AMMEND 9-1-22 Design Spec Appen B Sarasota Expansion.pdf

Sarasota National Cemetery 100% Construction Documents

Gravesite Expansion October 14, 2021

931-003, -004, -006 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION

APPENDIX B - Geotechnical Report

Gator Engineering & Aquifer Restoration, Inc.; June 1, 2021

-This page intentionally left blank-

June 01, 2021

Mr. Brian Jacobson Walker Federal Services, LLC 7820B Wormans Mill Road Suite 162 Frederick, Maryland 21701

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Sarasota National Cemetery 9810 State Road 72 Sarasota, Florida 34241-9574 GEAR Project No. 21-0883-1

Gator Engineering & Aquifer Restoration, Inc. (GEAR) has completed a geotechnical exploration and surficial aquifer analysis for the subject project.

This report presents our understanding of the anticipated construction, describes the field exploration performed, presents the data obtained, and provides our geotechnical engineering evaluation and recommendations to guide design and construction of the proposed cemetery expansion. The worked performed was conducted in general agreement with the Subconsultant Services Agreement dated April 8, 2021.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service as your geotechnical consultant on this phase of the project and appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during construction if warranted. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service at this time, please contact us.

Respectfully, GATOR ENGINEERING & AQUIFER RESTORATION, INC.

GEAR Certification of Authorization No. 28299

Brian Richards, P.G. Gilberto Ramos, P.E., M. ASCE. LEED AP Professional Geologist Professional Engineer Florida License No. 1542 Florida License No. 48574

1928 Boothe Circle Longwood, Florida 32750

Phone: (407) 753-4555 Fax: (407) 853-4556

This PDF document has been electronically signed and sealed by Gilberto Ramos, P.E. using Digital Signature and Date. Digital Signature can only be authenticated by clicking on the name of the professional. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and cannot be relied upon as such.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

SARASOTA NATIONAL CEMETERY

GRAVESITE EXPANSION

9810 STATE ROAD 72, SARASOTA

SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

Prepared for:

WALKER FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC.

Prepared by:

GATOR ENGINEERING & AQUIFER RESTORATION, INC.

1928 BOOTHE CIRCLE

LONGWOOD, FLORIDA 32750

Gear Project No. 21-0883-1

June 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General

1.2 Scope of Services

1.3 Authorization

2.0 Project Information

2.1 Project Location

2.2 Current Site Conditions

3.0 Soil Survey Mapping

4.0 Field Exploration

4.1 Test Borings

4.2 Test Well Installation

5.0 Soil Characterization

5.1 Subsurface Characterization

5.2 Laboratory Analyses

5.2.1 Agricultural Analysis

5.2.2 Modified Proctor Test

5.2.3 Sieve Analysis

5.2.4 Atterberg Limit Test

5.2.5 Corrosion Analysis

5.2.6 Organic Content Analysis

6.0 Groundwater Characterization

6.1 Groundwater Elevation

6.2 Normal Seasonal High Groundwater Level

6.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Testing .. 13

6.4 Slug Test Analysis

7.0 Design Recommendations

7.1 Building Design

7.1.1 Foundations

7.1.2 Concrete Slabs

7.2 Site Design Considerations

7.2.1 Pavement Sections

8.0 Site Construction Recommendations

8.1 Subgrade Preparation

8.1.1 Subgrade Preparation, Stripping and Grubbing

8.1.2 Proofrolling

8.1.3 Subgrade Stabilization

8.2 Earthwork Operations

8.2.1 Structural Fill Materials

8.2.2 Compaction

8.3 Foundation and Slab Observations

8.4 Utility Installations

8.5 General Construction Considerations

9.0 Report Limitations

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Site Plan

Figure 3 Topographic Map

Figure 4 Soil Mapping of The Site Vicinity

Figure 5 Soil Boring and Monitor Well Locations

Figure 6 Monitor Well Construction Details

APPENDICES

Appendix A Soil Boring Logs

Appendix B Thornton Laboratories Testing and Inspection Services, Inc. - Soil Laboratory

Analytical Report

Appendix C Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. - Soil Laboratory Analytical

Report

Appendix D Groundwater Sampling Logs

Appendix E Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc. - Groundwater Laboratory

Analytical Report

Appendix F Falling Head Permeability Test

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides information on the geotechnical exploration, groundwater sampling and surficial aquifer testing at the Sarasota National Cemetery (SNC) for the period between April 9, 2021, to April 27, 2021. This report also provides information pertaining to soil sampling and agricultural analysis of two soil stockpiles at the site. The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration and our principal recommendations. Information gathered from this executive summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the complete geotechnical report.

The geotechnical exploration performed for the planned cemetery expansion included 19 soil test borings drilled to depths between 10 and 25 feet. The geotechnical exploration concentrated on four new areas of construction including 1) a new construction entrance road adjacent to the eastern property boundary 2) new internal cemetery access roads 3) additions to the columbaria and 4) expansion of the existing lake. Subsurface conditions within the boring locations generally consisted of approximately 4 to 8 feet of sand with various amounts of fines, underlain by clayey soils and sand with phosphates. The upper soils were predominately loose to medium dense. It should be noted topsoil and loose sands were observed in the upper foot across the project site and 60% of the soil samples collected from the upper two feet indicated more than 12% fines passing the #200 sieve.

Surficial aquifer testing included the installation of one aquifer test well (MW-1) and the performance of two falling head permeability tests to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer in the area of the proposed lake expansion. Hydraulic Conductivity estimates ranged from .93 ft./day to 1.4 ft/day in the upper surficial aquifer.

Groundwater analytical testing included the sampling and analysis of one groundwater sample for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) parameters in case recovered groundwater is discharged offsite during construction activities. Laboratory analysis of the groundwater sample indicated an elevated Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentration in the groundwater and a pH of 5.8 standard units (SU) which is slightly below the screening value of

6.0 SU.

Agricultural sampling included one sample collected from each of two soil stockpiles to see if the stockpiled soils could be used as agricultural top soils. Both samples indicated the soils were depleted of the necessary primary nutrients (Nitrogen and Potassium) for growing turfgrasses.

Foundation Recommendations

The additional 8,000-Niche Columbaria may be supported on conventional shallow foundations consisting of column or strip footings bearing on natural soils with an allowable net bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. Details of the assumed foundation subgrade elevations and loads are contained in the body of the report.

Pavement Recommendations

In general, we recommend the following flexible pavement section designs.

Flexible Pavement Heavy-Duty Section:

2 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S-1 or S-3) 8 inches base course – Limerock, Crushed Concrete, Shell – Minimum LBR 100 12 inches stabilized subgrade – Minimum LBR 40

Flexible Pavement Standard-Duty Section:

1.5 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S-1 or S-3) 6 inches base course – Limerock, Crushed Concrete, Shell – Minimum LBR 100

Agricultural Soil Amendment Recommendations

For the soil stockpiles, the Nitrogen (N) soluble forms are needed. The basic formula recommended for amendment is: 15-0-15 NPK + Micronutrients (Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mo)

NPDES Discharge Recommendations

Based on the laboratory analytical results which identified elevated Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentrations (73 mg/L) and a pH of 5.8 standard units (SU) which is slightly below the screening value of 6.0 SU in the groundwater at the lake location; GEAR recommends performing confirmatory groundwater sampling prior to discharge. If additional sampling confirms slightly elevated TOC concentration in the groundwater, a variance can be requested concerning the elevated TOC levels based on the known presence of organic soils. If it is still necessary to reduce the TOC concentration, recovered groundwater can be passed through a bag filtration system to reduce turbidity, then processed through a carbon treatment vessel. The pH can be monitored during the initial discharge. It is anticipated that the discharge will fall within limits. If pH needs to be addressed, the receiving water body can be sampled, and a variance can be requested based on the pH of the receiving water body. If a variance is not received, the recovered groundwater can be pumped to a holding tank and treated by adding calcium carbonate to neutralize the acidity.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General

The following report presents geotechnical site work, groundwater sampling and surficial aquifer testing performed for Walker Federal Services, LLC (WFS) by Gator Engineering and Aquifer Restoration, Inc.

(GEAR) for the Sarasota National Cemetery (SNC) gravesite expansion..

GEAR understands that it is the intent of WFS to provide design and build services for the SNC Gravesite Expansion Plan. The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical and environmental information for the design and construction of the 8,000-Niche Columbaria expansion, parking spaces, driveways, and the proposed lake expansion.

The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by WFS. This report contains the results of our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing programs, site characterizations, results of engineering analyses, and recommendations.

1.2 Scope of Services

To obtain the necessary geotechnical information required for the design of the SNC Gravesite expansion, soil test borings were performed at locations selected by WFS. A laboratory testing program was also implemented to characterize the physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils.

This geotechnical report discusses GEAR’s exploratory and testing procedures, and presents our findings and evaluations including the following.

A review of surface topographical features and site conditions.

A review of area and site geologic conditions.

A description of the field and laboratory test procedures and the results of testing conducted.

A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties.

Final copies of soil borings logs.

Final copy of monitor well construction log.

Evaluation of falling head permeability tests to characterize the aquifer properties at the lake.

Evaluation of NPDES analytical results in the event of an offsite groundwater discharge.

Evaluation of the existing soil piles for use as agricultural soils.

Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills.

Recommendations for various foundation type(s).

1.3 Authorization

The worked performed was conducted in general agreement with the Subconsultant Services Agreement dated April 8, 2021.

2.0 Project Information

2.1 Project Location

The site is located at 9801 SR 72 in Sarasota, Florida. A Site Location Map is presented as Figure 1. Based on the information provided by WFS, GEAR understands the proposed construction will consist of an 8,000 Niche Columbaria expansion, parking, drive areas, and a lake expansion. A Site Plan is presented as Figure 2.

2.2 Current Site Conditions

The site is currently a national cemetery area with wetlands along the southwestern section. Based on historical aerial photos it appears the initial development of the cemetery started in 2008 and was previously farmland. Additional phases of the cemetery were added between 2011 and 2012.

3.0 Soil Survey Mapping

Based on the Soil Survey Map for Sarasota County, Florida presented by the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA), Table 1 below summarizes the characteristics of the predominant predevelopment soil types encountered at the site. Soil mapping of the site vicinity is presented as Figure 3.

Table 1 - USDA Soil Survey

Soil Type Constituents Drainage Class Water Table 4 – Bradenton fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Fine sand and sandy loam Poorly drained 3 to 18 inches

8 – Delray fine sand, depressional

Fine sand and sandy loam Very poorly drained 0 inches

10 – EauGallie and Myakka fine sands

Fine sand and sandy loam Poorly drained 6 to 18 inches

15 – Floridana and Gator soils, depressional

Mucky fine sand, fine sand, and sandy clay loam Very poorly drained 0 inches

22 – Holopaw fine sand, frequently flooded, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Fine sand and sandy loam Very poorly drained 0 to 6 inches

31 – Pineda-Pineda wet, fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Fine sand and fine sandy loam Poorly drained 6 to 18 inches

4.0 Field Exploration

The objective of the planned field exploration was to characterize the project site in general geotechnical and geological terms and to evaluate subsequent field and laboratory data to assist in the determination of geotechnical engineering recommendations.

4.1 Test Borings

To explore the subsurface conditions at the site, eighteen (18) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were advanced under the direction of GEAR engineering personnel and performed by Preferred Drilling Solutions, Inc. between April 10, 2021and April 17, 2021. The drilling and data collection process was performed in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1586. Small representative samples were obtained during these tests and used to classify the soils encountered.

The standard penetration resistances obtained from the SPTs provided a general indication of soil shear strength and compressibility at different locations throughout the site. The soil boring locations for the SPTs were pre-determined by WFS personnel based on the location of the upgrades planed for SNC.

Proposed columbaria expansion: Two (2) soil borings, SB-1 and SB-2, were advanced within the 8,000-Niche Columbaria expansion to aid with bearing capacity calculations. The soil borings were advanced to 15 feet below land surface.

Proposed roadways: A total of six (6) soil borings, SB-3 through SB-8, were advanced to aid with bearing capacity calculations within the proposed roadways. Two (2) soil borings, SB-3 and SB-4, were advanced within the proposed construction entrance along the eastern site boundary of the site. Four (4) additional soil borings, SB-5 through SB-8, were advanced within the proposed roadways along the northern portion of the existing lake to determine soil consistency. These soil borings were advanced to 10 feet below land surface.

Existing soil stockpiles: Two (2) soil boring, SB-9 and SB-10, were advanced within the existing soil piles located the north side of the existing lake . These soil borings were advanced to 10 feet below land surface and extend through the soil piles into the native soils.

Borrow pit for proposed lake expansion: Eight (8) soil borings, SB-11 through SB-18, were advanced within the footprint of the proposed lake expansion. The soil borings were advanced to 20 feet below land surface.

NPDES Well: One (1) soil boring, MW-1, was advanced in the general vicinity of the proposed lake expansion. The soil boring was advanced to 15 feet below land surface and terminated above a lean clay. The boring was later converted into a groundwater testing well. This well was also used for performance of two (2) falling head permeability tests to assess the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer to aid in dewatering activities.

Soil boring locations are depicted on Figure 4. The soil boring logs are included in Appendix A.

4.2 Test Well Installation

GEAR was on-site with Preferred Drilling, Inc. on April 10, 2021, to install one (1) ground water testing well. Representative samples were obtained from the auger flights and used to classify the soils encountered. Soil cuttings were characterized in general accordance with the methodologies outlined in ASTM D 2488. During borehole advancement of nearby boring SB-11 it was noted that a lean clay layer was identified at 17 feet below land surface. Below this lean clay unit, a unit of lean clay, sandy clay and phosphates were observed. Based on this data it was decided to terminate drilling and install monitor well MW-1 above this lean clay/sandy clay phosphate interface for surficial aquifer testing purposes. This well was utilized to conduct two falling head permeability tests and to collect a representative groundwater sample for NPDES analysis.

The well construction details are as follows. The well location is depicted in Figure 4. A well construction diagram is presented as Figure 5.

NPDES sampling well, MW-1, was installed in the general vicinity of the proposed lake expansion to a depth of 15.27 feet below land surface (bls) and consists of 10 feet of 0.010 slot 2-inch schedule 40 PVC well screen, and 7.92 feet of 2-inch PVC casing. The well head is finished with a 2.65 foot tall 4 inch by 4 inch protective aluminum locking cover.

The well was developed for 1.5 hour using a centrifugal pump. Approximately 112.5 gallons of development water was removed at a pumping rate of 1.25 gallons per minute. The developed groundwater cleared up considerably, but trace organics and fines could be observed. The results of the falling head permeability test and the NPDES sampling are discussed in Section 6 below. The boring logs are presented as Appendix A.

5.0 Soil Characterization

5.1 Subsurface Characterization

An experienced geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist visually classified samples collected from select test borings during GEAR’s field exploration operations. The samples were classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D-2488 (Description and Identification of Soils-Visual/Manual Procedures). The soil boring logs are included as Appendix A. Please note that the stratification lines on the boring logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.

The subsurface conditions encountered at the site were generally consistent with published geological mapping. Table 2 below, provides generalized characterizations of the soil strata encountered during GEAR’s subsurface exploration. For subsurface information at a specific location, please refer to the soil boring logs included in Appendix A.

Table 2 - Subsurface Stratigraphy

Approximate Depth Range (ft) Stratum Description Ranges of SPT1

N-values (bpf)

0-8 ft. I – Upper Sandy Soils Fine sand with silt (SP- SM) and fine sand (SP) 2 to 28

8-17 ft. II – Clayey Soils Clayey sand (SC) and Sandy clay (CL) 5 to 50

17-25 ft. III – Weathered Limestone

Fine sand (SP) and sand with clay (SP-SC) with phosphates 2 to Refusal

1 Standard Penetration Test

5.2 Laboratory Analyses

The laboratory analyses performed for this project consisted of a selection of tests performed on representative soil samples obtained from select test borings during our field exploration operations. The laboratory analyses were performed by Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC) and Thornton Laboratories Testing and Inspection Services, Inc. (TLIS) The purpose of the soils analyses conducted by GEC was to identify and correlate engineering properties of the soils at key locations throughout the site. The purpose of the analyses conducted by TLIS was to aid in the decision of how best to use the existing soil stockpile materials during construction.

5.2.1 Agricultural Analysis

Two (2) soil samples, SB-9 and SB-10, were collected from the existing soil piles located north of the existing lake at the site. The composite soil samples were collected between 0 and 10 feet bls at the locations depicted on Figure 4. The samples were submitted to TLIS for an agricultural analysis which includes the following parameters.

a. Percentage of organic matter.

b. Soluble Salts.

c. Cation exchange capacity.

d. Characteristics and content level of deleterious materials.

e. Soil fertility.

f. Mehlich extraction for metals.

g. Sulfur levels.

h. pH levels.

The laboratory test results indicated the soils were depleted of the necessary primary nutrients (Nitrogen and Potassium) for growing turfgrasses. The Nitrogen (N) soluble forms are needed. The basic formula recommended for amendment is: 15-0-15 NPK + Micronutrients (Ca, Mg, S, Mn, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mo). The laboratory testing results are included in Appendix B.

5.2.2 Modified Proctor Test

A total of eight soil samples, SB-1 through SB-8, were collected and submitted to GEC for analysis using the Modified Proctor procedure in general accordance with AASHTO T180 Method D. Samples SB-1 and SB-2 were collected in the areas underlying the proposed columbaria. Samples SB-3 through SB-8 were collected from the proposed roadway areas. All roadway and columbaria foundation samples were collected between 0 and 2 feet bls. Sample locations are depicted on Figure 4.

Optimum moisture contents in the samples ranged from 9.3 % to 12.3 %. Maximum dry densities ranged from 106.8 pounds per cubic foot (pfc) to 124.2 pcf for the silty fine sands. SB-1 and SB-2 collected during advancement of borings at the Columbaria exhibited the highest maximum dry densities of 124.2 pcf and 122 pcf, respectively. These samples collected at 0 to 2 ft BLS contained trace amounts of cemented sands and phosphates which may be indicative of the use of barrow material as structural fill. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.

5.2.3 Sieve Analysis

A total of ten (10) soil samples, SB-1 through SB-10, were collected and submitted to GEC for a Sieve Analysis in general accordance with ASTM standard D 421. Samples SB-1 and SB-2 were collected from the proposed columbaria expansion area. Samples SB-3 through SB-8 were collected from along the proposed roadways. SB-9 and SB-10 were collected from the soil stockpiles. Soils samples collected from the soil stockpiles were collected between 1 and 10 feet bls and were composited prior to submittal to the laboratory for analysis. The soil samples from borings SB-1 through SB-8 were collected between 0 and 2 feet bls. Sample locations are depicted on Figure 4

The sieve analysis confirmed field observations that soils samples collected between 0 and 2 feet bls consist of silty fine sands or fine sands with silt. Of the 10 samples collected 60% of the soil samples collected from the upper 2 feet indicated more than 12% fines passing the #200 sieve. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.

5.2.4 Atterberg Limit Test

A total of eight (8) soil samples, SB-1 through SB-8, were collected and submitted to GEC for a Plastic Index Analysis in general accordance with ASTM standard D 4318. Samples SB-1 and SB-2 were collected in the areas underlying the proposed columbaria. Samples SB-3 through SB-8 were collected from the proposed roadway areas. All roadway and columbaria foundation samples were collected between 0 and 2 feet bls.

Sample locations are depicted on Figure 4.

All samples analyzed reported to be non-plastic. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.

5.2.5 Corrosion Analysis

Two (2) soil samples, SB-1 and SB-2, were collected and submitted to GEC for Corrosion Analysis. Sulfates, pH, Chlorides, and Resistivity were tested according to methods FM 5-553, FM 5-550, FM 5-552, and FM 5-551, respectively. The soil samples were collected from the proposed columbaria expansion area. The soil samples were collected between 0 and 2 feet bls. Sample locations are depicted on Figure 4.

The pH levels from the Corrosivity Analysis ranged between 6.0 to 7.17 (neutral); sulfates ranged between 132 ppm and 231 ppm, chlorides were found at concentrations between 30 ppm and 60 ppm. Resistivity ranged between 2,050 ohm-cm to 2,500 ohm-cm indicating a moderately corrosive environment for uncoated steel. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.

5.2.6 Organic Content Analysis

Two soil (2) samples, SB-9 and SB-10, were collected and submitted to GEC for Organic Content Analysis in general accordance with AASHTO standard T 267. One (1) soil sample was collected from each soil stockpiles. Soil samples collected from the soil stockpiles were collected between 1 and 10 feet bls and were composited prior to submittal to the laboratory for analysis. Sample locations are depicted on Figure 4.

The samples collected from SB-9 and SB-10 were relatively low in organic content. The sample collected at SB-9 exhibited an organic content of 2.1%. The sample collected at SB-10 exhibited an organic content of 1.7%. The laboratory test results are included in Appendix C.

6.0 Groundwater Characterization

6.1 Groundwater Elevation

Groundwater was encountered during borehole advancement at all boring locations. The static depth to groundwater at the site is approximately 3 to 5 feet bls. However, it should be anticipated that the groundwater level will fluctuate due to seasonal climactic variations, surface water runoff patterns, construction operations, and other interrelated factors. The depth to groundwater encountered during installation at each boring location is presented on the boring logs included as Appendix A.

6.2 Normal Seasonal High Groundwater Level

The normal seasonal high groundwater level is affected by a number of factors. The local rainfall, drainage characteristics of the soils, the land surface elevation, relief points such as drainage ditches, lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc., and distance to relief points are some of the most important factors influencing the seasonal high groundwater level. The rainy season in Florida is normally between June and September.

Based on our interpretation of the site conditions, including boring logs and published data, such as the USDA Soils Survey of Sarasota County, the USGS topographic map of the area, published lake level data, and the expected regional hydrogeology, GEAR estimates the normal seasonal high groundwater level at the site to be approximately 1 to 2 feet above the groundwater level measured at the time of our field exploration. However, due to the permeability of the soil types encountered, and the presence of ponds and lakes in the vicinity of the Site, GEAR recommends conducting a groundwater level study to make a more accurate determination. The study should consist of installing 4 piezometers on-site and then gauging the water levels 48 to 72 hours later. Water level gauging should then be performed monthly for 6 to 12 months in order to provide first-hand data concerning the seasonal variation.

6.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Testing

On April 27, 2021, an experienced staff hydrogeologist collected groundwater samples from the newly installed well, MW-1. The samples were submitted to Advance Environmental Laboratories (AEL) for laboratory analysis of NPDES parameters, specifically those detailed in Table 1 of FDEP document 62- 621.300(2) [Generic Permit for The Discharge of Produced Groundwater from Any Non-Contaminated Site Activity]. These samples were collected and analyzed in the event recovered groundwater will need to be discharged offsite during construction activities.

Prior to sample collection the well was opened and allowed to equilibrate with atmospheric pressure. The groundwater samples were collected in pre-cleaned, laboratory-supplied containers, placed on ice in a cooler and submitted under the proper chain of custody to Advanced Environmental Laboratories, Inc.

(AEL) of Orlando, Florida for analysis. The groundwater sampling log is presented as Appendix D.

Analytical testing of the groundwater samples collected from MW-1 on April 27, 2021, and analyzed by AEL identified the following:

The groundwater sample collected from MW-1 contained a Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentration (73 mg/L) exceeding the TOC Freshwater Surface Water Cleanup Target Level (FSWCTL) of 10 mg/L, as defined by Table 1 of FDEP document 62-621.300(2) [Generic Permit for The Discharge of Produced Groundwater from Any Non-Contaminated Site Activity].

Additionally, AEL reported a pH value of 5.8 standard units (SU) for the sample collected from MW-1. This value is slightly below the screening value of 6.0 SU.

AELs analytical testing did not identify any of the remaining screening values to be exceeding their respective FSWCTLs. The groundwater laboratory analytical report prepared by AEL is included as Appendix E. The NPDES screening values and sampling event results are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3 - NPDES Screening Values

Parameter Screening Values for

Discharge of Produced Ground Water

Groundwater Laboratory Analytical

Results for sample collected from MW-1

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 10.0 mg/L 73 mg/L pH, standard units 6.0 - 8.5 SU 5.8 SU (Q) Total Recoverable Mercury 0.0089 Total Recoverable Cadmium Total Recoverable Copper Total Recoverable Lead 1.2 I) Total Recoverable Zinc 7.8 I) Total Recoverable Chromium (Hex.)

Benzene Naphthalene

U - The compound was analyzed for but not detected.

I - The reported value is between the laboratory method detection limit and the laboratory practical quantitation limit.

Q - Missed Hold Time.

6.4 Slug Test Analysis

On April 27, 2021, an experienced staff hydrogeologist conducted two falling head permeability tests at monitor well MW-1. Water was instantaneously added to MW-1 and the change in hydraulic head was recorded using an Insitu pressure transducer and data logger and monitored through time to determine the near-well aquifer characteristics. The data was then analyzed utilizing the Bower and Rice analysis for unconfined aquifers to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the material the well was completed in.

The results of the two (2) falling head permeability tests indicate soils with a permeability rate of .93 ft./day to 1.4 ft./day within the surficial aquifer close to the lake. The falling head permeability test data and analytical results are presented as Appendix F.

7.0 Design Recommendations

7.1 Building Design

The recommendations presented in this report are based on project information provided to GEAR by WFS, the results of the soil test borings, laboratory testing, and the engineering analyses. Considering the results of our field exploration, and our experience with similar GEAR projects, it is our judgment that the site is suitable for the proposed development utilizing a foundation system consisting of spread footings, provided that the subgrade soils have been properly prepared, provided that the recommendations herein are followed. The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design and soil supported slabs.

7.1.1 Foundations

According to the soil borings for the proposed columbaria, the materials anticipated at normal footing depths below the proposed foundations should consist of sandy soils with various amount of fines (SP, SP-SM, SM), and less than 5 percent organic content. Structural Fill and/or foundation/slab concrete should be placed as early in the construction stages as practical to minimize subgrade exposure.

No structural information has been provided to GEAR for the proposed development, however; we anticipate the structural loads for the columbaria is on the order of 100 kips and 5 kips/lf for columns and walls or less, respectively. We also assumed that final grades will be within about 2 feet of existing elevations.

Once the site is prepared based upon our geotechnical recommendations; the geotechnical analyses of the test boring data indicate the sandy soils expected at footing bearing levels and provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared as discussed herein, the proposed structure can be supported by conventional shallow foundations: individual column footings and continuous wall footings. The design of the foundation shall utilize the parameters described in Table 4 below.

Table 4 - Foundation Design

Design Parameter Column Footing Wall Footing Net Allowable Bearing Pressure1 2,500 psf 2,500 psf

Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Loose SAND (SP/SP-SM) - Stratum I Stratum I

Minimum Width 24 inches 16 inches Minimum Footing Embedment Depth

(below slab or finished grade) 24 inches 18 inches

Estimated Total Settlement 1 inch 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement Less than 0.75 inches between columns

Less than 0.75 inches over 50 feet

1 - Net allowable bearing pressure is the applied pressure in excess of the surrounding overburden soils above the base of the foundation.

Our settlement analysis assumes the soils from the bottom of the footings to depths 2 feet below the bottom of the footing have been compacted prior to placing concrete in the footings when placed on structural fill material. As such, we recommend this zone be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D-1557).

The soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut, removed, and replaced with approved structural fill in 4” lifts or with lean concrete

No. 57 stone, as applicable, up to the original design bottom of footing elevation.

7.1.2 Concrete Slabs

The on-site natural soils are considered suitable for support of floor slabs, although moisture control during earthwork operations may be necessary. It appears that the slabs for the structure will bear on the Stratum I. This material is suitable for the support of a slab-on- grade, however, clayey fine sand and silty fine sand may be encountered at the subgrade level, which may be moisture sensitive and can be easily eroded with the presence of water. Therefore, Structural Fill and/or concrete should be placed as early in the construction stages as practical to minimize subgrade exposure.

Subgrade Modulus: Provided the placement of Structural Fill and Granular Drainage Layer per the recommendations discussed herein, the slab may be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction, k1 of 150 pci (lbs/cu. inch). The modulus of subgrade reaction value is based on a 1 ft by 1 ft plate load test basis.

7.2 Site Design Considerations

7.2.1 Pavement Sections

General Recommendations: Our scope of services did not include extensive sampling and LBR testing of existing subgrade or potential sources of imported fill for the specific purpose of a detailed pavement analysis. Instead, we have assumed pavement-related design parameters that are considered to be typical for the area soil types. The recommended pavement thicknesses presented in this report section are considered typical and minimum for the assumed parameters in the general site area. We understand that budgetary considerations sometimes warrant thinner pavement sections than those presented. However, the client, the owner, and the project designers should be aware that thinner pavement sections may result in increased maintenance costs and lower than anticipated pavement life. We recommend the following pavement section designs:

Flexible Pavement Heavy-Duty Section:

2 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S-1 or S-3) 8 inches base course – Limestone, Crushed Concrete, Shell – Minimum LBR 100

Flexible Pavement Standard-Duty Section:

1.5 inches asphaltic concrete surface course (FDOT Type S-1 or S-3) 6 inches base course – Limestone, Crushed Concrete, Shell – Minimum LBR 100

All pavement subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the section entitled Earthwork Operations. If organic soils are encountered, they need to be removed and replaced with approved structural fill prior to construction of the pavement section.

In areas where Portland cement concrete pavement is planned, the concrete should be placed upon a minimum of 12 inches of compacted, free draining material and compacted to 98% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).

In areas where asphaltic concrete pavements are used, we suggest stabilizing the subgrade materials to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 percent. All stabilized subgrade materials should be compacted to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density and meet specification requirements for Type B or Type C Stabilized Subgrade by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The stabilized subgrade may consist of imported material or a blend of on-site soils and imported materials. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor performs a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions.

Base Course: Based on the encountered water table we have assumed that groundwater will be within 2 feet below pavement subgrade. Limerock, crushed concrete or shell with a minimum LBR of 100 may be used if the site is raised to separate the bottom of the base layer from the seasonal high water table. Should raising the pavement subgrade not be practical a French drain system can be used on both sides of the roadway.

Limerock or crushed concrete should follow the FDOT specification for material qualifications and placement. Place limerock or crushed concrete base in maximum 6-inch lifts and compact to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density according to specification in ASTM D- 1557.

Perform compliance testing for the base course to a depth of 1 foot at a frequency of one test per 5,000 square feet, or at a minimum of two test locations, whichever is greater.

Effects of Groundwater: One of the most critical influences on the pavement performance in Western Central Florida is the relationship between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level. Many roadways and parking areas have been destroyed as a result of deterioration of the base and the base/surface course bond. Regardless of the type of base selected, we recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the base course be separated by at least 12 inches for crushed concrete and 18 inches for limerock.

Landscape Drains and Curbing: If needed, where landscaped sections are located adjacent to parking lots or driveways, we recommend that drains be installed around these landscaped sections to protect the asphalt pavement from excess rainfall and over irrigation. Migration of irrigation water from the landscape areas to the interface between the asphalt and the base usually occurs unless landscape drains are installed. This migration often causes separation of the wearing surface from the base and subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. The underdrains or strip drains should be routed to a positive outfall at the pavement area catch basins.

Curbing around landscaped sections adjacent to parking lots and driveways should be constructed with full-depth curb sections. Using extended curb sections which lie directly on top of the final asphalt level, or eliminating curbing entirely, can allow migration of irrigation water from the landscaped areas to the interface between the asphalt and the base. This migration often causes separation of the wearing surface from the base and subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration.

8.0 Site Construction Recommendations

8.1 Subgrade Preparation

8.1.1 Subgrade Preparation, Stripping and Grubbing

The subgrade preparation should consist of complete removal of existing vegetation, structures, and parking areas. Additionally, any underground utilities that will not be part of the new construction should be properly capped and abandoned or removed.

Stripping soft or unsuitable material from the columbaria and pavement areas should also be performed.

Soils with more than 5 percent organics content shall not be used under structures or within roadway embankments. Soils with more than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve are moisture sensitive, these soils need to be compacted within +/- 3% of optimum and may require moisture conditioning. GEAR should be called to verify that topsoil and unsuitable surficial materials have been completely removed prior to the placement of Structural Fill or construction of structures and pavements.

8.1.2 Proofrolling

After removing all unsuitable surface materials, and prior to the placement of any structural fill or other construction materials, the exposed subgrade should be examined by the Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled with previously approved construction equipment having a minimum axle load of 20 tons (e.g. large vibratory rollers).

The areas subject to proofrolling should be traversed by the equipment in two perpendicular (orthogonal) directions with at least 10 overlapping passes of the vehicle under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or authorized representative. This procedure is intended to assist in identifying any localized yielding materials. In the event that unstable or “pumping” subgrade is identified by the proofrolling, those areas should be marked for repair prior to the placement of any subsequent structural fill or other construction materials. Methods of repair of unstable subgrade, such as undercutting or moisture conditioning, should be discussed with the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the appropriate procedure with regard to the existing conditions causing the instability. A test pit(s) may be excavated to explore the shallow subsurface materials in the area of the instability to help in determined the cause of the observed unstable materials and to assist in the evaluation of the appropriate remedial action to stabilize the subgrade.

8.1.3 Subgrade Stabilization

Subgrade Compaction: Upon completion of subgrade documentation, the exposed subgrade within the 10-foot expanded building and 5-foot expanded pavement limits should be moisture conditioned to +/- 3% of the soil’s optimum moisture content and be compacted with suitable equipment (minimum 10-ton roller) to a depth of 12 inches. Subgrade compaction within the expanded building and pavement limits should be to a dry density of at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). GEAR should be called on to document that proper subgrade compaction has been achieved.

Subgrade Compaction Control: The expanded limits of the proposed construction areas should be well defined, including the limits for buildings, pavements, fills, and slopes, etc. Field density testing of subgrades will be performed at frequencies described in Table 5 below.

Table 5 - Frequency of Subgrade Compaction Testing

Location Frequency of Tests

Expanded Building Limits 1 test per 2,500 sq. ft.

Pavement Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft.

Outparcels/SWM Facilities 1 test per 2,500 sq. ft.

All Other Non-Critical Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft.

8.2 Earthwork Operations

8.2.1 Structural Fill Materials

Borrow Suitability: The following Engineered/Structural Fill types are recommended for use on this project:

Fine sand (SP) can be utilized as structural and pavement subgrade fill material provided that the natural moisture content is within a desirable range to obtain compaction. Soils with more than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve are moisture sensitive, these soils need to be compacted within +/- 3% of optimum and may require moisture conditioning.

Fine sand with silt (SP-SM) and fine sand with clay (SP-SC) can be utilized as structural and pavement subgrade fill material provided that the natural moisture content is within a desirable range to obtain compaction. It should be noted that due to higher fine content, soil may be more sensitive to moisture and may require more handling.

Soils with an organic content greater than 5% cannot be used as structural fill. It is recommended that all materials to be used for Engineered Fill be analyzed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to their use on the site.

Subgrade soils disturbed by contractor operations shall be recompacted to the specifications of this report. Subgrade soils which are excessively wet but otherwise suitable by soil classification (inorganic soil material meeting the specifications above) are not considered unsuitable by definition and shall be moisture conditioned and recompacted.

8.2.2 Compaction

Structural Fill Compaction: Assuming that the organic content of the soils does not exceed 5 percent, structural fill should be placed in loose lifts, which do not exceed 12 inches in thickness, and should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D-1557) within the lift thickness. Generally, the moisture content of the fill materials should be maintained between 3 percentage points below to the optimum moisture content for the fill material, as determined by ASTM D-1557. Fill placed in non-structural areas (e.g. grassed areas) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density according to ASTM D-1557, in order to avoid significant subsidence. GEAR should be called on to document that proper fill compaction has been achieved.

Fill Compaction Control: The expanded limits of the proposed construction areas should be well defined, including the limits of the fill zones for building and pavements at the time of fill placement. Grade controls should be maintained throughout the filling operations. All filling operations should be observed on a full-time basis by a qualified representative of the construction testing laboratory to determine that the minimum compaction requirements are being achieved. Field density testing of fills will be performed at the frequencies shown in Table 6, below, but not less than 1 test per lift.

Table 6 - Frequency of Compaction Tests in Fill Areas

Location Frequency of Tests Expanded Building Limits 1 test per 2,500 sq. ft. per lift

Pavement Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft. per lift Utility Trenches 1 test per 200 linear ft. per lift

Outparcels/SWM Facilities 1 test per 5,000 sq. ft. per lift All Other Non-Critical Areas 1 test per 10,000 sq. ft. per lift

Compaction Equipment: Compaction equipment suitable to the soil type being compacted should be used to compact the subgrades and fill materials. A vibratory steel drum roller should be used for compaction of coarse-grained soils (Sands) as well as for sealing compacted surfaces.

Fill Placement Considerations: Fill materials should not be placed on excessively wet soils. Excessively wet soils or aggregates should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned.

At the end of each workday, all fill areas should be graded to facilitate drainage of any precipitation and the surface should be sealed by use of a smooth-drum roller to limit infiltration of surface water. During placement and compaction of new fill at the beginning of each workday, the Contractor may need to scarify existing subgrades to a depth on the order of 4 inches so that a weak plane will not be formed between the new fill and the existing subgrade soils.

Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to prevent ponding of water which has a tendency to degrade subgrade soils.

If any problems are encountered during the earthwork operations, or if site conditions deviate from those encountered during our subsurface exploration, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified immediately.

We recommend that favorable unit rates be established in the construction contract for undercutting and backfilling. Unit rates could be established as follows:

a. Undercut and backfill with Imported Engineered Fill, per cubic yard in place.

b. Undercut and backfill with On-site Borrow Engineered Fill, per cubic yard in place.

c. Undercut and backfill with Aggregate Base Material, per ton.

d. Undercut and backfill with No. 57 Stone (wet areas and below footings), per ton.

e. Dispose of undercut material off-site, per cubic yard.

f. Place medium duty, woven and non-woven geotextile fabrics, per square yard. Suitable non-woven fabric for use in stabilization and separation would include Mirafi 160N or equivalent.

Suitable woven fabric would include Mirafi 600X or equivalent.

The Geotechnical Engineer should be called on to recommend and/or approve material type and placement procedures where subgrade remediation is required.

8.3 Foundation and Slab Observations

Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. Therefore, foundation concrete should be placed the same day that excavations are made. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a 1 to 3-inch thick “mud mat” of “lean” concrete should be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel.

Footing Subgrade Observations: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structure. It will be important to have the geotechnical engineer of record observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation concrete, to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated. If soft or unsuitable soils are observed at the footing bearing elevations, the unsuitable soils should be undercut and removed. Any undercut should be backfilled with lean concrete (f’c he original footing shall be constructed on top of the hardened lean concrete.

Slab Subgrade Verification: A representative of GEAR should be called on to observe exposed subgrades within the expanded building limits prior to Structural Fill Placement to assure that adequate subgrade preparation has been achieved.