) 33.5'

Auger Drilling Refusal and End of Boring

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

33.5BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-3

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45923163° N., 88.14830918° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/10/19 7/10/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

B-3

NR

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.3

2-1/1'

4-4-3

6-17-10

12-17-19

13-14-17

11-13-17

(7)

(27)

(36)

(31)

(30)

WATER

4.2'

NO SAMPLE RECOVERY

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

grayish brown, fine, wet, loose

(Lacustrine) ± 8.7' (SM) SILTY SAND, grayish brown, fine to medium, with gravel, wet, medium dense

(Lacustrine) ± 11.2'

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

brown, fine to medium, wet, medium dense

...light brown, dense

(Lacustrine) ± 16.2' (SM) SILTY SAND, brown, fine, wet, dense

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger 4.2' to 31.3' 2" SPT Sampling 140# wt., 30" drop Auto Hammer 3" casing 4.2' to 31.2'

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

32.3BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-4

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45958197° N., 88.14776593° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Neat Cement & Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger & NQ Rock Core

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/10/19 7/10/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

B-4

0.9

4-6-5

11-14-50/0.3'

Run 1

(11)

(SM) SILTY SAND, brown, fine, wet, dense

...medium dense

...with gravel and angular rock fragments

(Lacustrine) 31.3' BEDROCK, Sandstone, brown, fine to medium grained, medium strong to strong rock, slightly weathered to unweathered, with slightly weathered to fresh joints, closely fractured

32.3' End of Boring

NQ Rock Core 31.3' to 32.3' Run 1: 31.3' to 32.2' Drill: 1.0' Recover: 0.9'

RQD: N.A.

RMR: N.A.

DRILLING METHOD:

C. Rasmussen hours

(tsf)

32.3BORING DEPTH:

JOB NO.:

B-4

HOLE CLOSURE:

CLIENT:

47.45958197° N., 88.14776593° W. - See soil boring location drawing

-3ST-3" Shelby Tube

(tsf) -4

-2ST-2" Shelby Tube

BORING NO.:

COMMENTS

190380.GPJ

BORING NO.:

+4

W A

T E

R T

A B

L E

OF

DRILL CREW:

7/23/19

-2SS-2" Split Spoon after drilling

N U

M B

E R

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

RIG TYPE:

DATE COMPLETED:

-AS-Auger Sample while drilling

Neat Cement & Soil Cuttings

-PS-Piston Tube

D E

P T

H

F T

R E

C O

V E

R Y

J. Lantagne / M. Sovey

DATE STARTED:

Telephone: (906)-774-3440 Fax: (906)-774-7776

COLEMAN ENGINEERING COMPANY

635 CIRCLE DRIVE

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN 49801

TLL

PL

C O

N T

E N

T

DATE:

PROJECT:

4-1/4" Hollow Stem Auger & NQ Rock Core

M O

IS

T

U R

E

-200

Edgewater Resources, L.L.C.

-BS-Bag Sample

SOIL DESCRIPTION

ELEV.:

7/10/19 7/10/19 q

-MC-Macorcore a qu

BORING LOCATION:

B

L O

W S

/6

N

TEST RESULTS

S P

T V

A L

U E

S

E L

E V

(F

T

L E

G E

N D

-3SS-3" Split Spoon

Diedrich D-50 ATV

(tsf) after

-RC-Rock-Core

SAMPLE

B-4

APPENDIX F

LABORATORY TESTS AND BEDROCK PHOTOGRAPHS

Boring B‐1 Depth 31.3'‐36.3'

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

CEC Project No. 190380

Boring B‐4 Depth 31.3'‐32.3'

Eagle Harbor Dock Expansion

CEC Project No. 190380

Table of Contents

Page No.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.2 Lead-Based Paint Information

1.3 Lead Inspection Procedures

1.4 Asbestos Containing Material Information

1.5 ACM Inspection Procedures

2.0 SITE SUMMARY

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Lead-Based Paint Inspection Results

3.2 Asbestos Inspection Results

4.0 SUMMARY

4.1 ACM and LBP Material Quantities

4.2 Recommendations

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – FIGURES

APPENDIX B – LEAD BASED PAINT ANALYTICAL RESULTS

APPENDIX C – ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

APPENDIX D – PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E – QUALIFICATIONS

Coleman Engineering Company 1 Lead and Asbestos Inspection Edgewater Resources Eagle Harbor Marina Building November 30, 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Coleman Engineering Company (CEC) has been retained by Edgewater Resources, LLC to perform a limited inspection for potential Lead-Based Paint (LBP) and Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) on the Eagle Harbor Marina Office Building in Eagle Harbor, Michigan. The work was completed on November 30, 2017, for purposes of renovating the Marina Office Building to comply with American Disability Act (ADA) specifications. Project location and site maps are included in Appendix A.

1.2 Lead-Based Paint Information

Lead is a naturally occurring toxic heavy metal. Prior to 1978, lead was introduced in paints for color purposes and also to increase the durability and longevity of paint, especially as it applies to exterior surface coatings. Due to the toxicity of lead, the Consumer Products Safety Commission banned the sale of LBP for residential use in 1978. Federal standards define LBP as any paint or surface coating that withholds concentrations of lead equal to or greater than 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or more than 0.5 percent by weight of a paint chip sample. However, paints with lead concentrations below the aforementioned definition may still cause health problems. In fact, children under the age of 6 as well as the fetus of a pregnant woman are subject to high risk from exposures to low concentrations of lead. Health risks in children include damage to the nervous system and kidneys, learning disabilities (e.g., attention deficit disorder), decreased intelligence, as well as language and behavioral problems. In pregnant women, exposures of lead may lead to miscarriage, premature birth, brain damage, and low birth weight. Additionally, lead exposures to workers or other adults may result in elevated blood pressure, reproductive issues in both men and women, digestive problems, nerve disorders, memory problems or a lack of concentration, and muscle or joint pain.

1.3 Lead Inspection Procedures

On November 30, 2017, CEC conducted inspections for sampling LBP among building materials present at the Marina Office Building. Paint chip samples (1-inch square) were collected from the facility to represent each homogenous area. Sample locations and quantities were decided in-field by the Inspector according to the surface area, date placed, and color of each homogenous material.

Figures portraying each sample location are provided in Appendix A.

Representative samples of potential LBP were collected and shipped under chain-of-custody (COC) protocol to International Asbestos Testing Laboratories, Inc. (iATL) in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) approved laboratory.

The sample lists and descriptions are presented in Table 1 of Section 3.1, below. The analytical results are attached in Appendix B.

Coleman Engineering Company 2 Lead and Asbestos Inspection

Eagle Harbor Marina Building November 30, 2017

1.4 Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) Information

ACM is a material containing naturally occurring minerals such as chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. These minerals have been used in fire-proofing building materials for its insulating properties and also in many other building materials for its structural properties. ACM becomes a hazard when friable particles are released into the atmosphere from mechanical damage.

Inhalation of friable particles has resulted in various respiratory issues, such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Although these diseases have 15-40 year latency periods, in extreme cases, they have led to death. ACM may include, but is not limited to, floor and ceiling tile and mastic, drywall, transite paneling, roofing and siding shingles, felt paper, insulation, and pipe wrap. Production of most ACM was discontinued in the United States in 1977. However, existing stockpiles were used in construction thereafter, and other countries continued integrating building materials with asbestos. Therefore, the potential remains for some stockpiled building materials, or ACM from other nations, to be incorporated into current premises. In non-construction materials, such as brake pads in vehicles, the use of asbestos is still common ground for its desirable qualities.

The facility inspected would potentially be subject to two Federal Regulations: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR Part 1926.1101 Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, also known as the Construction Standard, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart M. OSHA pertains to any work performed on ACM, while NESHAP applies to demolition or renovation of any institutional, commercial, industrial, or residential structure, but excludes residential structures of four (4) dwelling units or less. The renovation must include 160 square feet or 260 linear feet of friable or potential friable ACM for NESHAP to apply. The definition of an ACM, as used by NESHAP is, “any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos as determined by using Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM).

There are two basic types of ACM: friable and non-friable. Non-friable is any non-Category I material consisting of more than 1 percent asbestos determined by PLM and, when dry, cannot be crushed or reduced to powder material by hand pressure. Friable ACM is any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos by PLM and can be reduced to a fine powder by hand pressure when dry. Because friable ACM is more easily damaged, it is more susceptible to release asbestos fibers and, therefore, is generally of greater concern.

NESHAP breaks non-friable ACM into two categories; Category I includes packing, gaskets, resilient floor coverings, and asphalt roof products, while ACM Category II includes all other non-friable ACM.

ACM, which is of concern and is regulated ACM (RACM) under NESHAP, includes all “friable ACM, Category I non-friable ACM that has become friable, Category I non-friable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting, or abrading, or Category II non-friable ACM that has a high probability of becoming or has become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by forces expected to act on the material in the course of demolition or renovation operations”

Coleman Engineering Company 3 Lead and Asbestos Inspection

Eagle Harbor Marina Building November 30, 2017

(NESHAP 40 CFR 61). This definition of RACM implies a high potential for occupants or operators to inhale airborne fibers.

1.5 ACM Inspection Procedures

On November 30, 2017, CEC conducted a limited inspection for sampling suspect ACM among building materials present at the Marina Office Building. Samples of building materials, with potential to contain asbestos, were collected from the facility to represent each homogenous area.

Sample locations and quantities were decided in-field by the Inspector according to the surface area, date placed, and type of building material. Figures portraying each sample location are provided in Appendix A.

Representative samples of potential ACM (PACM) were collected and shipped, under COC protocol, for analysis by iATL in Mount Laurel, New Jersey; an NVLAP approved laboratory.

The sample lists and descriptions are presented in Table 2 of Section 3.2, below. The analytical results can be found in Appendix C.

2.0 SITE SUMMARY

The Marina Office Building is located at the northern tip of Keweenaw County in Eagle Harbor, Michigan, situated along Marina Road. The approximate coordinates of the Marina Office Building are 47.459012, -88.148966. General location maps and site plans are attached in Appendix A.

Constructed in 1967, the Marina Office Building was built with concrete block walls, is based on a concrete foundation, and the roof is comprised of asphalt shingles. The exterior walls are painted white, whereas the window sills, exterior doors, and fascia boards are painted green. A sidewalk, which encompasses the building, was once painted gray but has become bare as the paint has eroded with time. Furthermore, it is understood that the shingle roof was replaced in approximately 2014. The Office Building stands approximately 8 feet tall (excluding the roof), is uninsulated, and has an area of roughly 465 square feet. Photographs of the Building are attached in Appendix D.

The interior of the building is separated into four (4) rooms by partition walls: the Marina Office (MO), a Well Pump/Utility Room (WR), a Men’s Bathroom (MB), and a Women’s Bathroom (WB). Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix A for a visual of the building layout. The floor of each room is coated with tan paint, whereas the ceiling of each room is painted white. However, the walls and ceiling trim of the Marina Office and the Well Pump Room are painted beige, but the exterior, concrete block walls of both bathrooms are coated with white paint. For a description of the materials used to form the walls, see Figure 4 through Figure 7 in Appendix A. Additionally, a scuttle hole in the east corner of the Well Pump Room acts as an entrance to the attic. The floor of the attic is coated with black tar between the joists. It appeared as if the attic is uninsulated, but due to visual obstructions and safety hazards, a full attic inspection was not feasible.

Coleman Engineering Company 4 Lead and Asbestos Inspection

Eagle Harbor Marina Building November 30, 2017

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Lead-Based Paint Inspection Results

Results listed below in bold are defined as lead-based paint by the federal government (i.e., greater than 0.5% lead per weight of paint chip sample). The location of where each sample was collected is portrayed in Figure 4 through Figure 7 in Appendix A.

Table 1. Lead-Based Paint Sample Results Summary

Sample I.D. Sample Description Result (% by Weight)

WP-1 White Paint - interior MO door frame

<0.0059

WP-2 White Paint - ceiling in WR <0.0063 BP-1 Beige Paint - wall in MO <0.0064 BP-2 Beige Paint - wall in WR <0.0065 TP-1 Tan Paint - floor of MO 0.24 TP-2 Tan Paint - floor of WR 0.42 GP-1 Green Paint - Roof fascia 1.6

GYP-1 Gray Paint - Stoop to WB 0.17

3.2 Asbestos Inspection Results

All samples were tested by iATL, using the analytical method US EPA 600, R93-116. Samples were analyzed via PLM. If asbestos fibers were not observed in a sample, none detected (ND) is listed as the corresponding result. Where L2 (Layer 2) is noted after the sample I.D., two (2) different layers were adhered together in the suspect sample and were analyzed separately. Results listed in bold signify that the corresponding material is ACM. The location of where each sample was collected is portrayed in Figure 4 through Figure 7 in Appendix A.

Table 2. Asbestos Containing Material Sample Results Summary

Sample I.D. Sample Description Results

(% by PLM) AT-1 Black Attic Tar ND AT-2 Black Attic Tar ND

WG-1

Window Glaze - NE window of

WR

ND

WG-2 SE window of WR ND WG-3 SW window of MO ND DW-1 Drywall – NE wall of MO ND DW-2 SW wall of WR ND SC-1 Sink Caulk in MB ND DC-1 Door caulk in MB 15 Chrysotile VB-1 Vinyl Baseboard in WB ND

VB-1(L2) VB Mastic in WB ND

Coleman Engineering Company 5 Lead and Asbestos Inspection

Eagle Harbor Marina Building November 30, 2017

4.0 SUMMARY

4.1 ACM and LBP Material Quantities

The quantities of all materials constituted as an ACM or LBP are approximate and listed in square feet (sq. ft.).

LBP

• Green Paint: 170 sq. ft.

o Fascia Boards o Exterior Window Sills o Exterior Doors

ACM

• Door Caulk: 2 sq. ft.

o Exterior Door – Wall Voids

4.2 Recommendations

Based upon the samples analyzed, personnel should wear the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during any renovation activities, especially while sanding, cutting, or grinding on or near the exterior doors and materials that are painted green. PPE includes, but is not limited to, safety glasses, proper air respiration equipment, disposable Teflon coveralls, and disposable gloves. Door caulk is a non-friable Category II ACM (i.e., it cannot be crushed, crumbled, or pulverized by hand pressure) so it is generally of less concern. However, precautionary measures should still be taken during renovation activities.

Care should be taken to avoid dispersing any dust beyond the immediate work area via facility air handling systems (i.e., HEPA Filter), and/or proper suppression techniques (i.e., wetting) for Asbestos and Lead removal. Lead and Asbestos Safe Work practices should be followed by trained and qualified contractors.

APPENDIX A

FIGURES

APPENDIX B

LEAD BASED PAINT ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Lab No.: 6404451 Client No.: WP-1

Description: White Paint Location: Main Office (MO) Northeast Wall, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): <0.0059 Result (ppm): <59 Comments:

Lab No.: 6404452 Client No.: WP-2

Description: White Paint Location: Well Room (WR) Southwest Wall, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): <0.0063 Result (ppm): <63 Comments:

Lab No.: 6404453 Client No.: BP-1

Description: Beige w/Blue Paint Location: MO Northeast Wall, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): <0.0064 Result (ppm): <64 Comments:

Lab No.: 6404454 Client No.: BP-2

Description: Beige w/Blue Paint Location: WR Southeast Wall, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): <0.0065 Result (ppm): <65 Comments:

Lab No.: 6404455 Client No.: TP-1

Description: Tan Paint Location: Floor Of MO, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): 0.24 Result (ppm): 2400 Comments:

Lab No.: 6404456 Client No.: TP-2

Description: Tan Paint Location: Floor Of WR, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): 0.42 Result (ppm): 4200 Comments:

Lab No.: 6404457 Client No.: GP-1

Description: Green Paint Location: Exterior On Roof Eave, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): 1.6 Result (ppm): 16000 Comments:

Lab No.: 6404458 Client No.: GYP-1

Description: Grey Paint Location: On Exterior Sidewalk, 11/30/17

Result (% by Weight): 0.17 Result (ppm): 1700 Comments:

Laboratory Director

Approved By:

Date Analyzed:

12/11/2017Date Received:

Analyst:

Please refer to the Appendix of this report for further information regarding your analysis.

Signature:

Chad Shaffer

12/18/2017 Frank E. Ehrenfeld, III

9000 Commerce Parkway Suite B Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054

Telephone: 856-231-9449 Email: customerservice@iatl.com

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Client: Coleman Engineering

635 Circle Drive Iron Mountain MI 49801

12/18/2017Report Date:

Report No.: 553527 - Lead Paint Project: Edgewater Resources - Eagle Harbor

Inspection & Lab Analysis Project No.: EC# 17585-B

LEAD PAINT SAMPLE ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Client: COL394

Dated : 12/18/2017 4:06:01 Page 1 of 2

Appendix to Analytical Report:

Customer Contact: Ward Mitchell Analysis: ASTM D3335-85a

This appendix seeks to promote greater understanding of any observations, exceptions, special instructions, or circumstances that the laboratory needs to communicate to the client concerning the above samples. The information below is used to help promote your ability to make the most informed decisions for you and your customers.

Please note the following points of contact for any questions you may have.

iATL Customer Service: customerservice@iatl.com iATL Office Manager: cdavis@iatl.com iATL Account Representative: House Account Sample Login Notes: See Batch Sheet Attached Sample Matrix: Paint Exceptions Noted: See Following Pages

General Terms, Warrants, Limits, Qualifiers:

General information about iATL capabilities and client/laboratory relationships and responsibilities are spelled out in iATL policies that are listed at www.iATL.com and in our Quality Assurance Manual per ISO 17025 standard requirements. The information therein is a representation of iATL definitions and policies for turnaround times, sample submittal, collection media, blank definitions, quantification issues and limit of detection, analytical methods and procedures, sub-contracting policies, results reporting options, fees, terms, and discounts, confidentiality, sample archival and disposal, and data interpretation.

iATL warrants the test results to be of a precision normal for the type and methodology employed for each sample submitted. iATL disclaims any other warrants, expressed or implied, including warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and warranty of merchantability. iATL accepts no legal responsibility for the purpose for which the client uses test results. Any analytical work performed must be governed by our Standard Terms and Conditions. Prices, methods and detection limits may be changed without notification. Please contact your Customer Service Representative for the most current information.

This confidential report relates only to those item(s) tested and does not represent an endorsement by NIST-NVLAP, AIHA LAP LLC, or any agency of local, state or province governments nor of any agency of the U.S. government.

This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory.

Information Pertinent to this Report:

Analysis by ASTM D3335-85a by AAS

Certification:

- National Lead Laboratory Program (NLLAP): AIHA-LAP, LLC No. 100188

- NYSDOH-ELAP No. 11021

Regulatory limit is 0.5% lead by weight (EPA/HUD guidelines). Recommend multiple sampling for all samples less than regulatory limit for confirmation.

All results are based on the samples as received at the lab. iATL assumes that appropriate sampling methods have been used and that the data upon which these results are based have been accurately supplied by the client.

Method Detection Limit (MDL) per EPA Method 40CFR Part 136 Apendix B.

Reporting Limit (RL) based upon Lowest Standard Determined (LSD) in accordance with AIHA-ELLAP policies.

LSD=0.2 ppm MDL=0.005% by weight. RL= 0.010% by weight (based upon 100 mg sampled).

Disclaimers / Qualifiers:

There may be some samples in this project that have a "NOTE:" associated with a sample result. We use added disclaimers or qualifiers to inform the client about something that requires further explanation. Here is a complete list with highlighted disclaimers pertinent to this project. For a full explanation of these and other disclaimers, please inquire at customerservice@iatl.com.

* Insufficient sample provided to perform QC reanalysis (<200 mg) ** Not enough sample provided to analyze (<50 mg) *** Matrix / substrate interference possible.

9000 Commerce Parkway Suite B Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054

Telephone: 856-231-9449 Email: customerservice@iatl.com

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Client: Coleman Engineering 635 Circle Drive Iron Mountain MI 49801

12/18/2017Report Date:

Report No.: 553527 - Lead Paint Project: Edgewater Resources - Eagle Harbor

Inspection & Lab Analysis Project No.: EC# 17585-B

Page 2 of 2Dated : 12/18/2017 4:06:02

APPENDIX C

ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIAL ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Lab No.: 6404441 Client No.: AT-1

Analyst Observation: Black Tar Client Description: Black Attic Tar Above Well Rm (WR) Ceiling

Location: Marina Office Bldg Facility:

Percent Asbestos:

None Detected

Percent Non-Asbestos Fibrous Material:

Percent…