26-35_Geotechnical_Engineering_Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING

REPORT

Bay County WTP New Filter Building Panama City, Bay County, Florida

PREPARED FOR:

Barge Design Solutions

840 Harrison Avenue, Suite 105

Panama City, Florida 32401

NOVA Project Number: 10111-2024021-R1

August 29, 2024

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

1 7 6 1 2 A s h l e y D r i v e , P a n a m a C i t y B e a c h , F l o r i d a 3 2 4 1 3 t . 8 5 0 . 2 4 9 . 6 6 8 2 / f . 8 5 0 . 2 4 9 . 6 6 8 3 / u s a n o v a . c o m

August 29, 2024

Barge Design Solutions

840 Harrison Avenue, Suite 105

Panama City, Florida 32459

Attention: Mr. Raymond A. Cordon, PE

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report

NOVA Project Number 10111-2024021-R1

Dear Mr. Cordon:

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

Engineering Report for the proposed Bay County WTP New Filter Building in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. The work was performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal Number 10111-2024021, dated January 29th, 2024. This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the geotechnical consulting services provided by NOVA, and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

We appreciate your selection of NOVA and the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, NOVA Engineering and Environmental, LLC

Copies Submitted: Addressee (electronic)

K. Nick Gonzalez

Staff Engineer

William L. Lawrence, P.E.

Principal Engineer

Florida Registration No. 60147

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT

1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT SITE

2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 AREA GEOLOGY

3.2 LOCAL EXPERIENCE

3.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING

3.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

5.2 EXCAVATION

5.3 FILL PLACEMENT

5.4 FOUNDATIONS

5.5 MICROPILES

6.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures and Maps

Appendix B – Subsurface Data

Appendix C – Laboratory Test Data

Geotechnical Engineering Report August 29, 2024

Bay County WTP New Filter Building NOVA Project Number 10111-2024021-R1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section provides information relating to our contract, the purpose of our work, and a summary of our understanding of the project.

1.1 NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT

The Subject Property consists of the approximately 6,500 SF proposed building footprint within the existing Bay County Water Treatment Plant (Bay County Parcel ID 10231-000-000) located at 3400 Transmitter Road in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. The location of the site is indicated on the following page and on the Site Location Map included in Appendix A.

1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

Our work on this project was as described in our Proposal Number 10111-2024021, authorized by the Client on April 30th, 2024. The primary objectives of this work were to perform a geotechnical exploration within the proposed structure footprint and to assess these findings as they relate to geotechnical aspects of the planned site development. The authorized geotechnical engineering services included a site reconnaissance, soil test borings and sampling, engineering evaluation of the field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. As authorized per the above referenced proposal, this completed geotechnical report includes:

➢ A description of the site, fieldwork, laboratory testing and general soil conditions encountered, together with a Boring Location Plan and individual Test Boring Records.

➢ Site preparation considerations that include geotechnical discussions regarding site stripping and subgrade preparation and engineered fill/backfill placement.

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

➢ Foundation system recommendations for the proposed structure, as appropriate based on the boring results.

➢ The measured apparent and estimated normal permanent seasonal high groundwater levels at the boring locations.

➢ Suitability of on-site soils for re-use as structural fill and backfill. Additionally, the criteria for suitable fill materials will be provided.

➢ Recommended quality control measures (i.e., sampling, testing, and inspection requirements) for site grading and foundation construction.

The assessment of the presence of wetlands, floodplains, or water classified as state waters was beyond the scope of this exploration. Additionally, the assessment of site environmental conditions, including the detection of pollutants in the soil, rock, or groundwater, at the site was also beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration and evaluation.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Our understanding of this project is based on discussions with the Client, Specialty Contractor, a site reconnaissance made during boring layout, and our experience with similar projects in and around the

Panama City area.

Site Plans and Documents

We were furnished with the following documents:

Document: Site Plan

Provided by: Raymond A. Cordon, P.E.

Dated: Undated

Document: Top Framing Plan (Includes Slab Loading Information)

Provided by: Johnathon Thibodaux, P.E.

Dated: May 20, 2024

2.1 PROJECT SITE

The Subject Property consists of the approximately 6,500 SF proposed building footprint

(outlined in red below) within the existing Bay County Water Treatment Plant (Bay County Parcel

ID 10231-000-000) located at 3400 Transmitter Road in Panama City, Bay County, Florida.

The building footprint is located about 250 feet southeast of the Bay County Laboratory and immediately east of the existing filter building. At the time of our field exploration, the vicinity of the Subject Property was observed to be developed with existing structures and parking areas associated with the Bay County Water Treatment Plant to the west and south. Grass areas are located to the north and east.

2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

NOVA understands the project will consist of the construction of a new single-story, wood framed, slab-on-grade building that will house a filtration system for the existing Bay County

Water Treat Plant (WTP) facility. The proposed structure has a footprint on the order of 6,500

SF and will be located east of the existing filter building number 3 (as seen on previous page).

Site Grading

Final site grading details were not available from the Design Team at the time of the issuance of this report. We have therefore assumed that finished site grades will not change greater than +/- 3 feet from existing grades within the proposed structure footprint.

Maximium Loads

Loading information was provided by the Client and is included below and in Appendix A:

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 AREA GEOLOGY

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the subject site is located in Bay County within the Gulf Coastal Plain, separated from the Florida Platform by geologic structures known as the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment. These structures formed a bathymetric and environmental barrier from the earliest Eocene or earliest Oligocene periods into the Miocene.

According to the “Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida” by Scott, 2001, the site is generally underlain by undifferentiated sediments deposited during the Quaternary period. These sediments typically consist of siliciclastics (sand), organics and freshwater carbonates. These soils are highly permeable and form the Sand and Gravel Aquifer of the surficial aquifer system.

Surficial soils in the region are primarily siliciclastic sediments deposited in response to the renewed uplift and erosion in the Appalachian highlands to the north and sea-level fluctuations.

The extent and type of deposit is influenced by numerous factors, including mineral composition of the parent rock and meteorological events.

NRCS Soil Survey

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) “Web Soil” was reviewed to obtain shallow soil and seasonal high groundwater (SHGW) table information. As shown in the table below, one soil-mapping unit is located within the project site. Generally, the site primarily lies within the

Arents (Map Unit 40) unit. The NRCS Soil Survey map and data have been included in the

Appendix.

Unit no.

Soil Name Depth (in)

Soil Description Depth to Seasonal

High Groundwater (in)

Arents

0 to 5 percent slopes 0 – 60 Sand 18 – 36

3.2 LOCAL EXPERIENCE

NOVA has conducted numerous geotechnical studies for projects in Bay County including the

Panama City area. The typical subsurface conditions in this area were found to consist of fine-grained sands to silty sands (USCS classifications of SP, SP-SM, and SM). In some instances, sand to silty sand strata with some organics and/or significant organic staining have also been encountered.

3.3 FIELD EXPLORATION

Our field exploration was conducted on June 10th, 2024, and included performing:

➢ One (1), 50 feet deep SPT boring and two (2) 30 feet deep SPT borings within the proposed structure footprint.

The boring locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel using a handheld GPS device and by estimating distances and angles from site landmarks. Prior to initiating field testing, underground utilities were marked by the state utility locate service (811, or Sunshine

One-Call) and a private utility locate service (Infrastructure Specialty Services). Any required underground utility related adjustments of the test locations were then made at the time of the field exploration. The approximate boring locations are shown in the Boring Location Plan provided in Appendix B. If increased accuracy is desired by the Client, the test locations and elevations may also be surveyed.

The Test Boring Records in Appendix B shows the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances, or “N-values”, and present the soil conditions encountered in the borings. These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field exploration data, visual examination of the split-barrel samples, laboratory test data, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. The stratification lines and depth designations represent approximate boundaries between various subsurface strata. Actual transitions between materials may be gradual.

The groundwater levels reported on the Test Boring Records represent a measurement made at the completion of each boring, following a suitable stabilization period. The test borings were subsequently backfilled with soil cuttings from the drilling process for safety concerns.

SPT Borings

The SPT borings were performed using the guidelines of ASTM Designation D-1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". A mud rotary drilling process was used to advance the borings once groundwater was encountered. At regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split-tube sampler. The sampler was first seated six inches and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is designated the "Penetration Resistance".

Representative portions of the soil samples, obtained from the sampler, were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and laboratory testing.

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING

Following completion of the field work, soil samples obtained in the field were returned to our office for classification and laboratory testing assignment. These tests included the following:

➢ Moisture Content

➢ Fines Content

➢ Organic Content

The purpose of the testing program was to classify the subsurface materials relative to the

Unified Classification System and to determine their physical characteristics including strength, and compressibility.

Moisture Content

The moisture content is the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles. This testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Designation D-2216. Seven moisture content tests were performed in this study.

Fines Content

The percentage of fines passing through the No. 200 sieve is generally considered to represent the amount of silt and clay of the tested soil sample. The sieve analysis testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Designations D-6913 and D-1140. Seven fines content tests were performed in this study.

Organic Content

The organic content is the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of organic material in a given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles. This testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D-2974. Seven organic content tests were performed in this study.

3.5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following paragraphs provide generalized descriptions of the subsurface profiles and soil conditions encountered by the borings conducted during this exploration.

Surface Materials

Surface materials across the subject site generally consisted of sand with minimal short grass.

Fill

Based on the boring results and our observations of the property at the time of our field exploration, previously installed fill materials consisting of loose to medium denes fine-grained silty and slightly silty sand (USCS classification of SM and SP-SM) appear to be present from existing grade to approximately 6 feet below existing grade (BEG).

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance values (“N”- values) for fill materials varied from 8 to 28 blows per foot (bpf).

Native Subgrade Soils

Below fill materials, soil borings generally encountered loose to medium dense fine-grained silty and slightly silty sand (USCS classification of SM and SP-SM) from about 6 feet BEG to a depth of approximately 15 feet BEG underlain by very loose to medium dense fine-grained silty sand (SM) to the maximum explored depth of 30 feet for borings B-1 and B-3, and to 43 feet

BEG for boring B-2, in turn, underlain by medium dense to dense fine-grained sand (SP) to the maximum depth explored of about 50 feet BEG. We note that a layer of soft peat was encountered in boring B-1 from about 13 feet BEG to 18 feet BEG.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance values (“N”- values) within the native soils generally ranged from 1 to 38 bpf and varied with depth.

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater in the Bay County, Florida area typically occurs as an unconfined aquifer condition.

Consequently, the groundwater table is expected to be a subdued replica of the original surface topography. Recharge is provided by the infiltration of rainfall and surface water through the soil overburden. More permeable zones in the soil matrix can affect groundwater conditions.

A stabilized groundwater table was encountered in the borings at a depth of approximately 5 feet

BEG during our field exploration, which occurred during a period of relatively normal seasonal rainfall. Based on a review of topographic maps and our visual site observations, we anticipate the groundwater flow at the site to be toward the north (i.e., toward the nearby North Bay).

Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction activity, surface water runoff, and other site-specific factors. Groundwater levels in the Bay County area are typically lowest in the late fall to winter and highest in the early spring to mid-summer with annual groundwater fluctuations by seasonal rainfall; consequently, the water table may vary at times.

Based on comparisons of current annual monthly rainfall data to historical rainfall data extending back 50+ years in time, we estimate that the normal permanent seasonal high groundwater

(SHGW) table for this site will occur within about 1-foot above the groundwater levels measured at each boring location at the time of our exploration, during the wet season. This data generally correlates to the values provided by the USGS Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

The table below shows the following information for each soil test boring: soil type per NRCS, the encountered groundwater table and the estimated seasonal high groundwater level.

Test Boring Soil Type*

Encountered

Groundwater Depth

(BEG)**

Estimated Seasonal

High Groundwater

Depth (BEG)**

B-1 Slightly Silty Sand 5 feet 4 feet

B-2 Slightly Silty Sand 5 feet 4 feet

B-3 Slightly Silty Sand 5 feet 4 feet

* Based on the NRCS Soil Survey provided Appendix A

** Below Existing Grade

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The following assessment is based on our understanding of the proposed construction, our site observations, our evaluation and interpretation of the field data obtained during this exploration, our experience with similar subsurface conditions, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.

The encountered subsurface conditions in the borings performed for this project will present challenges to developing this area with the proposed structure, most especially with respect to mitigating settlements. Analysis of the structure supported by conventional shallow foundations indicated settlement on the order of 4 inches. Accordingly, we recommend micropiles be evaluated. Please note micropiles are designed and installed by a specialty contractor (i.e. Foundation Technologies

Incorporated).

On-site near surface soils that are categorized as fine-grained silty sands and slightly silty sands (SM and

SP-SM based on the Unified Soil Classification System, or USCS) may be suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill but will require strict moisture control to achieve proper compaction. We note trace to many organics were found throughout the borings.

Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations can and will vary from those encountered at the boring locations considered and discussed herein. If such variations are noted during construction, or if project development plans are changed, we request the opportunity to review the changes and amend our recommendations, if necessary.

The following sections present our recommendations for site preparation, grading and foundation construction.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

Prior to proceeding with construction, all topsoil and vegetation, trees and associated root systems, and any other deleterious non-soil materials found to be present should be stripped from the proposed building footprint. Clean topsoil may be stockpiled and subsequently re-used in landscaped areas. Debris-laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed of off-site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations. Any existing utility locations should be reviewed to assess their impact on the proposed construction and relocated/grouted in-place as appropriate.

The soils exposed at the stripped grade elevation should be compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 100 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test method (ASTM D-1557).

NOVA should observe the compaction of the subgrade to locate soft, weak, or excessively wet fill or existing soils present at the time of construction. Any unstable materials observed during the evaluation and compaction operations should be undercut and replaced with structural fill or stabilized in-place by scarifying and re-densifying. Actual remedial recommendations can best be determined by the geotechnical engineer in the field at the time of construction.

5.2 EXCAVATION

Excavations greater than five feet deep (such as for underground utility installations) should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA

(29CFR Part 1926), excavation safety standards. We note that the Contractor is solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service and under no circumstances should NOVA be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety. Each excavation should be observed and classified by an OSHA-competent person. All excavations below the groundwater level are classified as OSHA Class C soils for excavation purposes.

After stripping and trench excavation, a NOVA geotechnical engineer should carefully evaluate the exposed soils. We recommend undercutting the proposed pipe trench areas approximately

½ foot below the proposed pipe bearing elevations and installing structural backfill for use as pipe bedding materials. Sewer pipe installation should be constructed in general compliance with ASTM D2321, standard practice for underground installation of pipe for sewers and other gravity flow applications.

Groundwater Control

A stabilized groundwater table was encountered in the borings at a uniform depth of approximately 5 feet BEG during our field exploration, which occurred during a period of relatively normal seasonal rainfall. We do not anticipate that significant groundwater control issues will develop during mass grading and foundation construction.

5.3 FILL PLACEMENT

Fill Suitability

Fill materials should be relatively clean sands with less than 12 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve), and free of non-soil materials and rock fragments larger than 3 inches in diameter. Based on visual examination and limited laboratory soil testing results, the existing surficial soils encountered during this exploration typically consisted of silty sand (SM) and slightly silty sand (SP-SM) that may be suitable for re-use as fill or backfill material but will require strict moisture control to achieve proper compaction (laboratory testing indicate fines contents in the upper 6 feet of the soil horizon range between 10 percent and 16 percent with organic contents ranging between 1½ percent and 6 percent).

We recommend that stockpiles of all materials planned for re-use be sealed as they are excavated to prevent (to the greatest extent practical) the intrusion of moisture into the core of the soil stockpile(s) during significant rain events prior to their potential re-use as fill and/or backfill soils. Prior to construction, bulk samples of all proposed fill materials (both native and import) should be laboratory tested to confirm their suitability. Organic and/or debris-laden material is not suitable for re-use as structural fill. Topsoil, mulch, and similar organic materials can be wasted in architectural areas. Debris-laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed of off-site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations.

Soil Compaction

Fill should be placed in thin, horizontal loose lifts (maximum 8-inch) and compacted via non-vibratory methods to a minimum soil density of at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). In confined areas, such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thinner fill lifts (3 to 4 inches) may be necessary.

Fill materials used in structural areas should have a target maximum dry density of at least 95 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If lighter weight fill materials are used, the NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted to assess the impact on design recommendations.

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

We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. Moisture control may be difficult during rainy weather. Soils excavated from below the groundwater table will likely require significant efforts to achieve acceptable moisture contents prior to re-use as fill.

One test per 2,500 square feet of building footprint should be performed at the stripped grade elevation and in each lift of fill, with test locations well distributed throughout the fill mass.

When filling in small areas, at least one test per day per area should be performed.

The site should be graded during construction to maintain positive drainage away from the proposed structure footprint, to prevent ponding of stormwater on the site during and shortly following significant rain events. The construction areas should be sealed and crowned with a smooth roller to minimize ponding water from storm events at the end of each day of work.

5.4 FOUNDATIONS

General

Based on conversations with the Design Team and Foundation Technologies Inc., we recommend the proposed structure be supported on micropiles. This deep foundation system is subsequently discussed.

5.5 MICROPILES

Micropiles are a type of small-diameter pile, usually between 5-12 inches, used for sites with especially weak surface soil. Developed in 1997, this patented innovative application of the helical micropile integrates portland cement-based grout to increase the section properties of the shaft. The Helical Pulldown Micropile (HPM) brings the advantages of the pre-engineered helical micropile design to higher load applications, providing compression loads of 20,000 lbs. to 400,000 lbs. per pile. By “pulling down” a special flowable grout as the micropile foundation is screwed into the soil, these helical micropiles create a deep foundation with both a friction-bearing central shaft and end-bearing helical plates in competent substrata. Helical piles are a proprietary design-build foundation system and are designed by a specialty contractor (i.e. Foundation Technologies Incorporated). The precise spacing, plate site and other relevant information would be at the discretion of the specialty contactor.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

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

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

This report is intended for the sole use of Barge Design Solutions for the above noted project. The scope of work performed during this study may not satisfy other user’s requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations or opinions.

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

APPENDIX A

Figures and Maps

Scale: Not To Scale PROJECT LOCATION MAP

Date Drawn: June 11, 2024 Bay County WTP New Filter Building

Drawn By: C. Alessio Panama City, Bay County, Florida

Checked By: W. Lawrence NOVA Project Number 10111-2024021

17612 Ashley Drive

Panama City Beach, Florida 32413

850.249.6682 ♦ 850.249.6683

Base map provided by Google Earth

Project Location

10-S302

10-S303

10-S302 6

107' - 6"

2' - 0"

26' - 0" 6' - 6" 26' - 0" 6' - 6" 26' - 0" 1' - 6"

2' - 0"2' - 0"

6' - 6"1' - 6" 7' - 0"

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W12X53

W

X

W

X

W

X

W

X

W

X

1' - 6" 7' - 0"

8' - 6"

(T Y

P

6" (TYP)

(T Y

P

4' - 0" 1' - 0" (T

Y P

1' - 6" 4' - 0" 1' - 0" 1' - 6" 4' - 0" 1' - 0"

CONC WAL w/

TAPPERED EDGE,

SEE SECT ?/????

T/CONC 52.50'

(TYP)

99' - 0"

1' - 6" 15' - 0" 2' - 0" 14' - 0" 2' - 0" 15' - 0" 2' - 0" 14' - 0" 2' - 0" 14' - 0" 2' - 0" 14' - 0" 1' - 6"

1' - 0" 1' - 0"1' - 0" 1' - 0" 1' - 0" 1' - 0"

3' - 0"2' - 6"

8' - 2"

1" CHAMFER

REQD (TYP)

(T Y

P

8"x2'-0" CORBEL

@ EA BEAM

B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7

15' - 0"

6" (TYP)

(T Y

P

S L O

P E

S L O

P E

STUB COL CANOPY

SUPPORT (TYP)

10-S301

T/CONC 52.50'

T/WALL 52.50'

T/WALL 52.50'

10-S302

W16X57W16X57W16X57W16X57

10-S304

10-S304

10-S304

10-S304

10-S304

NOTES:

1. REFER TO DWG. 00-S01, 00-S02 AND 00-S03 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND DESIGN

CRITERIA.

2. ALL OPENINGS AND PENETRATIONS NOT SHOWN. REFER TO PROCESS,

MECHANICAL, AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

3. REFER TO DWG. 99-S01 & 99-S02 FOR FOUNDATION/WALL CORNER.

4. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REINFORCING AROUND ALL OPENINGS AND PENETRATIONS.

REFER TO DWG. 99-S02.

P R

E L

IM

IN

A

R Y

N

O T

F

R

C

N S

T R

U C

T

IO

N

D A

T E

R D

A V

E N

U E

S O

U T

H

S

U

IT

E

N

A S

H V

IL

L E

T

N

P H

O N

E

-1

T im e

D at e:

SHEET:

F ile

R E

V

IS

IO

N

I N

F O

R M

A T

IO

N

D ra w in g

D is c ip lin e

S or t:

PLAN NORTH

/2

/2

:1

:4

P

M

A u to d e s k D o c s

/B a y C o u n ty

W T

P F ilt e r

E x p a n s io n

/3

S

V

.r v t

/2

/2

:1

:4

P

M

T O

P F

R A

M

IN

G P

L A

N

10-S103

O w n e r N a m e

P ro je c t

A d d re s s

C it y, S ta te

Z ip

FILE NO: 3723715

P ro je ct

N a m e

-S

T O

P F

R A

M

IN

G P

L A

N

R E

V D

R C

H K

D A

T E

D

E S

C R

IP

T

IO

N

A

JR

T

/2

SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

10-S103

1 TOP FRAMING PLAN

Maximum Wall Loads:

Dead = 7500 lb/ft Live = 1200 lb/ft

Maximum Wall Loads:

Dead = 4500 lb/ft Live = 550 lb/ft

Maximum Wall Load:

Dead = 2500 lb/ft Live = 500 lb/ft

Maximum Area Load:

Water Pressure Load = 625 lb/ft2

Dead load of 350 lb/ft2 for mat slab (entire footprint)

Maximum Area Load:

Misc Piping = 500 lb/ft

GENERAL NOTE: ALL LOADS ARE

PRELIMINARY AND UNFACTORED

Depth to Water Table—Bay County, Florida (Bay County WTP New Filter Building)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

6/12/2024

634090 634100 634110 634120 634130 634140 634150 634160 634170 634180

634090 634100 634110 634120 634130 634140 634150 634160 634170 634180

30° 12' 39'' N

6'

4' ' W

30° 12' 39'' N

6'

1' ' W

30° 12' 37'' N

6'

4' ' W

30° 12' 37'' N

6'

1' ' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 20 40 80 120

Feet 0 5 10 20 30

Meters Map Scale: 1:447 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

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

Soils Soil Rating Polygons

0 - 25

25 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 150

150 - 200

> 200

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Lines 0 - 25

25 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 150

150 - 200

> 200

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Points 0 - 25

25 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 150

150 - 200

> 200

Not rated or not available

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000.

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

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

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

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

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

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

Soil Survey Area: Bay County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 23, Aug 24, 2023

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

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 2, 2020—Dec 8, The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Depth to Water Table—Bay County, Florida (Bay County WTP New Filter Building)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

6/12/2024

Depth to Water Table

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (centimeters) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

40 Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes

69 0.7 100.0%

Totals for Area of Interest 0.7 100.0%

Description

"Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. It occurs during specified months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table.

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

Rating Options

Units of Measure: centimeters

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Lower

Interpret Nulls as Zero: No

Beginning Month: January

Ending Month: December

Depth to Water Table—Bay County, Florida Bay County WTP New Filter Building

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Bay County, Florida

40—Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: brv9 Elevation: 0 to 350 feet Mean annual precipitation: 61 to 69 inches Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 70 degrees F Frost-free period: 252 to 282 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Arents and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Arents

Setting Landform: Rises on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Altered marine deposits

Typical profile A - 0 to 10 inches: sand C1 - 10 to 32 inches: sand C2 - 32 to 60 inches: sand

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very high (20.00 to 50.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.4 inches)

Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Hydrologic Soil Group: A Forage suitability group: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G152AA999FL)

Map Unit Description: Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes---Bay County, Florida Bay County WTP New Filter Building

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned (G152AA999FL)

Hydric soil rating: No

Minor Components

Pottsburg, non-hydric Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G152AA141FL) Hydric soil rating: No

Albany Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Ridges on marine terraces, knolls on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talf Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises and knolls of mesic uplands (G152AA131FL) Hydric soil rating: No

Leon, non-hydric Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G152AA141FL) Hydric soil rating: No

Centenary Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Rises on marine terraces, knolls on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands (G152AA121FL) Hydric soil rating: No

Kureb Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Ridges on marine terraces, dunes on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on ridges and dunes of xeric uplands (G152AA111FL)

Map Unit Description: Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes---Bay County, Florida Bay County WTP New Filter Building

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Hydric soil rating: No

Blanton Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Ridges on marine terraces, knolls on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands (G152AA121FL) Hydric soil rating: No

Lakeland Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Hills on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on ridges and dunes of xeric uplands (G152AA111FL) Hydric soil rating: No

Foxworth Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Ridges on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on rises, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands (G152AA121FL) Hydric soil rating: No

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Bay County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 23, Aug 24, 2023

Map Unit Description: Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes---Bay County, Florida Bay County WTP New Filter Building

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

APPENDIX B

Subsurface Data

Scale: Not To Scale BORING LOCATION PLAN

Date Drawn: June 11, 2024 Bay County WTP New Filter Building

Drawn By: C. Alessio Panama City, Bay County, Florida

Checked By: W. Lawrence NOVA Project Number 10111-2024021

17612 Ashley Drive

Panama City Beach, Florida 32413

850.249.NOVA(6682) ♦ 850.249.6683

LEGEND

30’ SPT Boring Locations (B-1 and B-3)

50’ SPT Boring Location (B-2)

Base map provided by Client

B-1

B-3

B-2

KEY TO BORING LOGS

Medium Stiff

FI

N E -G R A

IN

E D S O

IL

S or m or e pa ss es th e N o.

si ev e*

C O A R S E -G R A

IN

E D S O

IL

S

M or e th an re ta in ed on th e th e N o.

si ev e*

(Fill) Loose to medium dense dark brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND with trace to some organics (SP-SM)

Loose dark brown to grey fine-grained silty SAND (SM)

Soft dark brown PEAT with wood fragments and many organics (PT)

Medium dense dark brown to brown fine-grained silty

SAND (SM)

Boring Terminated at 30 feet

PROJECT NO.: 2024021 CLIENT: Barge Design Solutions PROJECT NAME: Bay County WTP New Filter Building DATE: 6/11/2024

G ra ph ic

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LL

G ro un dw at er

Moisture Content (%)

S am pl e

Ty pe

DRILLED BY: L. Griffin LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade

Material Description Fines Content (%)

PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida

DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary LOGGED BY: M. Keramidas

Th is in fo rm at io n pe rt ai ns o nl y to t hi s bo ri ng a nd s ho ul d no t be in te rp re te d as b ei ng in di ca tiv e of t he s ite

Organic Content (%)

N-Value (Blows per Foot)

N -V al ue

INITIAL GW DEPTH: 5 feet

D ep th (f ee t)

El ev at io n

HAMMER: Manual

Note:

EST. SHGW DEPTH: 4 feet

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-1

(Fill) Medium dense dark brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND with trace organics (SP-SM)

Medium dense light grey fine-grained slighlty silty SAND

(SP-SM)

Very loose brown to grey fine-grained silty SAND (SM)

Very loose grey fine-grained silty SAND (SM)

Medium dense to dense grey fine-grained SAND with trace shell fragments (SP)

Boring Terminated at 50 feet

PROJECT NO.: 2024021 CLIENT: Barge Design Solutions PROJECT NAME: Bay County WTP New Filter Building DATE: 6/11/2024

G ra ph ic

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LL

G ro un dw at er

Moisture Content (%)

S am pl e

Ty pe

DRILLED BY: L. Griffin LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade

Material Description Fines Content (%)

PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida

DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary LOGGED BY: M. Keramidas

Th is in fo rm at io n pe rt ai ns o nl y to t hi s bo ri ng a nd s ho ul d no t be in te rp re te d as b ei ng in di ca tiv e of t he s ite

Organic Content (%)

N-Value (Blows per Foot)

N -V al ue

INITIAL GW DEPTH: 5 feet

D ep th (f ee t)

El ev at io n

HAMMER: Manual

Note:

EST. SHGW DEPTH: 4 feet

TEST BORING

B-2

(Fill) Medium dense dark brown fine-grained silty SAND with some organics (SM)

Medium dense light brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND with trace organics (SP-SM)

Loose to medium dense brown to dark brown fine-grained silty SAND (SM)

Boring Terminated at 30 feet

PROJECT NO.: 2024021 CLIENT: Barge Design Solutions PROJECT NAME: Bay County WTP New Filter Building DATE: 6/11/2024

G ra ph ic

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PL LL

G ro un dw at er

Moisture Content (%)

S am pl e

Ty pe

DRILLED BY: L. Griffin LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade

Material Description Fines Content (%)

PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida

DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary LOGGED BY: M. Keramidas

Th is in fo rm at io n pe rt ai ns o nl y to t hi s bo ri ng a nd s ho ul d no t be in te rp re te d as b ei ng in di ca tiv e of t he s ite

Organic Content (%)

N-Value (Blows per Foot)

N -V al ue

INITIAL GW DEPTH: 5 feet

D ep th (f ee t)

El ev at io n

HAMMER: Manual

Note:

EST. SHGW DEPTH: 4 feet

TEST BORING

B-3

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Data

SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION & INDEX TESTING

NOVA Project Number 10111-2024021

Lab Summary – Page 1 of 1

Boring

Number

Sample

Depth

(ft)

Natural Moisture

Percent (%)

Passing

Sieve #200

Percent

Organic

USCS

Soil

Classification

B-1 2 – 4 13 11 2 SP-SM

B-1 4 – 6 22 10 3 SP-SM

B-1 13 ½ – 15 37 30 23 PT

B-2 0 – 2 10 11 1 ½ SP-SM

B-2 6 – 8 17 8 0 SP-SM

B-3 2 – 4 24 16 6 SM

B-3 8 – 10 16 9 ½ SP-SM

APPENDIX D

Support Documents

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.