14-05 APPENDIX A UESDOCS.pdf

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL

CONSULTING SERVICES

Proposed Stormwater Basin

SE 134th Avenue Road Weirsdale, Marion County, Florida

UES Project No. 0230.2300022.0000 UES Report No. 2011792

Prepared for:

Marion County Board of County Commissioners Office of the County Engineer

412 SE 25th Avenue Ocala, FL 34471

Prepared by:

Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC 4475 SW 35th Terrace

Gainesville, Florida 32608

April 7, 2023

April 7, 2023

Marion County Board of County Commissioners Office of the County Engineer 412 SE 25th Avenue Ocala, FL 34471

Attn: Mr. Kevin M. Vickers, P.E.

Attn: Engineering Project Manager

Reference: Report of Geotechnical Consulting Services Proposed Stormwater Basin SE 134th Avenue Road Weirsdale, Marion County, Florida Universal Project No. 0230.2300022.0000 UES Report No. 2011792

Mr. Vickers:

Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC (UES) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the subject project in Weirsdale, Marion County, Florida. This Geotechnical Report is submitted in satisfaction of the contracted scope of services as summarized in authorized proposal No. 1999340 v2, dated January 24, 2023.

The following report presents the results of our field exploration together with a geotechnical engineering interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as such were provided to us. We have included our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations, general engineering recommendations concerning site preparation procedures and the anticipated infiltration characteristics of the proposed stormwater basin.

We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.

Respectfully submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, LLC

Certificate of Authorization 549

Jacob A. Parker Keith L. Butts, P.E.

Staff Engineer Regional Manager Florida P.E. No. 53986 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 PURPOSE

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 GENERAL AREA SOIL INFORMATION

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY

5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

6.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS

6.2 FIELD PERMEABILITY TESTING

7.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.1 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

7.2 MOISTURE CONTENT

7.3 PERMEABILITY TESTING

8.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

9.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

9.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

9.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVELS

10.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 GENERAL

10.2 PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

10.2.1 Subsurface Soil Design Parameters

10.2.2 Suitability of the Site Soils For Use as Fill Materials

11.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A

Boring Location Plan .......................................................................................................................... A-1 Boring Logs ............................................................................................................................. A-2 to A-5 Key to Boring Logs ................................................................................................................................. A

APPENDIX B

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering

Report, Constraints and Restrictions, General Conditions ...................................................... B

Proposed Stormwater Basin Report of Geotechnical Consulting Services SE 134th Avenue Road UES Project No. 0230.2300022.0000

1.0 INTRODUCTION

UES has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed Stormwater Basin in Weirsdale, Marion County, Florida. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is located off SE 134th Avenue Road in Weirsdale, Marion County, Florida.

Specifically, the project area is designated by the Marion County Property Appraiser as Parcel ID 49794-000-00. The project parcel was partially wooded grassland with a roadway east of the project area at the time of our field exploration. We were provided a drawing labeled “Pond Plansheet” prepared by Marion County Office of the County Engineer, dated January 2023. The drawing indicated four (4) soil borings within the basin. The number and locations of the borings were selected by others, as shown on the attached the Boring Location Plan in Appendix A of this report.

If any of the above information is incorrect or changes prior to construction, please contact UES immediately so that we may revise the recommendations contained in this report, as necessary. In order to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented, Universal should be allowed to review the final design and specifications prior to the start of construction.

3.0 PURPOSE

The purposes of this exploration were:

• to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site within the proposed stormwater basin,

• to provide our estimates of the typical wet high season groundwater levels at the boring locations,

• to provide general comments concerning the anticipated infiltration characteristics of the stormwater basin.

This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of traditional geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. UES would be pleased to perform these services, if you desire.

By contract, our exploration was confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed construction. Our work did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkholes. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than performed in this study. We will be pleased to conduct an exploration to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you desire.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The project is located off SE 134th Avenue Road in Weirsdale, Marion County, Florida.

Specifically, the project area is designated by the Marion County Property Appraiser as Parcel ID 49794-000-00. The project parcel was partially wooded grassland with a roadway east of the project area at the time of our field exploration. We noted some trash/debris had been dumped on portions of the parcel in the past.

4.1 GENERAL AREA SOIL INFORMATION

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Marion County, Florida describes one (1) soil type encountered within the project parcel. The soil type was Tavares sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes.

Tavares sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes is described as nearly level to gently sloping soil that is moderately well drained with an apparent high water table at a depth between

3.5 to 5 feet, between June and December, below the existing ground surface. Relevant engineering index properties for Tavares sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes have been summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 – Relevant Engineering Index Properties of Tavares sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Depth, Inches

Texture

Classificatio n

% Passing #200 Sieve

Plasticity Index

Shrink-swell Potential

Permeability

0-85 Sand SP, SP-SM 2-8 NP Low >20 in/hr

4.2 TOPOGRAPHY

According to information obtained from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Lady Lake, Florida 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (dated 2021) ground surface elevations (pre-developmental) range across the site area from 85 to 95 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).

5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The services completed by UES for our subsurface exploration program were as follows:

• Drilled four (4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed stormwater basin to depths of 25 feet below existing land surface (bls).

• Secure samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory analysis and classification by a geotechnical engineer.

• Measure the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations.

• Conduct laboratory classification testing on selected soil samples obtained in the field to help determine their engineering properties.

• Assess the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.

• Prepare a report which documents the results of our subsurface exploration and analysis with geotechnical engineering recommendations.

6.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

6.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORINGS

The four (4) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings presented on the attached Boring Location Plan, were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. The SPT drilling technique involved driving a standard split-barrel sampler into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, was designated the penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency. The soil samples recovered from the split-barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System].

6.2 FIELD PERMEABILITY TESTING

In-situ falling head tests were performed in accordance with the current FDOT Soils and Foundation Handbook. Unsaturated vertical permeability tests were performed by advancing a 3-inch diameter casing in the borehole and into the depth of interest. In the vertical permeability tests, the overburden material is washed out and a soil plug is created at the bottom along the depth of interest by further advancing the casing. The casing is then filled with water, and water drop and times are recorded until a steady flow is achieved. The tests were performed in the areas of borings B-1 and B-2 at a depth of 5.5 below the existing ground surface and resulted in vertical permeability rates on the order of 4 to 5 feet per day.

7.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples recovered from the field exploration program were placed in containers and returned to our soils laboratory, where a member of our geotechnical staff visually examined and classified the samples. Laboratory soil tests were performed to aid in the classification of the soils, and to help in the evaluation of engineering characteristics of the soils. Representative soil samples were selected for moisture content, percent fines determination, and permeability testing. The test results have been presented in Appendix A on the Boring Logs.

7.1 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE

Certain recovered soil samples were selected to determine the percentage of fines. In these tests the soil sample was dried and washed over a U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The percent of soil by weight passing the sieve was the percentage of fines or portion of the sample in the silt and clay size range. These tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1140, Standard Test Methods for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve.

7.2 MOISTURE CONTENT

Certain recovered soil samples were selected to determine their moisture content. The moisture content was the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles. These tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM Procedure D-2216, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock.

7.3 PERMEABILITY TESTING

Representative soil samples were selected to determine the permeability rate of the soils. Constant head permeability tests were performed on representative samples of the near surface soils from the proposed stormwater basin area. These tests were conducted following the concepts outlined in ASTM D-2434, Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head).

8.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater levels have been shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart has also been included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring locations has been presented in Table 2. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs.

TABLE 2 - GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

(B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4)

Typical Depth (feet, bls) Soil Description

Range of SPT “N” Values (blows/ft) From To

Surface 7 to 13.5 Very loose to medium dense, SAND to SAND with silt

[SP/SP-SM]

2 to 12

7 to 13.5 25+ Medium dense to dense, clayey and very clayey SAND [SC]

12 to 32

*+ denotes maximum termination depth of the borings

9.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

9.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The water level was not encountered in the boreholes at the time of completion of drilling activities. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted.

9.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVELS

The typical wet season high groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season of the year, for existing site conditions, in a year with average normal rainfall amounts. The rainy seasons in North Central Florida are normally between June and September and December and February.

In order to estimate the wet season high water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined, including the following:

a. Measured groundwater level

b. Drainage characteristics of existing soil types

c. Season of the year (wet/dry season)

d. Current & historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date)

e. Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.)

f. Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.)

g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems

h. On-site types of vegetation

i. Area topography (ground surface elevations)

Based upon our review of regional hydrogeology and the Marion County Soil Survey, we estimate the normal seasonal high groundwater level will be 6 feet or greater below the existing ground surface.

It should be noted that the normal estimated seasonal high water levels do not provide any assurance that groundwater levels will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should the impediments to surface water drainage be present, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities, exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels might once again exceed our seasonal high estimates.

10.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 GENERAL

The following recommendations have been made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. If plans change from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes.

In general, the test borings found a layer of surficial sand and sand with silt underlain by clayey sands. The clayey soils are anticipated to act as a confining layer for vertical subsurface water movement. Due to the lack of perched groundwater observations in the borings, and the low moisture content of the near surface soils, during a period of above normal rainfall, it is anticipated that the surface water is traveling laterally above the clayey soils to perforations in the confining layer. It is anticipated that basins excavated into the clayey soils/confining layer will perch water above the top of the clayey soil surface for extended periods unless perforations in the confining layer are present within the basin footprints.

Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction which were not encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations.

We recommend that we be provided the opportunity to review the project plans and specifications to confirm that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. If the basin location changes significantly from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes. The discovery of any subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from those encountered in the borings should be reported to us immediately for observation, evaluation, and recommendations.

10.2 PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

10.2.1 Subsurface Soil Design Parameters

UES performs hydraulic conductivity tests, including the two most common, i.e., DRI and remolded laboratory permeability testing, using generally accepted practices of the local engineering community. These common tests are the quickest and most economical for stormwater basin design. However, the User of this information is cautioned that the potential variability of results and reproducibility associated with these types of tests can be significant. It is important to note that there are many factors influencing the permeability of a soil. These factors include, but are not limited to, soil grain size, soil particle arrangement and structure, dispersion of soil fines, density, and degree of saturation, soil heterogeneity, and soil anisotropy. Also, the permeability measured by such tests may not be representative of that of the total effective aquifer thickness. Factors of safety can compensate for part of the inherent test limitations but the Designer must exercise judgment regarding final selection and applicability of provided soil design input parameters.

Should the modeling analysis indicate marginally acceptable compliance with Water Management District design criteria, it may be advisable to perform more extensive and representative in-situ permeability testing by collecting “undisturbed” horizontal and vertical soil samples and/or installing grouted piezometers or wells for slug testing. UES can perform these field tests if desired.

Additionally, the actual exfiltration rates from the basin may be influenced by basin geometry, natural soil variability, in-situ depositional characteristics and soil density, retention volume, and groundwater mounding effects. Also, it is important to note that the upper in-situ soil zone is usually altered during the excavation and grading operations by heavy, vibrating earthwork equipment. Due to these numerous factors cited above, published literature suggests that the permeability of a soil can only be estimated to within an order of magnitude. Therefore, appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design process.

The parameters associated with the field and laboratory tests for the borings within the basin location have been presented in Table 3: Stormwater Basin Soil Design Parameters.

Table 3 - Stormwater Basin Soil Design Parameters (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4)

Approximate Test Depth, feet below existing grade 5.5-8.5

Estimated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity, feet per day* 16

Estimated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity, feet per day* 5

Average Depth of Confining/Restrictive Layer, feet bls 9

Estimated Fillable Porosity, percentage 25 Estimated Average Depth of Seasonal High Water Level, feet bls

8.5

* Hydraulic Conductivity rates are representative of the sand with silt material above the confining layer

It should be noted that the clayey soils will act as a confining layer and the vertical permeability rate of those soils should be considered to be 0 feet/day. Vertical infiltration will occur in the surficial sand and sand with silt soil stratum, but when water encounters the clayey soils it will have only a horizontal infiltration component until it finds a breach in the clay soil layer and can move vertically into the porous limestone.

Dependent upon basin final grades, over-excavation of some of the clayey sand soils beneath the basin bottom may be needed to facilitate stormwater exfiltration and to prevent a non-uniform dry retention area. The over-excavation of clayey soils in the stormwater basin will lower the confining layer within the basin, and the Designer will need to consider this during final basin design. UES would be pleased to work with the Basin Designer to address changes in the confining layer elevation which may impact the estimated seasonal high water levels in the basin area.

10.2.2 Suitability of the Site Soils For Use as Fill Materials

The recovered soil samples were classified using visual and textural means, and limited laboratory testing. We offer the following guidelines for the use of on-site soils, such as those excavated from the proposed stormwater basin area, as fill material for the project.

Soil materials excavated and classified as fine sands to sand with silts and sand with clay (SP, SP-SM, SP-SC), with typically 12% fines or less (silt/clay fraction), may be considered suitable for use as utility trench backfill, as well as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, provided said materials are properly dried, placed, and compacted.

Soil materials excavated and classified as silty or clayey sand [SM, SC], with typically 12% to 25% fines, may also be considered suitable for use as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, after significant drying and some mixing with the fine sand material described above. Proper placement, proof rolling and compaction must also be performed.

Soil materials excavated and classified as clayey sand (greater than 25% fines), silt or clay (SC, ML, MH, CL, and CH) and any organic-laden soils (5% or greater organics by weight) should not be reused as fill beneath buildings or pavement sections. These materials could be used in green areas, if applicable and in non-structural applications where excessive ground subsidence will not create functional or aesthetic problems. It should be noted that silt and clay materials will retain water and if used may become saturated and soft for a significant period of time following a rain event.

Soil borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities.

Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.

11.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared in order to aid the Client/Engineer in the design of the proposed Stormwater Basin in Weirsdale, Marion County, Florida. The scope is limited to the specific project and locations described herein. Our description of the project's design parameters represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation characteristics. In the event that any changes in the design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be informed so the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified, if required, and approved in writing by UES.

The recommendations submitted in this report have been based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report after performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations. This report does not reflect the full vertical or horizontal extents of deleterious organic soils encountered at this site; and therefore, this report should not be used for estimating such items as cut and fill quantities.

Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.

All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for UES to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore, no attempt was made by UES to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested.

For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document attached within Appendix B, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report", prepared by GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association.

Loose brown SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Loose to very loose light gray SAND, with silt

[SP-SM]

Very loose light gray SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Medium dense light gray and orange clayey

SAND [SC]

Medium dense brown very clayey SAND [SC]

Boring Terminated at 25'

1.8

3.2

2-4-2

2-2-2

1-1-1

1-1-1

1-2-1

5-7-8

6-7-9

6-7-8

5-8-10

10 14

Loose brown SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Loose to very loose light gray SAND, with silt

[SP-SM]

Very loose light gray SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Medium dense light gray and orange clayey

SAND [SC]

Medium dense brown very clayey SAND [SC]

Boring Terminated at 25'

1.8

3.2

2-4-2

2-2-2

1-1-1

1-1-1

1-2-1

5-7-8

6-7-9

6-7-8

5-8-10

10 14

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-1

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

BORING DESIGNATION:

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

8.0

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-2

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-1

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

VALUE

BORING DESIGNATION:

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

8.0

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-2

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

N

VALUE

BORING LOG

N E

W L

O G

O B

O R

IN

G

L O

G P

R O

P O

S E

D S

T O

R M

W A

T E

R B

A S

IN

.G

P J

G A

IN

E

S V

IL

LE

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/7

/2

Very loose light brown SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Loose light tan fine SAND [SP]

Loose tan clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense brown very clayey SAND [SC]

Dense to medium dense light gray clayey SAND [SC], with seams of orange

Boring Terminated at 25'

3.8

2-2-1

1-1-1

1-1-1

2-2-2

4-4-5

8-8-10

7-15-17

7-8-8

8-9-9

Very loose light brown SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Loose light tan fine SAND [SP]

Loose tan clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense brown very clayey SAND [SC]

Dense to medium dense light gray clayey SAND [SC], with seams of orange

Boring Terminated at 25'

3.8

2-2-1

1-1-1

1-1-1

2-2-2

4-4-5

8-8-10

7-15-17

7-8-8

8-9-9

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-2

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

BORING DESIGNATION:

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

6.5

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-3

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-2

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

VALUE

BORING DESIGNATION:

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

6.5

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-3

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

N

VALUE

BORING LOG

N E

W L

O G

O B

O R

IN

G

L O

G P

R O

P O

S E

D S

T O

R M

W A

T E

R B

A S

IN

.G

P J

G A

IN

E

S V

IL

LE

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/7

Very loose to loose light brown SAND, with silt

[SP-SM]

Loose light tan fine SAND [SP]

Medium dense tan clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense orange clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense gray clayey SAND [SC], with orange seams

Medium dense tan clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense light gray very clayey SAND [SC]

Boring Terminated at 25'

7.0

1-2-1

1-1-2

1-2-2

2-2-5

5-6-6

6-7-7

5-6-6

7-8-10

8-8-10

Very loose to loose light brown SAND, with silt

[SP-SM]

Loose light tan fine SAND [SP]

Medium dense tan clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense orange clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense gray clayey SAND [SC], with orange seams

Medium dense tan clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense light gray very clayey SAND [SC]

Boring Terminated at 25'

7.0

1-2-1

1-1-2

1-2-2

2-2-5

5-6-6

6-7-7

5-6-6

7-8-10

8-8-10

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-3

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

BORING DESIGNATION:

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

6.5

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-4

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-3

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

VALUE

BORING DESIGNATION:

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

6.5

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-4

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

N

VALUE

BORING LOG

N E

W L

O G

O B

O R

IN

G

L O

G P

R O

P O

S E

D S

T O

R M

W A

T E

R B

A S

IN

.G

P J

G A

IN

E

S V

IL

LE

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/7

Loose dark gray SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Very loose light gray SAND [SP]

Loose to medium dense light tan fine SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Medium dense brown clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense light gray clayey SAND [SC]

Boring Terminated at 25'

9.9

4.2

1-2-2

1-1-1

1-2-1

1-1-3

2-2-2

3-3-9

6-7-7

6-7-8

7-8-8

8.7

9.5 17

Loose dark gray SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Very loose light gray SAND [SP]

Loose to medium dense light tan fine SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Medium dense brown clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense light gray clayey SAND [SC]

Boring Terminated at 25'

9.9

4.2

1-2-2

1-1-1

1-2-1

1-1-3

2-2-2

3-3-9

6-7-7

6-7-8

7-8-8

8.7

9.5 17

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-4

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

BORING DESIGNATION:

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-5

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

DATE STARTED:MARION COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERCLIENT:

B-4

EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):

W.T. DESCRIPTION

PROJECT:

BLOWS

PER 6"

INCREMENT

N

VALUE

BORING DESIGNATION:

UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES

3/27/23

DATE OF READING:

3/27/23

NA

NE

LL PI

TOWNSHIP: RANGE:

LOCATION:

WATER TABLE (ft):

G.S. ELEVATION (ft):

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

DRILLED BY:

TYPE OF SAMPLING:

S A M P L E

S Y M B O L

ORGANIC

CONTENT

SECTION:

-200

MC

DATE FINISHED:

DEPTH

(FT.)

K

(FT./

DAY)

WEIRSDALE, FLORIDA

REMARKS:

PROPOSED STORMWATER BASIN

SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN

SHEET:

0230.2300022.0000

REPORT NO.: 2011792

A-5

PARCEL 49794-000-00, SE 134TH AVE RD

R. PEREZ

PAGE:

ASTM D-1586

PROJECT NO.:

N

VALUE

BORING LOG

N E

W L

O G

O B

O R

IN

G

L O

G P

R O

P O

S E

D S

T O

R M

W A

T E

R B

A S

IN

.G

P J

G A

IN

E

S V

IL

LE

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/7

KEY TO BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP

SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES

GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines CLEAN

GRAVELS

GP

Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM Silty gravels and gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GRAVELS

50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

GRAVELS

WITH FINES

GC Clayey gravels and gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW** Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

CLEAN

SANDS

5% or less passing No.

200 sieve SP** Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM** Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

C O

A R

S E

G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

M or e th an

0% re ta in ed o n th e

N o.

s ie ve

SANDS

More than

50% of coarse fraction passes No.

4 sieve

SANDS with 12% or more passing No.

200 sieve SC** Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

ML

Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit 50% or less

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diamicaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays or clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity

FI

N

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

IO

LS

o r m or e pa ss es th e

N o.

s ie ve

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit greater than 50%

PT Peat, muck and other highly organic soils

*Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75 mm) sieve ** Use dual symbol (such as SP-SM and SP-SC) for soils with more than 5% but less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve

RELATIVE DENSITY

(Sands and Gravels)

Very loose – Less than 4 Blow/Foot Loose – 4 to 10 Blows/Foot

Medium Dense – 11 to 30 Blows/Foot Dense – 31 to 50 Blows/Foot

Very Dense – More than 50 Blows/Foot

CONSISTENCY

(Silts and Clays)

Very Soft – Less than 2 Blows/Foot Soft – 2 to 4 Blows/Foot Firm – 5 to 8 Blows/Foot Stiff – 9 to 15 Blows/Foot

Very Stiff – 16 to 30 Blows/Foot Hard – More than 30 Blows/Foot

RELATIVE HARDNESS

(Limestone)

Soft – 100 Blows for more than 2 Inches Hard – 100 Blows for less than 2 Inches

MODIFIERS

These modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Minor Constituents (Silt or Clay Size Particles) in the Soil Sample

Trace – 5% or less With Silt or With Clay – 6% to 11%

Silty or Clayey – 12% to 30% Very Silty or Very Clayey – 31% to 50%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Organic Components in the Soil Sample

Trace – Less than 3% Few – 3% to 4%

Some – 5% to 8% Many – Greater than 8%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Other Components (Shell, Gravel, Etc.) in the Soil Sample

Trace – 5% or less Few – 6% to 12%

Some – 13% to 30% Many – 31% to 50%

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

N-Value No. of Blows of a 140-lb. Weight Falling 30 Inches Required to Drive a Standard Spoon 1 Foot

WOR Weight of Drill Rods

WOH Weight of Drill Rods and Hammer

Sample from Auger Cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Sample

Thin-wall Shelby Tube Sample (Undisturbed Sampler Used)

RQD Rock Quality Designation

Stabilized Groundwater Level

Seasonal High Groundwater Level (also referred to as the W.S.W.T.)

NE Not Encountered

GNE Groundwater Not Encountered

BT Boring Terminated

-200 (%) Fines Content or % Passing No. 200 Sieve

MC (%) Moisture Content

LL Liquid Limit (Atterberg Limits Test)

PI Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits Test)

NP Non-Plastic (Atterberg Limits Test)

K Coefficient of Permeability

Org. Cont. Organic Content

G.S. Elevation Ground Surface Elevation

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you;

• not prepared for your project;

• not prepared for the specific site explored; or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;

man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.

To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited;

encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.

To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;

none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

WARRANTY

Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report.

UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these borings.

The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and noting the characteristics of any variations.

CHANGED CONDITIONS

We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those present in this report.

No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions.