PHASE I - ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT€¦ · The test borings (B -1 through B -12, excluding B...

PREPARED FOR: Baker Properties, LLC Attention: Keith Pattison 953 Islington Street #23D Portsmouth, NH 03801 PREPARED BY: S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. 10 Centre Road Somersworth, NH 03878-2926 (603) 692-0088

DRAFT REPORT August 23, 2017 17-0671 S

Explorations & Geotechnical Engineering Services

Exeter Rose Farm Subdivision Forest & Oak Street Extensions Exeter, New Hampshire

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope and Purpose ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Conditions and Proposed Construction .................................................... 1

2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................................................................ 2 2.1 Explorations ........................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Testing ................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................. 2 3.1 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................... 2 3.2 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................ 3

4.0 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 3 4.1 General Findings ................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Frost Considerations .............................................................................................. 6 4.3 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................ 4 4.4 Pavement Section .................................................................................................. 5 4.5 Backfill and Compaction ........................................................................................ 6 4.6 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 7 4.7 Routine Maintenance ............................................................................................. 7 4.8 Design Review and Construction Testing .............................................................. 8

5.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 8 Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Figures Appendix C Exploration Logs and Key Appendix D Laboratory Test Results

17-0671 S

August 23, 2017 Baker Properties, LLC Attn: Keith Pattison 953 Islington Street #23D Portsmouth, NH 03801 Subject: Explorations & Geotechnical Engineering Services

Exeter Rose Farm Subdivision Forest & Oak Street Extensions Exeter, New Hampshire

Dear Keith: In accordance with our Proposal dated June 30, 2017, we have performed subsurface explorations for the subject project. This report summarizes our findings and geotechnical recommendations and its contents are subject to the limitations set forth in Appendix A. 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and Purpose The purpose of our work was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site in order to provide geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed roadway construction. Our scope of services has included eleven test boring explorations, soils laboratory testing, a geotechnical analysis of the subsurface findings, and preparation of this report.

1.2 Existing Conditions and Proposed Construction The site is generally located south of Route 101 and Henderson-Swasey Town Forest and east of Newfields Road and a railroad alignment. The site includes a combination of undeveloped wooded and open field area north and east of Oak Street Extension. Oak Street Extension bisects the site in a north-south direction and includes several residential structures. Norris Brook occupies the western portion of the site. Based on the “Conceptual Open Space Subdivision” plan prepared by MSC Engineers and dated June 23, 2017, topography generally slopes downward from northwest to southeast from about elevation 60 feet to about elevation 18 feet, respectively.

17-0671 S August 23, 2017

2

We understand the project consists of a new residential subdivision, which will include about 2,700 linear feet of new roadway construction extending from Forest Street to the northwest, intersecting with the end of Oak Street Extension, and then continuing further northwest before terminating at a proposed cul-de-sac. We understand that about 2,100 linear feet of existing roadway (Oak Street Extension) will not be re-constructed at this time, but will remain in-place as “secondary access” to the subdivision. We understand that finish grades will generally follow the existing topography with minor cut and fill requirements. We have included a “Site Location Map” in Appendix B. Existing site features are shown on the “Exploration Location Plan” also included in Appendix B. 2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING

2.1 Explorations Eleven test boring explorations (B-1 through B-12, excluding B-5) were made at the site on August 4, 2017 by S. W. COLE Explorations, LLC working under subcontract to S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. (S.W.COLE). The exploration locations were selected and established in the field by S.W.COLE using a Trimble GPS mapping grade receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Test Boring B-5 was omitted at the time of exploration work due to thick vegetation / difficult access. The approximate test boring locations are shown on the “Exploration Location Plan,” included in Appendix B. Logs of the test borings and a key to the notes and symbols used on the logs are included in Appendix C.

2.2 Testing Soil samples obtained from the explorations were returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing. Gradation and moisture content tests were performed on two select soil samples. Moisture content test results are noted on the logs. Gradation test results are included in Appendix D. 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Subsurface Conditions The test borings (B-1 through B-12, excluding B-5) generally encountered a surficial layer of forest duff and topsoil at the ground surface. Below the surficial layer, Test Borings B-6 and B-9 through B-12, encountered existing fill ranging from about 2 to 4 feet in

17-0671 S August 23, 2017

3

thickness. The fill is generally loose silt and fine sand or silty sand with low percentages of gravel. At greater depth, the test borings generally encountered loose to medium dense sand, or silt and sand, ranging from about 2 to 5 feet in depth. Below the sand, or silt and sand, Test Borings B-1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 11 were observed to transition to medium dense clayey silt to about 6 feet in depth. The test borings were generally terminated at 6 feet in depth with the exception of Test Boring B-8, which was terminated at 7 feet in depth. Please refer to the attached logs for more detailed descriptions of the subsurface findings.

3.2 Groundwater Conditions Saturated soils were observed in Test Borings B-7, 8, and 10 at depths greater than 3.5, 6.5, and 5.0 feet, respectively. No free water was observed in the remaining test borings at the time of exploration work. Long-term groundwater information is not available. Groundwater levels will fluctuate seasonally, particularly during periods of snowmelt and precipitation. 4.0 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General Findings Based on the subsurface findings and our understanding of proposed construction, we offer the following geotechnical considerations:

• Based on conversation with MSC Engineers, the new roadway for the proposed subdivision should be designed for 10 trips per unit per day, which is equal to 390 trips per day.

• The new roadway should be designed in accordance with the “Standard Specifications for Construction of Public Utilities in Exeter, New Hampshire,” revised March 2002. We have reviewed this reference during our pavement evaluation.

• The site contains existing structures that will be razed in favor of new roadway

construction. Existing utilities, old foundations, and other subsurface structures should be removed and relocated as needed prior to new roadway construction.

17-0671 S August 23, 2017

4

Voids created by removal of existing utilities and foundations should be backfilled with compacted Granular Borrow.

• The test borings encountered about 2 to 4 inches of topsoil at the ground surface

with organic roots that likely extend up to about 2 feet into the subsoil. Topsoil, soils containing organics, and any other deleterious materials are not suitable as pavement subgrade and should be removed from below the new roadway. It is possible that topsoil can be re-used in landscaped areas of the site.

• Test Borings B-6, and B-9 through B-12 encountered loose, existing fill consisting

of silt-sand-gravel. Loose existing fill is not suitable as pavement subgrade and should be over-excavated and replaced. The existing fill can likely be re-used as compacted Granular Borrow assuming it meets re-use criteria outlined hereafter.

• The site contains existing wetland area, Norris Brook, and a natural spring off the

east side of Oak Street Extension. Roadway construction should adhere to practices outlined by applicable governing entities to accommodate resources on site.

• We understand that a project environmental engineer is currently evaluating

existing fill between Test Borings B-8 and B-9. We understand existing fill is anticipated to be wood-ash or coal-ash. It is our opinion that existing fill being wood-ash or coal-ash is not suitable as pavement subgrade and should be removed from below the new roadway. There is a possibility that existing fill is above background contamination level(s) for local and state regulations. The handling, transport, re-use, and/or disposal of existing fills above background contamination level(s) should adhere to practices outlined by applicable governing entities.

4.2 Subgrade Preparation We recommend that all topsoil, soils containing organics, existing utilities and foundations, loose fills and other deleterious materials be removed from below pavement areas. We recommend any cobbles or boulders protruding into pavement subgrade be over-excavated and replaced with compacted Granular Borrow. Depending on site grading, compacted Granular Borrow may be needed to raise grade to finish pavement subgrade elevation.

17-0671 S August 23, 2017

5

We recommend pavement subgrade be crowned to promote positive gravity drainage to exterior edge of pavement. Drainage features such as roadside ditches will improve pavement performance. Final cut for pavement subgrade should be performed with a smooth-edged bucket to reduce the potential for disturbance of subgrade soils. It is important to reduce construction traffic directly over subgrade soils due to the sensitivity of the soils to disturbance.

4.3 Pavement Section Considering the new roadway will service a residential subdivision, we anticipate the new roadway will be exposed primarily to passenger car traffic, and only occasional truck traffic such as bus and delivery trucks. We performed a pavement evaluation based on the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures making industry standard assumptions about traffic loading and using empirical data relative to subgrade strength.

Based on our evaluation and the requirements outlined in the “Standard Specifications for Construction of Public Utilities in Exeter, New Hampshire,” revised March 2002, we recommend the following pavement section for the proposed roadway.

FLEXIBLE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT Material Thickness

NHDOT 3/8” Superpave Wearing Course (50 Gyration Design) (NHDOT Std. Spec., 2016, Section 401)

1 ¼ inches

NHDOT ¾” Superpave Binder Course (50 Gyration Design) (NHDOT Std. Spec., 2016, Section 401)

2 ¾ inches

NHDOT 304.3 Crushed Gravel Base Course 6 inches NHDOT 304.2 Gravel Subbase 12 inches

Materials are based on 2016 New Hampshire Department of Transportation specifications for base and subbase materials. Pavement base and subbase materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-1557. Hot mix bituminous asphalt pavement should be compacted to 92 to 97

17-0671 S August 23, 2017

6

percent of its theoretical maximum density as determined by ASTM D-2041. A tack coat should be used between lifts of asphalt.

4.4 Frost Considerations Frost penetration can be on the order of 4.0 feet in this area of the state. The native soils are considered highly frost susceptible. In the absence of full depth excavation of frost susceptible soils or use of insulation, frost will penetrate into the subgrade and some frost heaving and pavement distress could occur. It is not common regional practice to remove frost-susceptible soils in the frost zone due to the associated high-expense. It is important to reduce the amount of water infiltration into the pavement section to reduce the potential for frost heaving.

4.5 Backfill and Compaction We recommend the following fill materials for the new roadway construction. Granular Borrow: Imported materials consisting of a mixture of sand, gravel, silt, and / or recycled products meeting the following gradation:

Granular Borrow Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

6 inch 100 ¼ inch 25 to 90

#40 0 to 50 #200 0 to 20

Granular Borrow is recommended for use as:

• Backfill to raise grade to bottom of pavement section • Backfill for replacement of over-excavated materials

Recycled Products: Borrow products including various proportions of recycled crushed materials such as asphalt, concrete, and brick can be submitted to S.W.COLE for review and consideration for use as Granular Borrow. Recycled products must also be tested in accordance with state environmental regulations and approved by a qualified environmental consultant.

Re-Use: Existing fill, topsoil, soils containing organics, existing utilities and foundations are not suitable for re-use below pavement areas. There is a possibility that native silt

17-0671 S August 23, 2017

7

and sand soils can be re-used as compacted Granular Borrow below pavement areas, provided that:

1) moisture content at the time of construction is adequate for achieving project compaction specifications;

2) rock particles larger than 6 inches are removed prior to re-use; and

3) the material is free of organics and debris.

Based on laboratory testing, the native silt and sand soils contain 18.7 to 88.3 percent fines. These soils will be very difficult to re-use as site fill when wet or during wet weather. Depending on the time of year of construction it may be necessary to import Granular Borrow from off site. Placement and Compaction: Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted such that the desired density is achieved throughout the lift thickness with 3 to 5 passes of compaction equipment. Loose lift thicknesses for grading, fill and backfill activities should not exceed 6 inches. We recommend that fill and backfill below be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. Compaction should be performed with a vibratory roller having a static weight of at least 12 tons.

4.6 Utilities Where new utilities are proposed beneath new pavement, backfilling of the utility trenches should be made in a manner to reduce differential frost action. Utility pipes should be bedded and surrounded using materials consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications. Above the utility bedding, backfill in trenches should be material similar to that in the trench sidewalls to lessen the potential for differential frost action between the trench and the adjacent materials. The backfill material should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6 inches in thickness and should be compacted to a density similar to that of the material in the adjacent trench sidewalls.

4.7 Routine Maintenance We recommend implementation of routine maintenance for the new pavement to increase the potential for achieving the pavement design life. This should include crack cleaning and sealing on a periodic basis to reduce the potential for surface water from infiltrating the pavement section.

17-0671 S August 23, 2017

8

4.8 Design Review and Construction Testing S.W.COLE should be retained to review the final design and specifications to determine that our earthwork and roadway recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. S.W.COLE should be retained to observe subgrade preparation for the new roadway. S.W.COLE should be retained to provide testing of soils and asphalt materials. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and design recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions are found to differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 5.0 CLOSURE It has been a pleasure to be of assistance to you with this phase of your project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc.

Nathan M. Cote, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer NMC:cbm

APPENDIX A Limitations

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Baker Properties, LLC for specific application to the new roadway for the Exeter Rose Farm Subdivision in Exeter, New Hampshire. S.W.COLE has endeavored to conduct the work in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The soil profiles described in the report are intended to convey general trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and are based upon interpretation of exploration data and samples. The analyses performed during this assessment and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from subsurface explorations made at the site. Variations in subsurface conditions may occur between explorations and may not become evident until construction. If variations in subsurface conditions become evident after submission of this report, it will be necessary to evaluate their nature and to review the recommendations of this report. Observations have been made during exploration work to assess site groundwater levels. Fluctuations in water levels will occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. S.W.COLE’s scope of work has not included the investigation, detection, or prevention of any Biological Pollutants at the project site or in any existing or proposed structure at the site. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms. Recommendations contained in this report are based substantially upon information provided by others regarding the proposed project. In the event that any changes are made in the design, nature, or location of the proposed project, S.W.COLE should review such changes as they relate to analyses associated with this report. Recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by S.W.COLE.

APPENDIX B

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

NOTE:SITE LOCATION MAP PREPARED FROMESRI ArcGIS ONLINE AND DATA PARTNERSINCLUDING USGS AND © 2007 NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY.

2,000 0 2,000 4,000

Scale in Feet

Job No.Date:

17-067108/10/2017

ScaleSheet

1:240001

SITE LOCATION MAPBAKER PROPERTIES, LLC

EXETER ROSE FARM SUBDIVISIONFOREST & OAK STREET EXTENSIONS

EXETER, NEW HAMPSHIRE

R:\20

17\17

-0671\

GIS\M

XDs\1

7-067

1 SLM

.mxd,

8/10

/2017

1:32:0

2 PM,

1:0,

TAX MAP 63 LOT 190

N/F

JEANETTE WILLIAMS

REVOCABLE TRUST

10 WADLEIGH STREET

EXETER, NH 03833

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

TAX MAP 49 LOT 7

N/F

BOSTON AND MAINE

RAILROAD CORPORATION

1700 IRON HORSE PARK

NORTH BELLERICA, MA 01862-1681

RCRD BK.529 PG.14

TAX MAP 53 LOT 4

N/F

JOHN P. & TERESA TOOMEY

2 NEWFIELDS ROAD

EXETER, NH 03833

RCRD BK.5516 PG.135

TAX MAP 54 LOT 4

N/F

NORRIS BROOK CONDOMINIUM

EXETER, NH 03833

RCRD BK.2561 PG.2642

TAX MAP 63 LOT 202

N/F

MAURA C. FAY &

MICHAEL VEAZEY

13 FOREST STREET

EXETER, NH 03833

RCRD BK.5231 PG.321

TAX MAP 63 LOT 204

N/F

TUCK D. PROPERTIES LLC

215 ATLANTIC AVENUE

SEABROOK, NH 03874

RCRD BK.4816 PG.657

"HENDERSON-SWASEY

TOWN FOREST"

(municipal)

TAX MAP 48 LOT 5

N/F

EAST COAST VENTURES INC.

C/O CP MANAGEMENT

11 COURT STREET, SUITE 100

EXETER, NH 03833


(industrial)

TAX MAP 54 LOT 1

N/F

SIG SAUER INC.

18 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE

EXETER, NH 03833

(industrial)

TAX MAP 63 LOT 207-1

N/F

JOAN GALLAGHER

5 WADLEIGH STREET

EXETER, NH 03833


(residential)

TAX MAP 63 LOT 206

N/F

JOAN GALLAGHER &

THOMAS R. LIGHT

5 WADLEIGH STREET

EXETER, NH 03833


(residential)

TAX MAP 49 LOT 8

N/F

TOWN OF EXETER

SWASEY HENDERSON FOREST

10 FRONT STREET

EXETER, NH 03833

RCRD BK.2056 PG.64

TAX MAP 63 LOT 203

N/F

MARY FRANCES DAGOSTINO

11 FOREST STREET

EXETER, NH 03833


(residential)

(residential)

(residential)

(residential)

(residential)

OAK STREET EXTENSION

(SEE RCRD BK.#419 PG.#259

FOR RIGHT OF WAY)

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-5

B-10

B-11

B-12

BAKER PROPERTIES, LLC

EXETER ROSE FARM SUBDIVISIONFOREST STREET & OAK STREET EXTENSIONS

EXETER, NEW HAMPSHIRE

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

Job No.:Date :

17-067108/10/2017

Scale:Sheet:

1" = 100'1

S.W.COLEE N G I N E E R I N G , I N C .

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

NOTES:

1. EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN WAS PREPARED FROM A1"=100' SCALE PLAN OF THE SITE ENTITLED"PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION,"PREPARED BY TFM, DATED JUNE 23, 2017.

2. THE BORINGS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY GPSSURVEY BY S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC. USING AMAPPING GRADE TRIMBLE GPS RECEIVER.

3. THIS PLAN SHOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEASSOCIATED S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC.GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.

4. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS ONLY TO DEPICT THELOCATION OF THE EXPLORATIONS IN RELATION TO THEEXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONAND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION.

Feet

0 100 200

R:\2

017\

17-0

671\

CA

D\D

raw

ings

\17-

0671

ELP

.dw

g, 8

/10/

2017

1:1

1:54

PM

, 1:1

, CEM

, S. W

. Col

e En

gine

erin

g, In

c.

AutoCAD SHX Text

WADLEIGH STREET

AutoCAD SHX Text

OAK STREET

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEGETATIVE BUFFER

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEGETATIVE BUFFER

AutoCAD SHX Text

(SW=884 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PERENNIAL STREAM

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEGETATIVE BUFFER (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

RETENTION POND

AutoCAD SHX Text

ZONE X

AutoCAD SHX Text

PERENNIAL STREAM

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORRIS BROOK

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORRIS BROOK

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONFLUENCE WITH WATSON BROOK

AutoCAD SHX Text

STRUCTURE SETBACK (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

NON-CONTIGUOUS WETLANDS (SEE ZO:SECTION 9.3.2.B)

AutoCAD SHX Text

POND

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONCRETE DAM

AutoCAD SHX Text

RETENTION POND

AutoCAD SHX Text

20' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

SFHA AE (EL.8)

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORRIS BROOK

AutoCAD SHX Text

NO CUT/NO DISTURB SETBACK (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

POSSIBLE AREA RESERVED FOR DRAINAGE

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORRIS BROOK

AutoCAD SHX Text

AREA DEDICATED TO CONSOLIDATION (64,100± S.F.)SEE NOTE 15(B)

AutoCAD SHX Text

BUILDING SETBACK (TYP.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

10

AutoCAD SHX Text

31

AutoCAD SHX Text

3

AutoCAD SHX Text

78,759 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

4

AutoCAD SHX Text

41,084 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

5

AutoCAD SHX Text

11,640 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

6

AutoCAD SHX Text

7

AutoCAD SHX Text

12,676 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

8

AutoCAD SHX Text

17,583 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

9

AutoCAD SHX Text

12

AutoCAD SHX Text

18,043 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

13

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,054 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

14

AutoCAD SHX Text

15

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,037 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

16

AutoCAD SHX Text

17

AutoCAD SHX Text

18

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,039 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,019 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

20

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,029 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

21

AutoCAD SHX Text

22

AutoCAD SHX Text

19

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,160 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

24

AutoCAD SHX Text

17,564 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

28,254 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

28

AutoCAD SHX Text

26

AutoCAD SHX Text

25

AutoCAD SHX Text

27

AutoCAD SHX Text

29

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,127 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

25,897 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

32

AutoCAD SHX Text

34

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED ROAD = 923'±

AutoCAD SHX Text

28,130 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

26,009 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

25,217 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

11

AutoCAD SHX Text

20,906 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,075 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED ROAD = 1,203'±

AutoCAD SHX Text

28,090 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,098 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,071 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHARED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT (11,407 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED ROAD = 1,119'±

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAINAGE SWALES (SEE ZO:SECTION 9.1.3.D)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(SW=3,178 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(SW=2,120 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

13,326 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=5,216 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=5,013 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

50' SURFACE WATER BUFFER

AutoCAD SHX Text

36

AutoCAD SHX Text

37

AutoCAD SHX Text

20,734 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

38

AutoCAD SHX Text

18,765 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

39

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,612 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=1,625 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=363 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SEE NOTE 15(A)

AutoCAD SHX Text

SPRING HOUSE

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,132 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

23

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=11,297 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=7,909 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

R-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

R-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

R-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

R-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

RETENTION POND

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING GAS LINE EASEMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

21,673 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,901 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT (49,755 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROX. TRAIL LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE =22.0± ACRES

AutoCAD SHX Text

TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE TO BE RETAINED =12.5± ACRES

AutoCAD SHX Text

(COMMON OPEN SPACE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(COMMON OPEN SPACE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(COMMON OPEN SPACE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(COMMON OPEN SPACE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(COMMON OPEN SPACE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING OAK STREET EXTENSION

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

FOREST STREET

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEGETATIVE BUFFER

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEGETATIVE BUFFER

AutoCAD SHX Text

VEGETATIVE BUFFER

AutoCAD SHX Text

50' SURFACE WATER BUFFER

AutoCAD SHX Text

POSSIBLE AREA RESERVED FOR DRAINAGE

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=4,984 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

COMMON OPEN SPACE TO BE RETAINED =6.5± ACRES

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

(SW=3,897 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(SW=5,292 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

33,147 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

23,299 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

22,618 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

35

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,186 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

33

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,224 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

2

AutoCAD SHX Text

69,802 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

83,322 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=937 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=2,522 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

8' WIDE TRAIL EASEMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED TRAIL SIGN

AutoCAD SHX Text

ROW OF ARBORVITAE

AutoCAD SHX Text

51,508 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=2,303 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=3,989 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=22,581 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(COMMON OPEN SPACE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(COMMON OPEN SPACE)

AutoCAD SHX Text

38

AutoCAD SHX Text

18,856 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

39

AutoCAD SHX Text

15,697 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

1

AutoCAD SHX Text

83,409 S.F.

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=9,959 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=2,400 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

(WA=5,806 S.F.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

RELOCATED TRAIL LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

R-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

R-4

AutoCAD SHX Text

R-2

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


APPENDIX C

1D

2D

3D

24/12

24/22

24/24

2-3-4-3

10-11-9-10

12-12-13-11

2" Grassed TOPSOILLoose, brown SILT and fine to medium SAND

Medium dense, brown-gray SILT and fine tomedium SAND

Medium dense, brown-gray Clayey SILT andfine to medium SAND

Bottom of Exploration at 6.0 feet

0-2

2-4

4-6

KEY TO NOTESAND SYMBOLS:

DRILLING CO.: S. W. Cole Explorations, LLC

HAMMER DROP (inch): 30

Drilling Information

RIG TYPE: Track Mounted Diedrich D-50

HAMMER TYPE: Automatic

GENERAL NOTES:

DRILLER: Scott Hollabaugh

HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs): 140

R = Rock Core SampleV = Field Vane Shear

Pen. = Penetration LengthRec. = Recovery Lengthbpf = Blows per Footmpf = Minute per Foot

WOR = Weight of RodsWOH = Weight of HammerRQD = Rock Quality DesignationPID = Photoionization Detector

Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft.qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft.N/A = Not Applicable

SAMPLER: Standard Split-Spoon

DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger

LOGGED BY: Tyler Demers

CORE BARREL: N/A

At time of DrillingAt Completion of DrillingAfter Drilling

D = Split Spoon Sample

CASING ID/OD: N/A /N/A

Water Level

AUGER ID/OD: 2 1/4 in / 5 5/8 in

ELEVATION (FT): N/ALOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 6.0

U = Thin Walled Tube Sample

HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR:

WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft): No free water observed.

Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions maybe gradual. Water level readings have beenmade at times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made.

SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data

SampleDescription &Classification

Depth(ft)

Remarks

PROJECT NO. 17-0671SHEET: 1 of 1

BORING LOG

DATE START: 8/4/2017DATE FINISH: 8/4/2017

BORING NO.: B- 1

BORING NO.: B- 1BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17

CLIENT: Baker Properties, LLCPROJECT: Exeter Rose Farm SubdivisionLOCATION: Forest & Oak Street, Exeter, New Hampshire

0.2

2.0

5.5

6.0

1D

2D

3D

24/14

24/22

24/24

4-4-4-2

5-6-9-8

10-13-17-18

4" Grassed TOPSOIL

Loose, brown Silty fine to medium SAND

Medium dense, gray-brown Clayey SILTsome fine sand


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level







SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 2

BORING NO.: B- 2BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


0.3

2.0

6.0

1D

2D

3D

24/12

24/22

11/4

2-1-2-7

8-7-9-16

31-50/5"

w =20.6 %

2" Forest Duff / TOPSOILLoose, brown-orange SILT and fine SANDtrace gravel

Medium dense, gray-brown SILT some fineSAND trace gravel

...becoming dense


0-2

2-4

4-4.9







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level







SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 3

BORING NO.: B- 3BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


0.2

2.5

4.9

1D

2D

3D

24/18

24/24

24/24

5-5-7-8

10-13-14-12

16-19-23-20

Medium dense, light brown-gray SILT andfine SAND

Dense, gray-brown Clayey SILT some fineSAND


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level







SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 4

BORING NO.: B- 4BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


4.0

6.0







GENERAL NOTES: Omitted due to thick vegetation / difficult access.









LOGGED BY: Tim Boyce

CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level


ELEVATION (FT): NALOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 0.0



WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft):


SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 5

BORING NO.: B- 5BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


1D

2D

3D

24/14

24/20

24/22

2-2-2-3

3-4-6-7

9-12-16-17

2" Grassed TOPSOILLoose, dark brown SILT and fine to mediumSAND trace gravel (possible FILL)

Loose, brown-gray Clayey SILT some fineSAND

...becoming medium dense


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level







SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 6

BORING NO.: B- 6BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


0.2

2.0

6.0

1D

2D

3D

24/14

24/12

24/16

4-3-4-4

9-13-21-9

10-12-12-12

4" Grassed TOPSOIL

Loose, gray-brown SILT and fine SAND

Dense, brown-gray fine to medium SANDsome silt

Medium dense, brown Silty fine to mediumSAND


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level





WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft): Soils appear saturated below 3.5 feet.


SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 7

BORING NO.: B- 7BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


0.3

2.5

4.0

6.0

1D

2D

3D

24/4

24/18

24/18

2-1-1-2

2-2-3-2

6-8-12-10

w =11.7 %

2" Grassed TOPSOILLoose, brown-gray Silty fine to mediumSAND trace gravel

Loose, brown-gray SILT and fine SAND

Medium dense, brown-gray Silty fine SAND


0-2

2-4

5-7







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level





WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft): Soils appear saturated below 6.5 feet.


SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 8

BORING NO.: B- 8BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


0.2

3.5

5.0

7.0

1D

2D

3D

24/14

24/12

24/22

2-5-4-2

3-4-6-7

7-8-9-10

4" Grassed TOPSOIL

Loose, brown SILT and fine SAND (PossibleFILL)

Loose, light brown fine to medium SANDsome silt

Medium dense, gray-brown Clayey SILTsome fine SAND


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level







SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B- 9

BORING NO.: B- 9BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


0.3

2.0

3.9

6.0

1D

2D

3D

24/12

24/12

24/12

4-3-1-1

3-3-4-4

5-5-9-9

Loose, black SILT and SAND some gravel(FILL)

Loose, light brown Silty fine to medium SAND

...becoming medium dense


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level





WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft): Soils appear saturated below 5 feet.


SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B-10

BORING NO.: B-10BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


2.0

6.0

1D

2D

3D

24/18

24/12

24/22

3-4-4-3

4-5-4-6

6-8-8-10

4" Grassed TOPSOIL

Loose, brown Silty SAND some gravel (FILL)

Loose, brown-gray SILT and fine to mediumSAND

Medium dense, brown-gray Clayey SILT andfine SAND


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level







SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B-11

BORING NO.: B-11BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

1D

2D

3D

24/6

24/10

24/24

8-6-4-4

5-3-3-6

9-12-16-13

Loose, brown Gravelly Silty SAND (FILL)

Loose, gray-brown SILT and fine SANDsome gravel (possible re-worked FILL)

Medium dense, brown-gray SILT and fineSAND


0-2

2-4

4-6







GENERAL NOTES:










CORE BARREL: N/A




Water Level







SampleNo.

Pen./Rec.(in)

SAMPLE INFORMATION

BlowCount

orRQD

CasingPen.(bpf)

Typ

e

Gra

phic

Log

Elev.(ft)

Depth(ft)

5

H20DepthField / Lab

Test Data


Depth(ft)

Remarks


BORING LOG


BORING NO.: B-12

BORING NO.: B-12BO

RIN

G /

WE

LL 1

7-06

71.G

PJ

SW

CE

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

8/1

7/17


3.0

4.0

6.0

KEY TO NOTES & SYMBOLS

Test Boring and Test Pit Explorations All stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual. Key to Symbols Used: w - water content, percent (dry weight basis) qu - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. - laboratory test Sv - field vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft. Lv - lab vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft. qp - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. – pocket penetrometer test O - organic content, percent (dry weight basis) WL - liquid limit - Atterberg test WP - plastic limit - Atterberg test WOH - advance by weight of hammer WOM - advance by weight of man WOR - advance by weight of rods HYD - advance by force of hydraulic piston on drill RQD - Rock Quality Designator - an index of the quality of a rock mass. γT - total soil weight γB - buoyant soil weight Description of Proportions: Description of Stratified Soils Parting: 0 to 1/16” thickness Trace: 0 to 5% Seam: 1/16” to 1/2” thickness Some: 5 to 12% Layer: ½” to 12” thickness “Y” 12 to 35% Varved: Alternating seams or layers And 35+% Occasional: one or less per foot of thickness With Undifferentiated Frequent: more than one per foot of thickness REFUSAL: Test Boring Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which, in the drill foreman's opinion, sufficient resistance to the advance of the casing, auger, probe rod or sampler was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used. REFUSAL: Test Pit Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which sufficient resistance to the advance of the backhoe bucket was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used. Although refusal may indicate the encountering of the bedrock surface, it may indicate the striking of large cobbles, boulders, very dense or cemented soil, or other buried natural or man-made objects or it may indicate the encountering of a harder zone after penetrating a considerable depth through a weathered or disintegrated zone of the bedrock.

APPENDIX D

Project Name EXETER NH - FOREST AND OAK STREET EXTENSION - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Project Number 17-0671

Lab ID 16277S

Material Source B-3, 2D, 2.5'-4.0'Date Completed 8/11/2017

Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 8/7/2017

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client BAKER PROPERTIES, LLC

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

AM

OU

NT

PA

SS

ING

GRAY-BROWN SILT SOME SAND TRACE GRAVEL

3" 2" 1" #10 #20 #40 #100 #2001/2" 1/4"

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

3/8" 1009.5 mm1/4" 996.3 mm

No. 4 0.9% Gravel994.75 mmNo. 10 982.00 mmNo. 20 97850 umNo. 40 10.8% Sand95425 umNo. 60 94250 umNo. 100 92150 umNo. 200 88.3% Fines88.375 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 20.6% Sheet

Project Name EXETER NH - FOREST AND OAK STREET EXTENSION - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Project Number 17-0671

Lab ID 16278S

Material Source B-8, 1D, 0.2'-2.0'Date Completed 8/11/2017

Tested By BRADLEY GERSCHWILER

Date Received 8/7/2017

ASTM C-117 & C-136

Client BAKER PROPERTIES, LLC

Report of Gradation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00100.01000.10001.000010.0000100.0000

SIEVE SIZE - mm

AM

OU

NT

PA

SS

ING

BROWN-GRAY SILTY SAND TRACE GRAVEL

3" 2" 1" #10 #20 #40 #100 #2001/2" 1/4"

SIEVE SIZE AMOUNT PASSING (%)STANDARD DESIGNATION (mm/µm)

1/4" 1006.3 mmNo. 4 0.1% Gravel1004.75 mm

No. 10 992.00 mmNo. 20 95850 umNo. 40 81.3% Sand86425 umNo. 60 72250 umNo. 100 46150 umNo. 200 18.7% Fines18.775 um

Comments: Moisture Content = 11.7% Sheet

PHASE I - ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT€¦ · The test borings (B -1 through B -12, excluding B...

Documents

Transcript of PHASE I - ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT€¦ · The test borings (B -1 through B -12, excluding B...