GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT · Geotechnical Engineering Report November 27, 2018 Navarre Park...

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING

REPORT

Navarre Park Improvements Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida

PREPARED FOR: Genesis Group

2507 Callaway Road, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

NOVA Project Number: 8218007

Revised November 27, 2018

William L. Lawrence, P.E.

Senior Regional Engineer

November 27, 2018

GENESIS GROUP

2507 Callaway Road, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Attention: Mr. Mark T. Llewellyn Sr., P.E., CEO

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report

NAVARRE PARK IMPROVEMENTS

Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida

NOVA Project Number 8218007

Dear Mr. Llewellyn:

NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC (NOVA) has completed the authorized Geotechnical

Engineering Report for the proposed improements to Navarre Park located in Navarre, Santa

Rosa County, Florida. The work was performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal

Number 016-20172114, dated October 24, 2017. This report briefly discusses our

understanding of the project at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the

geotechnical consulting services provided by NOVA, and presents our findings, conclusions, and

recommendations.

We appreciate your selection of NOVA and the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you

have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC

Jesse A. James E.I.

Assistant Branch Manager

Florida Certificate No. 1100019359 Florida Registration No. 60147

Copies Submitted: via electronic mail service

P R O F E S S I O N A L | P R A C T I C A L | P R O V E N

1 4 0 - A L u r t o n S t r e e t , P e n s a c o l a , F l o r i d a 3 2 5 0 5

t . 8 5 0 . 6 0 7 . 7 7 8 2 / f . 8 5 0 . 2 4 9 . 6 6 8 3 / u s a n o v a . c o m

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 SITE PREPARATION ......................................................................................................................2

1.3 GROUNDWATER CONTROL ..........................................................................................................2

1.4 FOUNDATIONS..............................................................................................................................2

1.5 PAVEMENTS..................................................................................................................................3

2.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION...............................................................................................................4

2.2 SCOPE OF WORK ..........................................................................................................................5

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................... 7

3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................7

3.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.............................................7

3.3 CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY...............................................................................................7

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION...................................................................................................... 8

4.1 LABORATORY TESTING.............................................................................................................. 10

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .........................................................................................11

5.1 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 11

5.2 SOIL CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................... 11

5.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 12

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................13

6.1 SITE PREPARATION ................................................................................................................... 13

6.2 GROUNDWATER CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 15

6.3 FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................... 16

6.4 SEAWALL DESIGN...................................................................................................................... 19

6.5 PAVEMENT SECTIONS............................................................................................................... 21

7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................24

7.1 SUBGRADE ................................................................................................................................ 24

7.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 24

7.3 PAVEMENTS............................................................................................................................... 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures and Maps

Appendix B – Subsurface Data

Appendix C – Laboratory Data

Appendix D – Photo Essay

Appendix E – Qualifications of Recommendations

Geotechnical Engineering Report November 27, 2018

Navarre Park Improvements NOVA Project Number 8218007

1.0 SUMMARY

A brief summary of pertinent findings, conclusions, and recommendations are presented below.

This information should not be utilized in design or construction without reading the report in its

entirety and paying particular attention to the recommendations presented in the text and

Appendix.

1.1 GENERAL

The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of Navarre Parkway (U.S.

Highway 98) and the Navarre Beach Causeway in Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida.

NOVA understands the project will consist of improvements to the existing park that

will include a learning center/vivarium, a public restroom building, new picnic

pavilions, shade structures, replacement of the existing seawall, expanded parking,

and stormwater management system (SMS) improvements.

Our field exploration at the subject site included performing:

- Four (4), 20-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed

Learning Center footprint,

- Two (2), 20-foot deep SPT borings within the proposed Vivarium structure footprint,

- Two (2), 20-foot deep SPT borings within the proposed restroom building footprint,

- Four (4), 20-foot deep SPT borings within the proposed shade structure footprints,

- Four (4), 15-foot deep SPT borings within the proposed picnic structure footprints,

- Five (5) 15-foot-deep SPT Borings along the proposed seawall alignments,

- Four (4) 5-foot-deep auger borings within the proposed parking expansion areas,

and

- One (1) 5-foot-deep auger boring and a field Double-Ring Infiltrometer test within

the proposed SMS footprint.

Drilling, testing and sampling operations were performed in general accordance with

ASTM designations and other industry standards.

Beneath a stratum of topsoil which varied in thickness from about 1 to 12 inches, the

test borings generally encountered loose to medium dense fine-grained sands and

sands with silt (USCS classifications of SP and SP-SM, respectively) to a depth of about

11 feet below existing grade (BEG) underlain by very soft to soft peat (PT) to roughly 16

feet to 20 feet BEG, in turn underlain by medium dense fine-grained sands (SP) to the

maximum depth explored of about 20 feet BEG.

Page 1



1.2 SITE PREPARATION

We recommend stripping and grubbing the proposed construction areas to remove all

topsoil and surficial vegetation, trees and associated root systems, and any other

deleterious non-soil materials that are found to be present (including existing

structures and substructures scheduled for demolition, existing rip-rap that is in

conflict with proposed structures, and other materials associated with the current

and/or former development of this property). The soils exposed at the stripped grade

elevation, and subsequent lifts of fill soils, should be compacted to a minimum soil

density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the

Modified Proctor test (ASTM D-1557).

We note that vibratory compaction operations should not be performed within a clear

distance of 50 feet from any adjacent structures. Verification of the improvement of the

loose subgrade soils to a depth of 3 feet below the stripped grade elevation should be

achieved via Dynamic Cone Penetrometer testing, and additional recommendations (i.e.,

further compaction effort, possible undercutting, etc.) can be rendered in the field as

these tests are performed.

NOVA should observe the compaction of the subgrade to locate soft, weak, or excessively

wet fill or existing soils present at the time of construction. Any unstable materials

observed during the evaluation and compaction operations should be undercut and

replaced with structural fill or stabilized in-place by scarifying and re-densifying.

1.3 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

A stabilized groundwater table was encountered in the test borings at depths varying

between about 1 foot to 9 feet BEG at the time of our field exploration, which occurred

during a period of relatively normal seasonal rainfall. We note that the differences in the

depths to groundwater can be primarily attributed to the differences in ground surface

elevations at which the borings were drilled. Groundwater could therefore potentially

adversely impact the planned development of this property, most especially with respect

to the installation of subsurface utilities in lower-lying areas of the site.

1.4 FOUNDATIONS

Shallow Foundations: After the recommended site/subgrade preparation and fill

placement, we recommend that the proposed amenities structures be supported on

conventional shallow foundation systems bearing upon compacted structural fill. The

building foundations may be designed for a maximum soil bearing pressure of 1,500

pounds per square foot (psf).

Page 2



We note that our site preparation and subsequent foundation recommendations have

been rendered based on our understanding that fill heights above current grade

elevations required to achieve the desired finished floor elevations for these structures

will be between 1 foot and 3 feet, and that structure loadings will be limited to 50 kips

per column for isolated interior columns and 3 kips per linear foot for continuous load

bearing walls. Should the required fill heights exceed 3 feet or should the building loads

be greater than 50 kips/3 klf, additional analysis of the additional loading’s impact on

the aforementioned very soft to soft peat (PT) stratum and subsequent site preparation

recommendations may be necessary.

Deep Foundations: We anticipate that the proposed learning center and restroom will

be constructed on a driven timber pile foundation system. Based on the results of our

field exploration, the subsurface conditions encountered are generally adaptable for

this foundation system. Piles embedded at the depths and corresponding

recommended pile tip elevations referred to in the Conclusions and Recommendations

section of this report may be designed for the maximum allowable compressive and

uplift loads as reported for the corresponding dimension of the piles.

1.5 PAVEMENTS

We understand that flexible (asphalt) pavement sections are planned for this

development. Based on the results of our test borings, the subsurface conditions

encountered appear to be generally adaptable for providing adequate support of the

desired pavement sections.

1.6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

We understand that a stormwater management system (SMS) consisting of a

conventional shallow dry retention basin is desired for this development to treat and

dispose of storm water runoff associated with the planned site improvements. Based

on the results of the test borings and limited laboratory soil testing, the subsurface

conditions encountered across the project site appear to be adaptable for the

treatment and disposal of stormwater runoff via the desired SMS.

Page 3

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Navarre Park Improvements

November 27, 2018


2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

Our understanding of this project is based on discussions with the project design team,

review of the provided site plan, a site reconnaissance performed during the boring

layout, review of aerial photography of the site via internet-based GIS software, and our

experience with similar geotechnical conditions in the near vicinity to this project site.

2.1.1 Site Plans and Documents

We were furnished with the following plans and documents:

• Document: Navarre Park – Master Site Plan

Prepared by: Genesis Group

Dated: August 25, 2017

2.1.2 Proposed Construction

NOVA understands the project will consist of improvements to the existing park

including a new Learning Center/Vivarium, a new public restroom building, new

shade structures, new picnic pavilions, replacement of the existing seawalls,

expanded parking, an improved stormwater management system (SMS)

consisting of a shallow retention basin, and various other infrastructure and

recreational improvements.

2.1.3 Maximum Loads

Foundation support for the proposed amenity structures is anticipated to be

accomplished via conventional shallow footings and slab-on-grade systems.

Structural loadings and grading details were not available from the design team

at the time of the issuance of this report. We have assumed that the loads for

the proposed amenity structures will be limited to 1,500 psf. The learning center

and restroom structures are anticipated to be supported on a driven timber pile

foundation system. We have assumed that 8-inch or 10-inch tip timber piles will

be installed beneath the beneath the structures, with an estimated loading

requirement on the order of 5 kips per pile.

2.1.4 Floor Elevations / Site Grading

We assume that finish site grades will not change greater than +/- 2 feet from

existing grades within the majority of the proposed structure footprints, seawall

alignment, and pavement areas. The proposed restroom building will reportedly

receive up to 3 feet of fill.

Page 4



2.2 SCOPE OF WORK

Genesis Group engaged NOVA to provide geotechnical engineering consulting services

for the planned Navarre Park Improvements project. This report briefly discusses our

understanding of the project, describes our exploratory procedures, and presents our

findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

The primary objective of this study was to perform a geotechnical exploration within the

areas of the proposed construction and to assess these findings as they relate to

geotechnical aspects of the planned site development. The authorized geotechnical

engineering services included a site reconnaissance, a soil test boring and sampling

program, laboratory testing, engineering evaluation of the field and laboratory data, and

the preparation of this report. The services were performed substantially as outlined in

our proposal number 016-20172114, dated October 24, 2017, and in general

accordance with industry standards. As authorized by the client, the completed

geotechnical report was to include:

➢ A description of the site, fieldwork, laboratory testing and general soil conditions

encountered, as well as a Boring Location Plan, and individual Test Boring Records.

➢ Site preparation considerations that include geotechnical discussions regarding

site stripping and subgrade preparation, and engineered fill/backfill placement.

➢ Recommendations for controlling groundwater and/or run-off during construction

and, the need for permanent dewatering systems based on the anticipated post

construction groundwater levels.

➢ Shallow foundation system recommendations for the proposed amenity structures,

including an allowable bearing capacity, a recommended bearing depth, and

installation considerations.

➢ Deep (driven timber pile) foundation recommendations for the proposed learning

center/vivarium and restroom structures, including installation considerations and

allowable pile capacities.

➢ Slab-on-grade construction considerations based on the geotechnical findings,

including the need for a sub-slab vapor barrier or a capillary barrier.

➢ Recommended pavement sections based on assumed traffic loading and subgrade

strength estimate from correlation with the SPT borings, laboratory data, and soil

types encountered during the exploration.

➢ Geotechnical parameters for use in the SMS design.

➢ Suitability of on-site soils for re-use as structural fill and backfill. Additionally, the

criteria for suitable fill materials will be provided.

➢ Recommended quality control measures (i.e. sampling, testing, and inspection

requirements) for site grading and foundation construction.

Page 5



The assessment of site environmental conditions, including the presence of wetlands

or detection of pollutants in the soil, rock or groundwater, laboratory testing of

samples, or a site-specific seismic study was beyond the scope of this geotechnical

study. If requested, NOVA can provide these services.

Page 6



3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 LOCATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION

The subject property is located southwest of the intersection of Navarre Parkway (U.S.

Highway 98) and the Navarre Beach Causeway in Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida.

According to the Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser’s online database, the property

is a sub-parcel of the property referenced as Parcel ID 331S305101000014. A Site

Location Map is included in Appendix A.

3.2 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND VICINITY GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

The vicinity of the Subject Property is generally developed with mixed residential and

commercial uses, and is bordered by the following:

DIRECTION LAND USE DESCRIPTION/OBSERVATIONS

NORTH Navarre Parkway, then commercial properties

WEST Restaurant Development

SOUTH Intracoastal Waterway

EAST Navarre Beach Causeway, then vacant property

3.3 CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY

At the time of our field exploration, the subject property was being utilized as a park

with a large central pond feature surrounded by brick-paver walkways and decorative

landscaping. Several single-story structures were present in the northern portion of the

property, along with asphalt paved entrance drives and parking areas. A low-lying

seawall stabilized protected by rip-rap was located in the southeastern portion of the

property, as well as a pier and boardwalk feature fronting the Intracoastal Waterway.

Greenbelt areas of the property were vegetated with short grasses and isolated sapling

to mature trees.

Page 7



4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

Boring locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel using the provided site plan

and handheld GPS equipment. The approximate locations are shown in Appendix A.

Consequently, referenced boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate.

If increased accuracy is desired by the client, NOVA recommends that the boring locations and

elevations be surveyed.

Our field exploration was conducted between February 2 and February 6, 2018 and included:

• Four (4), 20-foot deep SPT borings (designated B-1 through B-4) performed within the

proposed Learning Center footprint;

• Two (2), 20-foot deep SPT borings (designated B-5 and B-6) performed within the proposed

Vivarium structure footprint;

• Two (2), 20-foot deep SPT borings (designated B-9 and B-10) performed within the proposed

restroom building footprint;

• Four (4), 20-foot deep SPT borings (designated B-7, B-8, B-11 and B-12) performed within

the proposed shade structure footprint;

• Four (4), 15-foot deep SPT borings (designated P-1 through P-4) performed within the

proposed picnic structure footprints;

• Five (5), 15-foot deep SPT borings (designated S-1 through S-5) performed along the

proposed seawall alignments;

• Four (4), 5-foot deep auger borings (designated A-1 through A-4) performed within the

proposed parking expansion areas, and:

• One (1) 5-foot deep auger boring and a field Double-Ring Infiltrometer test performed within

the proposed SMS footprint.

Test Borings: The structural test borings were performed using the guidelines of ASTM

Designation D-1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". A mud rotary drilling

process was used to advance the borings. At regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with

a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split-tube sampler. The sampler was first seated six

inches and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.

The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is designated the

"Penetration Resistance". The penetration resistance, when properly interpreted, is an index to

the soil strength and density. Representative portions of the soil samples, obtained from the

sampler, were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for further

evaluation and laboratory testing.

Test Boring Records in Appendix B show the standard penetration test (SPT) resistances, or “N-

values”, and present the soil conditions encountered in the borings.

These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field

exploration data, visual examination of the split-barrel samples, laboratory test data, and

Page 8



generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. The stratification lines and depth

designations represent approximate boundaries between various subsurface strata. Actual

transitions between materials may be gradual.

Double-Ring Infiltrometer Test: This field test was conducted using the guidelines of ASTM

Designation D3385 “Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using Double-

Ring Infiltrometer”.

Page 9



5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

A laboratory testing program was conducted to characterize materials which exist at the site

using the recovered split-barrel samples. Selected test data are presented on the Test Boring

Records attached in the Appendix. The specific tests are briefly described on the following page.

It should be noted that all soil samples will be properly disposed of 30 days following the

submittal of this NOVA subsurface exploration report unless you request otherwise.

5.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Soil classification provides a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil

types and enable the engineer to apply past experience to current problems. In our

explorations, samples obtained during drilling operations are observed in our

laboratory and visually classified by an engineer. The soils are classified according to

consistency (based on number of blows from standard penetration tests), color and

texture. These classification descriptions are included on our Test Boring Records. The

classification system discussed above is primarily qualitative; laboratory testing is

generally performed for detailed soil classification. Using the test results, the soils

were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System. This classification system

and the in-place physical soil properties provide an index for estimating the soil's

behavior. The soil classification and physical properties obtained are presented in this

report.

5.2 MOISTURE CONTENT

The moisture content is the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of water in a

given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles. This test was conducted in general

accordance with ASTM D-2216.

5.3 SIEVE ANALYSIS

The sieve analysis consists of passing a soil sample through a series of standard sieve

openings. The percentage of fines passing through the No. 200 sieve is generally

considered to represent the amount of silt and clay of the tested soil sample. The sieve

analysis test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Designation D-1140.

Page 10



6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 GEOLOGY

The site is located in the Santa Rosa County, Florida area and according to the United

States Geological Survey (USGS), is situated within the greater Gulf Coastal Plain region.

The site is generally covered with Alluvium sediments of the Pleistocene/Holocene

periods underlain by the Citronelle formation of the Pliocene/Pleistocene periods. The

alluvial sediments typically consist of siliciclastics that are fine to coarse quartz sand

containing clay lenses and gravel in places. Sands consists primarily of very fine to very

coarse poorly sorted quartz grains; gravel is composed of quartz, quartzite, and chert

pebbles. In areas of the Valley and Ridge province gravels are generally composed of

angular to sub-rounded chert, quartz, and quartzite pebbles. Coastal deposits in the

Navarre area include fine to medium quartz sand with shell fragments and accessory

heavy minerals along Gulf beaches and fine to medium quartz sand, silt, clay, peat, mud

and ooze in the Mississippi Sound, Little Lagoon, bays, lakes, streams, and estuaries.

The Citronelle formation consists primarily of varicolored/mottled lenticular beds of

poorly sorted sand, clayey sand, clay, and clayey gravel. Limonite pebbles and lenses of

limonite cemented sand occur locally in weathered Miocene exposures.

Surficial soils in the region are primarily siliciclastic sediments deposited in response to

the renewed uplift and erosion in the Appalachian highlands to the north and sea-level

fluctuations. The extent and type of deposit is influenced by numerous factors, including

mineral composition of the parent rock and meteorological events.

6.2 SOIL CONDITIONS

The following paragraph provides a generalized description of the subsurface profiles

and soil conditions encountered in the borings conducted during this study. The Log of

Boring Records in the Appendix should be reviewed to provide detailed descriptions of

the conditions encountered at each boring location. Conditions may vary at other

locations and times.

Beneath a stratum of topsoil which varied in thickness from about 1 to 12 inches, the

test borings generally encountered loose to medium dense fine-grained sands and

sands with silt (USCS classifications of SP and SP-SM, respectively) to a depth of about

11 feet below existing grade (BEG) underlain by very soft to soft peat (PT) to roughly 16

feet to 20 feet BEG, in turn underlain by medium dense fine-grained sands (SP) to the

maximum depth explored of about 20 feet BEG.

We note that several auger borings and soil probings were conducted within the

existing pond feature that encountered fine-grained sands (USCS classification of SP)

to a depth of about 2 feet below the pond bottom). Muck or other deleterious materials

that would require undercutting were not encountered.

Page 11



6.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

6.3.1 General

Groundwater in the Gulf Coastal Plain typically occurs as an unconfined aquifer

condition. Recharge is provided by the infiltration of rainfall and surface water

through the soil overburden. More permeable zones in the soil matrix can affect

groundwater conditions. The groundwater table is expected to be a subdued

replica of the original surface topography. Based on a review of topographic maps

and our visual site observations, we anticipate the groundwater flow at the site

to be towards the south.

Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction

activity, surface water runoff and other site-specific factors. Groundwater levels

in the south Santa Rosa County area are typically lowest in the late fall to winter

and highest in the early spring to mid-summer with annual groundwater

fluctuations by seasonal rainfall; consequently, the water table may vary at times.

6.3.2 Soil Test Boring Groundwater Conditions

A stabilized groundwater table was encountered in the test borings at depths

varying between about 1 foot to 9 feet BEG at the time of our field exploration,

which occurred during a period of relatively normal seasonal rainfall. We note

that the differences in the depths to groundwater can be primarily attributed to

the differences in ground surface elevations at which the borings were drilled.

Based on comparisons of current annual monthly rainfall data to historical

rainfall data extending back 50+ years in time, we estimate that the normal

permanent seasonal high groundwater (SHGW) table for this site will occur within

1 foot above the depths to groundwater measured at each boring location, during

the wet season.

Page 12



7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the

proposed construction, our site observations, our evaluation and interpretation of the field and

laboratory data obtained during this exploration, our experience with similar subsurface

conditions, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.

Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations or at other times may vary from those

encountered at specific boring locations. If such variations are noted during construction, or if

project development plans are changed, we request the opportunity to review the changes and

amend our recommendations, if necessary.

As previously noted, boring locations were established in the field utilizing handheld GPS

equipment and the provided site plan. If increased accuracy is desired by the client, we

recommend that the boring locations and elevations be surveyed.

7.1 SITE PREPARATION

We anticipate that finish site grades will not change greater than +/- 2 feet from existing

grades within the majority of the proposed structure footprints and pavement areas. As

an exception, we understand that the proposed restroom building will receive up to 3

feet of fill.

We recommend stripping and grubbing the proposed construction areas to remove all

topsoil and surficial vegetation, trees and associated root systems, and any other

deleterious non-soil materials that are found to be present (including existing

structures and substructures scheduled for demolition, existing rip-rap that is in

conflict with proposed structures, and other materials associated with the current

and/or former development of this property). The soils exposed at the stripped grade

elevation, as well as subsequent lifts of fill soils, should be compacted to a minimum

soil density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the

Modified Proctor test (ASTM D-1557). Resulting or additional excavations should be

backfilled with structural fill also compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 95

percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM

D-1557).

We note that vibratory compaction operations should not be performed within a clear

distance of 50 feet from any adjacent structures.

NOVA should observe the compaction of the subgrade to locate soft, weak, or excessively

wet fill or existing soils present at the time of construction. Any unstable materials

observed during the evaluation and compaction operations should be undercut and

replaced with structural fill or stabilized in-place by scarifying and re-densifying.

Page 13



7.1.1 Soil Suitability

The majority of the on-site near surface soils below topsoil can be categorized as

SP to SP-SM, or fine-grained sands to sands with silt based on the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS). These soil types are considered suitable for the use

of structural fill in the building and pavement areas, however care should be

taken to maintain strict moisture control during placement.

All materials to be used for backfill or compacted fill construction should be

evaluated and, if necessary, tested by NOVA prior to placement to determine if

they are suitable for their intended use.

In general, based upon the boring results, the near surface fine-grained sands

and sands with silt such as those encountered in the borings can be used as

structural fill as well as general subgrade fill and backfill, provided that the fill

material is free of rubble, clay, rock, roots and organics, and is within +/- 3% of

its optimum moisture content at the time of placement.

Organic and/or debris-laden material is not suitable for re-use as structural fill.

Topsoil, mulch, and similar organic materials can be wasted in architectural

areas. Debris-laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed

of off-site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations.

7.1.2 Soil Compaction

Fill should be placed in thin, horizontal loose lifts (maximum 12-inch) and

compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 95 percent of the Modified

Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). The upper 12 inches of soil

beneath the bottoms of all foundation footings should be compacted to at least

98 percent. In confined areas, such as utility trenches or behind retaining walls,

portable compaction equipment and thinner fill lifts (3 to 4 inches) may be

necessary.

With respect to filling in the existing pond feature, we recommend that a clean

coarse sand (SP, having less than 5% soil fines) be back-dumped ahead of

tracked equipment (such as a bulldozer) in sufficient thickness to achieve

stabilized conditions above the groundwater table. At that point, installation

and subsequent compaction of elevating fill lifts should be accomplished as

recommended above. As was noted previously, based on the results of auger

borings and soil probings performed in the existing pond bottom it does not

appear that demucking of the pond footprint will be required prior to adding the

bridge lift, and therefore it does not appear that a significant dewatering system

to draw down the groundwater table during the backfilling operation will be

required, either.

Page 14



We note that vibratory compaction operations should not be performed within a

clear distance of 50 feet from any adjacent structures.

Fill materials used in structural areas should have a target maximum dry

density of at least 95 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If lighter weight fill materials

are used, the NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted to assess the

impact on design recommendations.

Soil moisture content should be maintained within 3 percent of the optimum

moisture content. We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment

on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. Moisture control

may be difficult during rainy weather.

Filling operations should be observed by a NOVA soils technician, who can

confirm suitability of material used and uniformity and appropriateness of

compaction efforts. He/she can also document compliance with the

specifications by performing field density tests using thin-walled tube, nuclear,

or sand cone testing methods (ASTM D-2937, D-6938, or D-1556, respectively).

One test per 400 cubic yards and every 2 feet of placed fill is recommended,

with test locations well distributed throughout the fill mass. When filling in small

areas, at least one test per day per area should be performed.

7.2 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

As was noted previously, a stabilized groundwater table was encountered in the test

borings at depths ranging between about 1 foot to 9 feet BEG at the time of our field

exploration. Depending on the areas of the site under consideration, groundwater

levels have differing implications for design and construction. The extent and nature

of any dewatering required during construction will be dependent on the actual

groundwater conditions prevalent at the time of construction and the effectiveness of

construction drainage to prevent run-off into open excavations.

Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, groundwater could

potentially adversely impact the planned development of this property, most especially

with respect to the installation of subsurface utilities in lower-lying areas of the site, and

filling of the existing pond feature. As previously noted, groundwater levels are subject

to seasonal, climatic and other variations and may be different at other times and

locations.

Page 15



7.3 FOUNDATIONS

Foundation support for the proposed amenity structures is anticipated to be

accomplished via conventional shallow footings and slab-on-grade systems. Structural

loadings and grading details were not available from the design team at the time of the

issuance of this report. The learning center and restroom structures are anticipated to

be supported on a driven timber pile foundation system.

7.3.1 Shallow Foundations

We note that our site preparation and subsequent foundation recommendations

have been rendered based on our understanding that fill heights above current

grade elevations required to achieve the desired finished floor elevations for

these structures will be between 1 foot and 3 feet. Furthermore, we have

assumed that structure loadings will be limited to 50 kips per column for isolated

interior columns and 3 kips per linear foot for continuous load bearing walls.

Should the required fill heights exceed 3 feet or should the building loads be

greater than 50 kips/3 klf, additional analysis of the additional loading’s impact

on the aforementioned very soft to soft peat (PT) stratum and subsequent site

preparation recommendations may be necessary.

Design: After the recommended site and subgrade preparation and fill

placement, we recommend that conventional shallow foundation systems

consisting of isolated spread footings and/or turn-down slab-on-grade

construction be used to support the proposed structures.

Foundations bearing on densified existing soils and/or compacted structural fill,

as recommended in this report, may be designed for a maximum allowable

bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf), which reflects the

relatively loose soil conditions encountered across the site, the restrictions on

utilizing vibratory compaction, and the organic laden soils encountered beginning

at a depth of about 11 feet BEG.

We recommend minimum footing widths of 24 inches for ease of construction

and to reduce the possibility of localized shear failures. Exterior and interior

footing bottoms should be established at least 16 inches below finished

surrounding exterior grades.

Settlement: Settlements for spread foundations bearing on the higher

consistency residual materials were assessed using SPT values to estimate

elastic modulus, based on published correlations and previous NOVA experience.

We note that the settlements presented are based on the results of the SPT

borings. Conditions may be better or worse in other areas, however, we believe

the estimated settlements are reasonably conservative.

Page 16



Based on assumed the wall loadings, the soil bearing capacity and the presumed

foundation elevations discussed above, we expect primary total settlement

beneath individual foundations to be on the order of 1 inch.

The amount of differential settlement is difficult to predict because the

subsurface and foundation loading conditions can vary considerably across the

site. However, we anticipate differential settlement between adjacent

foundations will be less than ½ inch. The final deflected shape of the structure

will be dependent on actual foundation locations and loading. Foundation

support conditions are highly erratic and may vary dramatically in short

horizontal distances.

It is anticipated that the geotechnical engineer may recommend a different

bearing capacity upon examination of the actual foundation subgrade at

numerous locations. To reduce the differential settlement if lower consistency

materials are encountered, a lower bearing capacity should be used or the

foundations should be extended to more competent materials.

We anticipate that timely communication between the geotechnical engineer

and the structural engineer, as well as other design and construction team

members, will be required.

Construction: Foundation excavations should be evaluated by the NOVA

geotechnical engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe

foundation subgrade preparation and confirm bearing pressure capacity.

Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud,

and loose, frozen, or water-softened soils. Concrete should be placed as soon

as is practical after the foundation is excavated and the subgrade evaluated.

Foundation concrete should not be placed on frozen or saturated soil. If a

foundation excavation remains open overnight, or if rain or snow is imminent,

a 3 to 4-inch thick "mud mat" of lean concrete should be placed in the bottom

of the excavation to protect the bearing soils until reinforcing steel and concrete

can be placed.

7.3.2 SLABS-ON-GRADE

General: The conditions exposed at subgrade levels will vary across the site and

may include structural fill. The slabs-on-grade may be adequately supported on

these subgrade conditions subject to the recommendations in this report.

The slabs-on-grade should be jointed around columns and along walls to reduce

cracking due to differential movement.

Page 17



Underdrain systems are not necessary beneath the slabs, provided that the slabs

are established at least 2 feet above the SHGW level. Impermeable vapor

barriers are recommended beneath finished spaces to reduce dampness.

Once grading is completed, the subgrade is usually exposed to adverse

construction activities and weather conditions during the period of sub-slab

utility installation. The subgrade should be well-drained to prevent the

accumulation of water. If the exposed subgrade becomes saturated or frozen,

the geotechnical engineer should be consulted.

After utilities have been installed and backfilled, a final subgrade evaluation

should be performed by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to slab-on-

grade placements. If practical, proofrolling may be used to redensify the surface

and to detect any soil that has become excessively wet or otherwise loosened.

7.3.3 Deep Foundations

Compression: Allowable compressive capacities for 8-inch and 10-inch tip

diameter (cylindrical) timber piles are presented on the next page in Table 1. The

8-inch and 10-inch tip pile diameters were selected for this site as they are

capable of carrying relatively high axial compressive capacities while being

generally readily available to piling contractors in this region. Pile embedment

depths should be established a minimum of 10 feet below current grade

elevations.

We recommend utilizing the estimated pile capacities from Table 1 below when

determining the final selection of the timber pile length. If higher capacities are

desired, larger diameter piles or deeper piles may be considered. We are available

to evaluate additional options, if requested.

TABLE 1 – DRIVEN TIMBER PILE ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE CAPACITIES

Pile Type Depth of Embedment,

below existing grade

Allowable

Compressive

Capacity (kips)

Allowable Uplift

Capacity (kips)

8 inch Φ tip – 8.5 inch Φ butt Round

10 feet* 8 0.5

10 inch Φ tip – 10.5 inch Φ

butt Round 10 feet* 9 1.5

* Assumed to be driven to the bearing depth.

Page 18



Installation Considerations: The pile-driving hammer should be sized to avoid

overstressing the pile during driving. A drop hammer with a rated energy of 1,000

to 1,500 foot-pounds should be considered initially. NOVA should be allowed to

evaluate the hammer pile system submitted by the contractor. Piles should be

driven to capacity or refusal using the ENR, Hiley, Janbu, Davison, or other driving

formula approved by NOVA.

A minimum pile spacing of 3 diameters should be maintained. If a closer spacing

is required, or if pile caps contain more than 5 piles, capacity reduction due to

group effects should be considered. Also, the design engineer should evaluate the

potential for buckling of the piles under the maximum scour condition.

Installation of driven piles, including probe and test piles should be monitored on

a full-time basis. Detailed records should be maintained by the geotechnical

engineer who will confirm pile size, location, installed lengths, driving resistance,

tip elevation and other relevant installation information.

The engineer monitoring the installation of the production piles should be aware

that the inter-layering of sandy soils and organic materials is common in the

coastal areas. Our experience on projects in the surrounding area indicates that

subsurface conditions can be highly erratic. If a pile(s) encounters refusal at a

depth which appears to be inconsistent with the borings, probe piles or other

nearby production piles, it may be necessary to replace the pile or reduce its

capacity.

Pile Load Test: The installation criteria of timber piles are typically verified by

performing a load test in general accordance with ASTM standard D-1143. The

load test should be carried out to at least twice the design load. Preferably, the

test pile should be loaded to failure to more accurately determine ultimate

working capacities and recommended working loads. The structural engineer

should specify the failure criteria for the load test.

7.4 SEAWALL DESIGN

Based on design information provided by the design team, we understand that

foundation support for the proposed low-lying seawall (bulkhead) is anticipated to be

accomplished via a conventional shallow strip footing. We recommend that the bottom

of footing elevation(s) along the proposed seawall alignment be established at least 1

feet above the established mean high water level for this location, and the foundation

should be designed in such a manner as to counter the effects of scour from wave and

tidal action, as required for this location along the Intracoastal Waterway.

Page 19



After the recommended site and subgrade preparation and fill placement, we

recommend that a conventional shallow strip footing be used to support the proposed

bulkhead structure. Foundations bearing on densified subgrade soils, as recommended

in this report, may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,500

pounds per square foot (psf).

The magnitude and distribution of earth pressures against below grade walls depends

on the deformation condition (rotation) of the bulkhead, soil properties and water

conditions. When the soil behind the bulkhead is prevented from lateral strain, the

resulting force is known as the at-rest earth pressure (KO). If the retaining structure

moves away from the soil mass, the earth pressure decreases with the increasing

lateral expansion until a minimum pressure, known as the active earth pressure (KA),

is reached. If the bulkhead is forced into the soil mass, the earth pressure increases

until a maximum pressure, known as the passive earth pressure (KP), is obtained.

If active earth pressure development requires horizontal bulkhead movements that

cannot occur, or which are architecturally undesirable, the bulkhead should be

designed for an intermediate pressure based on restraint conditions.

Laboratory analysis to determine actual soil shear strength properties was beyond the

authorized scope of services. Based on our experience with similar soils and

construction, we have provided the earth pressure estimates shown on the following

page:

Earth Pressure Earth Pressure Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf)

Condition Coefficient Above Water Table Below Water Table

Active (Ka) 0.33 40 80

At-Rest (Ko) 0.50 60 89

Passive (Kp) 3.00 150* TBD**

• Passive earth pressure is frequently used in bulkhead design to resist active earth

pressures. Bulkhead movements required to develop full passive earth pressures are

significantly greater than movements necessary for active earth pressures. Consequently,

this passive pressure value has been reduced by at least 50% for wall design

• Passive earth pressure for submerged bulkhead design shall be determined on a case-by-

case basis.

Page 20



We recommend a value of 0.35 as the coefficient of friction (sliding resistance)

between bulkhead foundations and the underlying soils. This design value does not

contain a safety factor. Our lateral earth pressure recommendations assume that:

• The ground surface adjacent to the bulkhead is level,

• Residual soils will be reused for wall backfill, compacted between 95% to 98% of

the modified proctor maximum dry density,

• Soil backfill weight is a maximum of 120 pcf,

• Heavy construction equipment does not operate within 5 feet of the bulkhead,

• A constantly functioning drainage system is installed between the bulkhead and

the soil backfill to prevent hydrostatic pressures from acting on the structure,

• Foundations or other significant surcharge loads are located landward of the

bulkhead a distance at least equal to the bulkhead height above seaward grade

elevations,

• For active earth pressure, the bulkhead must rotate about the base, with top lateral

movements of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is bulkhead height.

• For passive earth pressure to develop, the bulkhead must move horizontally to

mobilize resistance.

7.5 PAVEMENT SECTIONS

We understand that a flexible (asphalt) pavement section will be employed for this

development. Recommended heavy duty and light duty pavement sections have been

developed for this project based on our understanding of the existing subsurface

conditions, review of applicable FDOT specifications, and the assumed pavement design

parameters of a 20-year pavement design life with moderate traffic loadings appropriate

to a recreational facility of this size.

Page 21



Based on the results of our test borings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear

to be adaptable for the following pavement sections (employing crushed limerock or

crushed concrete base materials), provided a minimum separation of at least 24 inches

between the bottom of the 6-inch Stabilized Subgrade Course and the normal

permanent seasonal high groundwater table can be maintained.

If this separation cannot be established and maintained by grading and surface

drainage improvements, permanent groundwater control measures (underdrains)

should also be incorporated into the design and construction of the project, or Graded

Aggregate Base (GAB) should be used in lieu of crushed limerock or crushed concrete

base material.

STANDARD-DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION (PARKING STALLS)

Structural Course (FDOT SuperPave – SP fine) 1½ inches

Crushed Limerock or Crushed Concrete Base Course (from an

FDOT approved source, min. LBR of 100) 6 inches

Stabilized Subgrade (minimum LBR of 40) 12 inches

HEAVY-DUTY PAVEMENT SECTION (MAIN ENTRANCES, DRIVEWAYS)

Structural Course (FDOT SuperPave – SP fine) 2½ inches

Crushed Limerock or Crushed Concrete Base Course (from an

FDOT approved source, min. LBR of 100) 8 inches

Stabilized Subgrade (minimum LBR of 40) 12 inches

We recommend specifying a minimum compaction requirement of at least 98 percent

of the maximum dry density for the base course and stabilized subgrade course

materials as determined by the Modified Proctor test method (ASTM D-1557).

All asphalt material and paving operations should meet applicable specifications of the

Asphalt Institute and FDOT requirements. A NOVA technician should observe placement

and perform density testing of the stabilized subgrade, base course material and

asphalt.

7.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

We understand that the SMS for this development is proposed to consist of a

conventional shallow dry retention basin to treat and dispose of stormwater runoff

associated with the planned site improvements.

Page 22



Based on the results of the SMS borings and limited laboratory testing, the subsurface

soil profile encountered beneath the proposed SMS footprint appears to be well-suited

for the treatment and disposal of stormwater runoff via the desired SMS.

We recommend employing the SMS design parameters provided below in Table 2 for the

design of the SMS for this project.

Table 2 –SMS Soil Design Parameters

Corresponding Soil Boring Test Locations R-1

Approximate Depth to Confining Layer, BEG 11 feet

Measured Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Kv) 17 foot/day

Calculated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (Kh) 26 feet/day

Estimated Infiltration Rate (DRI) 5.6 inches/hr.

Estimated Fillable Porosity of Soil 25%

Estimated Depth to Normal Permanent SHGW table, BEG 3 feet

Estimated Depth to Normal Permanent SLGW table, BEG 5 feet

The estimated normal permanent seasonal high (SHGW) and seasonal low (SLGW)

groundwater levels provided in Table 2 above are based on our experience with

projects in this locale; the soil strata encountered in the test borings; the groundwater

levels measured at the site; and the published information by the “Web Soil Survey” National database, NRCS division of the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA). Please note that the measured hydraulic conductivity rates could be adversely

impacted if siltation of the basin bottoms are allowed after construction.

Page 23



8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

8.1 SUBGRADE

Once site grading is completed, the subgrade may be exposed to adverse construction

activities and weather conditions. The subgrade should be well-drained to prevent the

accumulation of water. If the exposed subgrade becomes saturated or frozen, the

NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted.

A final subgrade evaluation should be performed by the NOVA geotechnical engineer

immediately prior to slab-on-grade placement. If practical, proofrolling may be used to

re-densify the surface and to detect any soil, which has become excessively wet or

otherwise loosened.

8.2 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Foundation excavations for the proposed structures and bulkhead should be level and

free of debris, ponded water, mud, and loose, frozen or water-softened soils. All

foundation excavations should be evaluated by the NOVA geotechnical engineer prior to

reinforcing steel placement to observe foundation subgrade preparation and confirm

bearing pressure capacity. Due to variable site subsurface and construction conditions,

some adjustments in isolated foundation bearing pressures, depth of foundations or

undercutting and replacement with controlled structural fill may be necessary.

8.3 PAVEMENTS

The recommended pavement sections should utilize materials and be constructed in

accordance with applicable FDOT specifications. Also, NOVA should be retained during

construction to confirm subgrade conditions are as anticipated and that the construction

process is as required by the contract documents

Page 24

APPENDIX A Figures and Maps

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

Base map provided by Google Earth

Scale: Not To Scale 140-A Lurton Street

Pensacola, Florida 32505 850.607.7782 ♦ 850.249.6683

PROJECT LOCATION MAP Navarre Park Improvements

Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida NOVA Project Number 8218007

Date Drawn: February 14, 2018 Drawn By: J. James Checked By: W. Lawrence

Soil Map—Santa Rosa County, Florida (8218007 Navarre Park Improvements)

512720 512760 512800 512840 512880 512920 512960 513000 513040 513080 513120

30° 24' 6'' N 30° 24' 6'' N

30° 23' 57'' N

3363

040

3363

080

3363

120

3363

160

3363

200

3363

240

3363

280

3363

320

3363

040

3363

080

3363

120

3363

160

3363

200

3363

240

3363

280

3363

320

86°

52' 4

'' W

86°

51' 4

7'' W

86°

52' 4

'' W

86°

51' 4

7'' W

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

30° 23' 57'' N

512720 512760 512800 512840 512880 512920 512960 513000 513040 513080 513120

Map Scale: 1:2,020 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters

N 0 25 50 100 150 Feet

0 50 100 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84

Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/14/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3

Soil Map—Santa Rosa County, Florida (8218007 Navarre Park Improvements)

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils

Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features

Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features

Streams and Canals

Transportation

Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background

Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Santa Rosa County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 14, Oct 6, 2017

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Feb 8, 2017

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.


Soil Map—Santa Rosa County, Florida 8218007 Navarre Park Improvements

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

24 Leon sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

9.0 97.6%

100 Waters of the Gulf of Mexico 0.2 2.4%

Totals for Area of Interest 9.2 100.0%


APPENDIX B Subsurface Data

P-1

S-4

LEGEND

B-x – 20-foot SPT Boring

A-4

P-2 B-1 B-2

A-3 B-3

P-4 P-3 B-5 B-3

B-12 B-9 S-5 A-2 B-6

B-11

S-1 B-10

A-1 B-7

S-2 B-8 S-3

P-x – 15-foot SPT Boring S-x – 15-foot SPT Boring A-x – 5-foot Auger Boring

Scale: Not To Scale 140-A Lurton Street

Pensacola, Florida 32505

850.607.7782 ♦ 850.249.6683

BORING LOCATION PLAN




Date Drawn: November 14, 2018

Drawn By: J. James

Checked By: W. Lawrence

KEY TO BORING LOGS

Medium Stiff

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

50%

or more passes

the No.

200

sieve*

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

More than

50%

retained

on the the No.

200

sieve*

PROJECT: Navarre Park Improvements PROJECT NO.: 8218007

CLIENT: Genesis Group

PROJECT LOCATION: Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida

LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade TEST BORING DRILLER: S. Ryan LOGGED BY: B. Pement

RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: 2/2/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-1

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

TOPSOIL (Approx. 2-inches) Loose orange fine-grained Silty SAND (SM)

Loose dark brown fine-grained SAND with Silt w/trace roots (SP-SM)

Loose brown/gray fine-grained SAND (SP) Loose brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose brown/gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense dark brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)

Medium dense white fine-grained SAND (SP)

Soft Peat (PT)


Boring Terminated at 20 ft.

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

7

6

5

20

12

4

13

Page 1 of 1






De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

TOPSOIL (Approx. 8-inches)

Loose gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose to medium dense dark brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)


Very soft PEAT (PT)

Medium dense brown/white fine-grained SAND (SP)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

6

4

4

14

13

1

24

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger/SPT Boring DATE: 2/2/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 4 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-3

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Loose white fine-grained SAND (SP) Loose light brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose white fine-grained SAND (SP) Loose brown fine-grained SAND w/trace roots (SP)

Very loose brown fine-grained SAND with Silt w/wood fragments (SP-SM)

Very loose gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

Soft PEAT (PT)

Stiff PEAT w/wood (PT)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

4

4

2

1

1

4

14

Page 1 of 1






De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Loose white fine-grained SAND (SP) Loose orange fine-grained Silty SAND (SM)

Loose dark brown fine-grained SAND with Silt w/trace roots (SP-SM)

Loose dark brown fine-grained Silty SAND w/wood fragments (SM)

Loose to medium dense brown/gray fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)

Loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium stiff to soft PEAT (PT)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

4

4

9

11

9

6

3

Page 1 of 1






De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

TOPSOIL (Approx. 3-inches) Loose white fine-grained SAND w/seams of brown fine-

grained Silty SAND (SP+SM) Loose light brown fine-grained SAND w/seam of dark brown fine-grained Silty SAND & trace roots (SP+SM)

Loose gray fine-grained SAND w/seam of orange fine-grained Silty SAND (SP+SM)

Loose gray/light brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose white/light brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Meduim stiff PEAT w/wood fragments (PT)

Loose white fine-grained SAND (SP)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

5

4

8

4

7

6

10

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger/SPT Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.5 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-6

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

TOPSOIL (Approx. 6-inches) Loose white fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose light orange fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense brown fine-grained SAND with Silt w/trace roots (SP-SM)

Medium dense gray fine-grained SAND w/seams of brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP+SP-SM)

Medium dense to loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium stiff PEAT (PT)

Stiff PEAT w/wood

Stiff PEAT (PT)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

6

4

14

19

6

6

11

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: 2/2/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.5 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-7

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

TOPSOIL (Approx. 5-inches) Loose white/orange fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense white/light orange fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense gray/white fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense brown/gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense gray/off-white fine-grained SAND (SP)


Loose brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

8

18

11

15

15

7

5

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger/SPT Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 4.5 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-8

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

TOPSOIL (Approx. 3-inches) Loose orange fine-grained SAND with Silt w/trace roots

(SP-SM) Loose light orange fine-grained SAND w/trace roots (SP)

Loose white/light orange fine-grained SAND (SP)


Very loose gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND w/seams of brown fine-grained Silty SAND (SP+SM)

Very loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)

Stiff PEAT (PT)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

7

4

6

2

6

3

9

Page 1 of 1






De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Very loose light orange fine-grained SAND (SP) Very loose gray fine-grained SAND w/ trace roots (SP)

Very loose white fine-grained SAND (SP)

Very loose white fine-grained SAND w/seam of brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP+SP-SM)

Loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND (SP)



10 20 30 40 50 70 90

1

0

0

0

4

5

8

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: 2/6/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.8 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-10

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT 0

3

TOPSOIL (Approx. 2-inches) Very loose to loose brown fine-grained SAND w/trace

roots (SP)

1

5

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

Loose to medium dense brown fine-grained SAND with Silt w/seam of brown fine-grained Silty SAND (SP-SM+SM) 14

6

Loose brown/gray fine-grained SAND (SP) 10

9

7

12 Soft PEAT (PT)

3

15

18

21

Medium dense brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense off-white fine-grained SAND (SP) Boring Terminated at 20 ft.

14

B-10 is located on top of the slope of the pond, and is about the same elevation as the parking lot.

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.




LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade TEST BORING DRILLER: J. Governale LOGGED BY: S. San Filippo

RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: November 19, 2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 2.0 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-11

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Grey loose fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM) 7

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

3

Dark brown loose fine-grained silty SAND (SM) 8

8

6

6

9

4

12

Grey medium dense to dense fine-grained SAND (SP)

16

15

18

31

21


Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: November 19, 2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 2.0 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> B-12

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. D

ep

th

(fe

et)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Dark brown loose fine-grained SAND (SP)

Dark brown/black very loose fine-grained silty SAND (SM) 3

Dark brown loose fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)

6

9

Dark brown/black loose fine-grained silty SAND (SM)

12

Grey medium dense to dense fine-grained SAND (SP)

15

18

Boring Terminated at 20 ft. 21

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

7

3

8

7

5

17

35

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: 2/2/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 2 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> S-1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. D

ep

th

(fe

et)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


TOPSOIL (Approx. 3-inches) Loose white fine-grained SAND w/trace roots (SP)


Medium dense white/light orange fine-grained SAND w/ 3 trace roots (SP)

Medium dense off-white fine-grained SAND (SP)

6

Medium dense gray/light brown fine-grained SAND (SP)

Medium dense off-white fine-grained SAND (SP)

9

12 Soft to very stiff PEAT (PT)

15


Boring Terminated at 17 ft. 18

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

7

13

21

18

13

3

18

Page 1 of 1

21

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger/SPT Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 4.5 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> S-2

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


TOPSOIL (Approx. 5-inches) Orange fine-grained SAND with Silt w/trace roots (SP-SM)

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

3

Light orange fine-grained SAND (SP) Gray/light brown fine-grained SAND w/trace roots (SP)

Very loose white fine-grained SAND (SP)

3

6

Loose gray fine-grained SAND (SP) 7

9

Loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND w/seams of brown fine-grained Silty SAND (SP+SM)

Loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND w/wood fragments & trace roots (SP)


9

12 Loose gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

6

15


18

21

Hand auger to 4' due to underground Electric

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger/SPT Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 4 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> S-3

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Description

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

TOPSOIL (Approx. 3-inches) Loose light orange fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose orange fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)


Medium dense gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

Loose gray/brown fine-grained SAND w/trace roots (SP)

Loose gray fine-grained SAND w/seams of brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP+SP-SM)


10 20 30 40 50 70 90

7

5

13

4

6

7

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: November 19, 2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.0 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> S-4

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Light brown loose fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM) 7

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

3

8

9

6

9


Grey medium dense fine-grained SAND (SP)

5

15

12

21

15


18

21

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: November 19, 2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.0 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> S-5

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Light brown loose fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM) 6

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

3

9

13

6

9

Brown medium dense fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)


5

5

12


29

15


18

21

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: SPT Boring DATE: November 19, 2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 9.0 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> P-1

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


Brown loose fine-grained SAND (SP) 5

7

7

5

9

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

Dark brown very loose fine-grained silty SAND (SM) 3

181



25

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.






De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


3

Brown loose fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)

Light brown loose to medium dense fine-grained SAND (SP)

7

10

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

17

6

9

9

7

12

15

Dark brown medium dense fine-grained silty SAND (SM)


15

18

21

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.






De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


3


Light brown loose to medium dense fine-grained SAND (SP)

8

10

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

12

6

Dark brown medium dense fine-grained silty SAND (SM) 13

9

14

12

Light brown/grey loose fine-grained SAND (SP)

9

15


18

21

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.






De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


3


Dark brown medium dense fine-grained SAND (SP)

9

11

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

21

6

10

9

Dark brown/black loose fine-grained silty SAND (SM) 8

12

Dark brown medium dense fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)

13

15


18

21

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 4 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> A-1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. D

ep

th

(fe

et)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE



Light orange fine-grained SAND (SP)

1

2

3

White fine-grained SAND (SP)

4

Gray fine-grained SAND w/seams of brown fine-grained Silty SAND and wood (SP+SM)

5


6

7

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

Page 1 of 1





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 4 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> A-2

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e. D

ep

th

(fe

et)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE



Light brown fine-grained SAND with Silt w/trace roots (SP)

1

2


3

White fine-grained SAND w/seams of brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP+SP-SM)

4

Brown/gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

5


6

7

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

Page 1 of 1

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.5 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> A-3

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE



10 20 30 40 50 70 90

1

2

Orange fine-grained Silty SAND

Gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

3

Brown/gray fine-grained SAND (SP)

4

5


6

Page 1 of 1

7

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.





RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: 2/5/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.75 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> A-4

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


ASPHALT (Approx. 1-inch) Orange fine-grained Silty SAND (SM)

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

1

2

3

Dark brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)

4

5


6

Page 1 of 1

7

Th

is i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

ert

ain

s o

nly

to

th

is b

ori

ng

an

d s

ho

uld

no

t b

e i

nte

rpre

ted

as

be

ing

in

dic

ati

ve

of

the

sit

e.




LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade TEST BORING DRILLER: E. Allen LOGGED BY: J. James

RECORD DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: 11/1/2018 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3.5 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> R-1

De

pth

(f

ee

t)

Ele

vati

on

(f

t-M

SL)

Description

Gra

ph

ic

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Sa

mp

le

Typ

e

N-V

alu

e

%<#200

BLOW COUNT

NATURAL MOISTURE


1


Light brown fine-grained SAND with Silt (SP-SM)

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

2

3

4


5


6

7

Page 1 of 1

Project:

Project Location:

Project Number:

Date(s) of Test November 1, 2018 Logged by E.Allen Checked by W. Lawrence

Test Method ASTM D 3385 Weather Clear Type of liquid tap water

Area Inner Ring 110.75 sq. in. Technician(s) S. San Filippo Liquid Temperature 77⁰F

Area Outer Ring 447.69 sq. in. See Auger Boring Record for Soil Profile Soil Temperature

Area Annular Space 334.59 sq. in. Approx. Elev. / Location At existing grade

Time Elapsed Volume Infiltration Volume Infiltration Comments

Time Rate Rate

(minutes) (gal) (In/hr) (gal) (In/hr)

8:50 10 0.4 5.6 0.4 1.3

9:00 10 0.9 11.1 0.8 2.6

9:10 10 0.9 11.1 0.8 2.6

9:20 10 0.4 5.6 0.8 2.6

9:30 10 0.4 5.6 0.4 1.3

9:40 10 0.4 5.6 0.4 1.3

9:50 10 0.4 5.6 0.4 1.3

10:00 10 0.4 5.6 0.4 1.3

10:10 10 0.4 5.6 0.4 1.3

INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE vs. TOTAL ELAPSED TIME

Report of DRI

Figure DRI-1

Test began after a 30-minute saturation period.

Inner Ring Outer Ring



8218007

INFILTRATION RATE = 5.6in/hr

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

8:38 8:52 9:07 9:21 9:36 9:50 10:04 10:19

Infi

ltra

tio

n R

ate

(in

/hr)

Time

Infiltration Rate

Inner Ring

Outer Ring

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Data

SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION & INDEX TESTING

Navarre Park Improvements Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida

NOVA Project No. 8218007

SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TESTING

Boring No.

Sample Depth (BEG)

Natural Moisture

(%)

Percent Fines (%- #200)

Organic Content

(%)

USCS Soil

Classification

A-3 2.5’-5’ 16 2 --- SP

A-4 1”-3’ 9 20 --- SM

B-1 4’-6’ 23 3 --- SP

B-3 12’-17.5’ 269 0 57 PT

B-5 4’-9.5’ 22 1 --- SP

B-9 4”-4’ 24 2 --- SP

B-10 6’-11.5’ 23 1 --- SP

B-12 0-2’ 16 5 --- SP

S-1 11.5’-16.5’ 300 0 81 PT

S-2 8’-9.5’ 29 1 --- SP

S-4 6’-8’ 87 22 --- SM w/ O

P-1 4’-6’ 9 6 --- SP-SM

P-1 13’-15’ 181 30 --- SM w/ O

P-4 6’-8’ 25 3 --- SP

APPENDIX D Photo Essay

PHOTO 1

This photo was taken at the farthest eastern edge of the seawall facing south.

PHOTO 2

This photo was taken at the farthest eastern edge of the seawall facing west.

Scale: Not to Scale 140-A Lurton Street


PHOTO ESSAY Navarre Park Improvements


Page 1 of 5

Date Taken: February 02, 2018 Taken by: S. Shattuck Checked by: W. Lawrence

PHOTO 3

This photo was taken in the middle portion of the seawall facing west.

PHOTO 4

This photo was taken in the middle portion of the seawall facing west.





Page 2 of 5


PHOTO 5

This photo was taken in the western portion of the seawall facing west.

PHOTO 6






Page 3 of 5


PHOTO 7


PHOTO 8

This photo was taken in the western edge of the seawall facing west.





Page 4 of 5


PHOTO 9

This photo was taken at the farthest western edge of the seawall looking at the end of the rip rap.

PHOTO 10

This photo was taken at the farthest western edge of the seawall looking at the end of the rip rap facing east. The hand auger penetrated the soil directly adjacent to the existing seawall with no obstructions (i.e. did not hit buried rip rap) down to groundwater at 4.5’ below existing grade.





Page 5 of 5


APPENDIX E Qualifications of Recommendations

QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report represent our professional opinions concerning subsurface conditions at the site. The opinions presented are relative to the dates of our site work and should not be relied on to represent conditions at later dates or at locations not explored. The opinions included herein are based on information provided to us, the data obtained at specific locations during the study, and our previous experience. If additional information becomes available which might impact our geotechnical opinions, it will be necessary for NOVA to review the information, re-assess the potential concerns, and re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is the possibility that conditions between borings may differ from those encountered at specific boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers and/or the contractors, or that either natural events or the construction process has altered the subsurface conditions. These variations are an inherent risk associated with subsurface conditions in this region and the approximate methods used to obtain the data. These variations may not be apparent until construction.

The professional opinions presented in this report are not final. Field observations and foundation installation monitoring by the geotechnical engineer, as well as soil density testing and other quality assurance functions associated with site earthwork and foundation construction, are an extension of this report. Therefore, NOVA should be retained by the owner to observe all earthwork and foundation construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated in this study actually exist, and to finalize or amend our conclusions and recommendations. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report if NOVA does not perform these observations and testing services.

This report is intended for the sole use of Genesis Group only. The scope of work performed during this study was developed for purposes specifically intended by Genesis Group only, and may not satisfy other users’ requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations or opinions.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, our conclusions derived and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the State of Florida. This warranty is in lieu of all other statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT · Geotechnical Engineering Report November 27, 2018 Navarre Park...

Documents

Transcript of GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT · Geotechnical Engineering Report November 27, 2018 Navarre Park...