Addendum 1 Q&A.pdf

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Commissioners Rodney Barreto Chairman Coral Gables

Steven Hudson Vice Chairman Fort Lauderdale

Preston Farrior Tampa

Gary Lester Oxford

Albert Maury Coral Gables

Gary Nicklaus Jupiter

Sonya Rood St. Augustine

Office of the Executive Director Roger A. Young Executive Director

Charles “Rett” Boyd Assistant Executive Director

George Warthen Chief Conservation Officer

Jessica Crawford Chief of Staff

850-487-3796

850-921-5786 FAX

Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people.

620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Voice: 850-488-4676

Hearing/speech-impaired:

800-955-8771 (T) 800-955-8770 (V)

MyFWC.com

DATE: MARCH 11, 2024

ADDENDUM NO.: 1

BID NO.: FWC 23/24-84C

BID TITLE: LAKE MONTGOMERY FISHING PIER REBID

UPDATE: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, SOIL REPORT

The enclosed addendum has been issued for consideration in the preparation of your response to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) Solicitation No. FWC 23/24-84C, “Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier Rebid”.

All responses to the subject solicitation must be received no later than 3:00 PM (ET) on Tuesday, March 19, 2024.

A response received after the exact time specified will not be considered.

Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Written notices, formal requests and proceedings must conform with the requirements set forth in Chapter 28-110, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Protests must be filed with the Purchasing Office, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1875 Orange Avenue East, Tallahassee, Florida 32311-6160 within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), F.S. and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.

Sincerely, Joshua Stringer, FWC Procurement Manager

FWC SOLICITATION ADDENDUM 2

BEGIN ADDENDUM

QUESTION #1

On page 1 of the attached soil report, it states wood or steel pilings. At the pre-bid the Engineer said the Owner’s preference is to use galv. steel pipe piling. Please confirm which type of piling is to be used?

ANSWER #1

QUESTION #2

Please issue the soil report in an addendum for this rebid.

ANSWER #2

At bottom of the addendum. (BEGINS ON PAGE 3)

REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.

The plans state steel pilings to be used. Confirming steel pilings to be used.

ECS Florida, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Report

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier

619 FL-10A

Lake City, Florida

ECS Project Number 35:33337

September 27, 2022

11554 Davis Creek Court, Jacksonville, FL 32256 • T: 904-880-0960 • F: 904-880-0970 • ecslimited.com

ECS Capitol Services, PLLC • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLP • ECS Southwest, LLP

September 27, 2022

Mr. Trevor Phillips Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399

ECS Project No. 35:33337

Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier

619 FL-10A

Lake City, Florida

Dear Mr. Phillips:

ECS Florida, LLC. (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our agreed to scope of work. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project along with the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted, and our design and construction recommendations.

It has been our pleasure to be of service to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission during the design phase of this project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase, and we would like to provide our services during construction phase operations as well to verify the assumptions of subsurface conditions made for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted, ECS Florida, LLC.

Jared Pitts, P.E. David Spangler, P.E.

Senior Project Manager Chief Engineer Registered Florida No. 92090 Registered Florida No. 58770 JPitts@ecslimited.com DSpangler@ecslimited.com

Chris Egan, P.E.

Associate Principal Engineer Registered Florida No. 79645 CEgan@ecslimited.com

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier September 27, 2022 ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Location/Current Site Use

2.2 Proposed Construction

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Subsurface Characterization

3.2 water Observations

3.3 Visual Classification

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 General

4.2 Foundation Design Recommendations

4.2.1 Pile Foundation Design Recommendations

4.2.2 Settlement Estimates

4.2.3 Lateral Capacities of Deep Foundation Elements

4.2.4 Pile Group Effects

5.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Pile Installation Considerations

5.2 Driven Pile Construction Recommendations

5.2.1 Construction Techniques

6.0 QUALITY CONTROL TESTING

7.0 CLOSING

TABLES

Tables 1-3 – Lateral Pile Analysis Soil Parameters

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Drawings & Reports

Figure 1 Site Location Diagram Figure 2 Field Exploration Diagram Figure 3 Generalized Subsurface Soil Profiles

Appendix B – Field Operations

Reference Notes for Boring Logs Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) Boring Logs

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the Executive Summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

We understand that the proposed project consists of constructing a pier supported by timber or steel pipe piles. We expect 8-inch or 10-inch timber piles, or 8-5/8-inch or 10-3/4-inch steel pipe piles may be used to support the structure. This evaluation did not include lateral pile analysis; however, soil design parameters for lateral pile analysis are provided.

We recommend that ECS be provided the opportunity to review the foundation plans and earthwork specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. ECS should also be retained to perform the construction material testing and observations required for this project, to verify that our recommendations have been satisfied.

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of foundations for the proposed fishing pier. The project will include a new aluminum fishing pier at the subject site. We were provided with an aerial photograph of the proposed pier location. The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by Mr. Phil Bishop, P.E., of North Florida Professional Services.

Our services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 35:19512-GP dated July 5, 2022, authorized by you on July 19, 2022 through PO No. C044DE, with included our Terms and Conditions of Service.

This report contains the procedures and results of our subsurface exploration program, review of existing site conditions, engineering analyses, and recommendations for the design and construction of the project.

The report includes the following items.

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

A review of surface topographical features and site conditions.

A review of area and site geologic conditions.

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

Final copies of our soil boring logs.

Recommendations for foundation design.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION/CURRENT SITE USE

The project site is located south of State Road 10A, approximately ½ of a mile east of West US Highway 90, in Lake City, Florida. The project site is bound to the north by a public parking area, and to the south, west, and east by Lake Montgomery (previously known as Lake Hamburg). The general site location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A and the following Figure 2.1.1.

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 3

Figure 2.1.1. Site Location

At the time of our exploration, the site consisted of a parking lot, boat ramp, and an approximately 97 acre lake. A site survey was not available to our office at the time of this report preparation.

2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Based on our conversation with Mr. Bishop, and the provided project documents, we understand that the proposed project consists of constructing an aluminum pier at the site. The pier will be supported by either steel pipes or timber piles. Proposed pile sizes and structural loading information were not available at the time of writing this report. If actual project information varies from these conditions, then the recommendations in this report may need to be re-evaluated. We should be contacted if any of the above project information is incorrect so that we may reevaluate our recommendations.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the Subsurface Exploration Procedures. Our scope of work included drilling three Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings. Our borings were located with a handheld GPS unit and their approximate locations are shown on the Field Exploration Diagram (Figure 2) in Appendix A.

3.1 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The subsurface conditions encountered were generally consistent with published geological mapping. The following sections provide generalized characterizations of the soil strata. Please refer to the boring logs in Appendix B.

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 4

Typical Depth (ft) Stratum Description

From To

Water Surface 1-9 N/A Water

Mudline (1-9) 2 - 6 I Very Loose Silty Fine SAND with Many Organic Materials (PT) and Organic Silt (PT) (Not encountered at Boring B-01)

2 - 6 30 II

Very Loose to Medium Dense Fine Sand (SP), Fine Sand with Silt

(SP-SM), Silty Fine SAND (SM), and Clayey Fine SAND (SC)

A graphical presentation of the subsurface conditions is shown on the Generalized Subsurface Soil Profiles included in Appendix A.

3.2 WATER OBSERVATIONS

Water depths were measured during our field exploration. At the time of our exploration, the water depth to the mudline was 1 foot, 7 feet, and 9 feet at Borings B-01, B-02, and B-03, respectively.

Variations in the long-term lake water depth may occur as a result of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors.

3.3 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION

Each sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures) and including USCS classification symbols. After classification, the samples were grouped in the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses along with the soil descriptions. The stratification lines between strata on the logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

Our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site and subsurface conditions at the property, with respect to the planned construction and our recommendations for site preparation and foundation support, are based on (1) our site observations, (2) the field and laboratory test data obtained, (3) our understanding of the project information and structural conditions as presented in this report, and (4) our experience with similar soil and loading conditions.

If the stated structural conditions are incorrect or should the location of the structure be changed, please contact us so that we can review our recommendations. Also, the discovery of any site or subsurface conditions during construction that deviate from the data obtained during this geotechnical exploration should also be reported to us for our evaluation.

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 5

The recommendations in the subsequent sections of this report present design and construction techniques that are appropriate for the planned construction. We recommend that ECS be provided the opportunity to review the foundation plans and earthwork specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented.

4.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.2.1 Pile Foundation Design Recommendations

Based on the results of the exploration, it is our opinion that the pier structure can be supported by a deep foundation system. Proposed pile sizes were not available at the time we prepared this report; therefore, we have assumed that the foundation system could consist of 8-inch or 10-inch diameter timber piles, or 8-5/8-inch or 10-3/4-inch, closed-end steel pipe piles. If actual pile sizes vary from those presented in our report, we can provide additional analysis, as required. Based on an assumed pile top of 5 feet above the existing water surface, the provided pile tip depths, and the measured water levels at our boring locations, we estimate the pile lengths will range between 26 feet to 31 feet at Boring B-01, 32 feet to 37 feet at Boring B-02, and 34 feet to 39 feet at Boring B- 03.

A summary of the allowable compressive and uplift pile capacities relative to the depth below the pond mudline is presented in the tables below. A factor of safety of 2 was utilized for skin friction and a factor of safety of 3 was utilized for end bearing in our calculations.

Timber Pile Allowable Capacities

Pile Tip Diameter (inches)

Pile Tip Depth Below Mudline

(feet)

Allowable Compressive Capacity (tons)

Allowable Uplift Capacity (tons)

20 5 2 25 6 3

20 8 3 25 9 4

Closed-End Steel Pipe Pile Allowable Capacities

Pile Tip Diameter (inches)

Pile Tip Depth Below Mudline

(feet)

Allowable Compressive Capacity (tons)

Allowable Uplift Capacity (tons)

8-5/8* 20 4 2 25 5 3

10-3/4* 20 5 3 25 7 4

* Assumed pile wall thickness of 0.5 inches

4.2.2 Settlement Estimates

With the deep foundation system properly installed, we estimate the settlement of the piles to be within tolerable limits. The settlement estimates have been based upon the use of (1) the field test data obtained during our geotechnical exploration, which has been correlated to geotechnical strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils beneath the site, and (2)

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 6 published theoretical and empirical methods of settlement analysis for deep foundations bearing on soils similar to those at this site.

4.2.3 Lateral Capacities of Deep Foundation Elements

The lateral capacity of a deep foundation is dependent on the configuration and spacing of the elements as well as the percentage of steel reinforcement installed within the shafts or piles. The design is also impacted by the rotational stiffness of the pile caps (if applicable) as well as the allowable lateral deflection. Note the required installation depth of the piles may be controlled by lateral stability.

We have provided soil parameters in Tables 1 through 3 attached to this report for use in lateral pile analyses. Lateral pile analysis was not part of our current scope of services. If you need this work to be performed, ECS can be further retained to evaluate the lateral capacities of the chosen deep foundation elements once a type and size are selected after further design development.

4.2.4 Pile Group Effects

Regardless of the deep foundation type used for support of the structure, we recommend a center-to-center minimum pile spacing of 2.5 to 3 times pile diameter. Using this minimum spacing, we anticipate that any capacity reductions due to group effects of individual piles which are installed within a group of piles should be small and therefore should be considered insignificant in the design of the foundation system.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 PILE INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS

Piles should be driven with a steam, air, hydraulic, or diesel hammer. The hammer should be operated at the chamber pressure and speed recommended by the manufacturer at all times. Pile driving should be as continuous an operation as possible and should proceed without stopping over the last 6 to 10 feet of penetration. The hammer acceptance criteria of the piles should be established prior to construction once the type and size of hammer are furnished by the contractor.

5.2 DRIVEN PILE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Driven pile construction as outlined in this section should be performed to provide more uniform foundation bearing conditions, to reduce the potential for post-construction settlements of the planned structure.

5.2.1 Construction Techniques

The pile driving hammer should be properly selected with relation to the size, weight, and type of pile specified. Proper selection of the pile hammer based upon pile type, ram weight, and the use of proper anvil and cushioning material and thickness should result in compressive and tensile driving stresses in the piles that are within tolerable magnitudes.

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 7

Actual pile driving hammer requirements and acceptable pile penetration resistances, including practical refusal resistances, can be determined when the selected pile elements, the proposed driving equipment, and cushioning systems are determined. ECS Florida, LLC can perform all necessary wave equation analysis (WEAP) to determine the suitability of the contractor’s pile driving equipment.

6.0 QUALITY CONTROL TESTING

An engineering technician that is (1) familiar with the installation of driven piles into subsurface soil conditions similar to those at this site and (2) acting under the direction and supervision of the geotechnical engineer should witness the installation of the production piles. His/her duties should include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Keep an accurate record of pile installation and installation procedures.

2. Verify that all piles are installed to the proper driving resistance and to recommended depths.

3. Confirm that the pile driving equipment is operating properly.

4. Inspect the piles prior to installation for defects and confirm that the piles are not damaged during installation.

If the installation of the piles cannot be witnessed by a qualified engineering technician, we recommend as a minimum construction control measure that all pile driving records be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.

7.0 CLOSING

Our geotechnical exploration has been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. ECS is not responsible for any independent conclusions, interpretation, opinions, or recommendations made by others based on the data contained in this report.

Our scope of services was intended to evaluate the soil conditions within the zone of soil influenced by the foundation system. Our scope of services does not address geologic conditions, such as sinkholes or soil conditions existing below the depth of the soil borings.

If any of the project description information discussed in this report is inaccurate, either due to our interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted immediately in order that we can review the report in light of the changes and provide additional or alternate recommendations as may be required to reflect the proposed construction.

We recommend that ECS be allowed to review the project’s plans and specifications pertaining to our work so that we may ascertain consistency of those plans/specifications with the intent of the geotechnical report.

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Page 8

Field observations, monitoring, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an extension of and integral to the geotechnical design recommendation. We recommend that the owner retain these quality assurance services and that ECS be allowed to continue our involvement throughout these critical phases of construction to provide general consultation as issues arise.

ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

TABLES

Tables 1 through 3 - Lateral Pile Analysis Soil Parameters

From To 1 Sand 0 7.0 7.0 4 3 28 0 20 0.0521 NA(3)

2 Sand 7.0 13.5 6.5 4 28 33 0 60 0.0723 NA 3 Sand 13.5 18.0 4.5 4 20 33 0 60 0.0694 NA 4 Sand 18.0 23.0 5.0 4 47 38 0 120 0.0752 NA 5 Sand 23.0 30.0 7.0 4 12 30 0 60 0.0666 NA

(1) Lateral P-Y Curves:

1 = Soft Clay 4 = Sand (Reese) 9 = Stiff Clay With Free Water

(3) NA - Not Applicable

TABLE 1

Lateral Analysis Recommended Soil Parameters

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier Boring B-1

ECS Project No. 35:33337 Lake City, Florida

Layer Thickness (ft)

Cohesion, C (psf)

Soil Modulus, k (pci)

Lateral Soil Model

(LSM)(1)

Average N- Value (N60)

Phi, Φ (degrees) ε50

(2)

(2) ε50 = Major Principal Strain at 50% Maximum Deviator Stress

Layer No.

Material Type(1)

Estimated Depth Below Mudline (ft)

Total Unit Weight, γt

(pci)

1 Clay 0 2.0 2.0 1 2 0 300 0 0.0463 0.02 2 Sand 2.0 6.0 4.0 4 7 28 0 20 0.0550 NA 3 Sand 6.0 8.0 2.0 4 20 31 0 60 0.0694 NA 4 Sand 8.0 28.0 20.0 4 10 30 0 30 0.0637 NA 5 Sand 28.0 30.0 2.0 4 28 35 0 60 0.0723 NA

(1) Lateral P-Y Curves:

1 = Soft Clay 4 = Sand (Reese) 9 = Stiff Clay With Free Water

(3) NA - Not Applicable

TABLE 2

Lateral Analysis Recommended Soil Parameters

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier Boring B-2

Lake City, Florida ECS Project No. 35:33337

Total Unit Weight, γt

(pci) ε50

(2)Phi, Φ (degrees)

Average N- Value (N60)

(2) ε50 = Major Principal Strain at 50% Maximum Deviator Stress

Cohesion, C (psf)

Soil Modulus, k (pci)

Layer No.

Material Type(1)

Estimated Depth Below Mudline (ft)

Layer Thickness (ft)

Lateral Soil Model

(LSM)(1)

1 Clay 0 6.0 6.0 1 2 0 300 30 0.0463 0.02 2 Sand 6.0 8.0 2.0 4 3 27 0 20 0.0550 NA 3 Sand 8.0 12.0 4.0 4 16 29 0 60 0.0637 NA 4 Sand 12.0 17.0 5.0 4 4 27 0 20 0.0550 NA 5 Sand 17.0 27.0 10.0 4 20 33 0 60 0.0694 NA 6 Sand 27.0 30.0 3.0 4 8 27 0 20 0.0608 NA

(1) Lateral P-Y Curves:

1 = Soft Clay 4 = Sand (Reese) 9 = Stiff Clay With Free Water

(3) NA - Not Applicable

TABLE 3

Lateral Analysis Recommended Soil Parameters

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier Boring B-3

Lake City, Florida ECS Project No. 35:33337

Layer No.

Material Type(1)

Estimated Depth Below Mudline (ft)

Layer Thickness (ft)

Lateral Soil Model

(LSM)(1)

Average N- Value (N60)

Phi, Φ (degrees)

Cohesion, C (psf)

Soil Modulus, k (pci) ε50

(2)

(2) ε50 = Major Principal Strain at 50% Maximum Deviator Stress

Total Unit Weight, γt

(pci)

APPENDIX A – Diagrams & Reports

Figure 1 Site Location Diagram Figure 2 Field Exploration Diagram Figure 3 Generalized Subsurface Soil Profiles

9/22/2022

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

35:33337

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

DATE

CME2

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

LAKE MONTGOMERY FISHING PIER

619 FL-10A, LAKE CITY, FLORIDA

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM

0 1,200600

Feet

AS NOTED

B-01

B-02

B-03

9/22/2022

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

35:33337

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE

DATE

CME2

Legend Approximate Boring Locations

FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

LAKE MONTGOMERY FISHING PIER

619 FL-10A, LAKE CITY, FLORIDA

FIELD EXPLORATION DIAGRAM

0 200100

Feet

AS NOTED

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3

-4 -4

-5 -5

-6 -6

-7 -7

-8 -8

-9 -9

-10 -10

-11 -11

-12 -12

-13 -13

-14 -14

-15 -15

-16 -16

-17 -17

-18 -18

-19 -19

-20 -20

-21 -21

-22 -22

-23 -23

-24 -24

-25 -25

-26 -26

-27 -27

-28 -28

-29 -29

-30 -30

-31 -31

-32 -32

-33 -33

-34 -34

-35 -35

-36 -36

-37 -37

-38 -38

-39 -39

.7

.7

.7

-40.00

Legend Key Water

SP-SM

SM

SP

PT

SC

Notes:

1- EOB: END OF BORING AR: AUGER REFUSAL SR: SAMPLER REFUSAL.

2- THE NUMBER BELOW THE STRIPS IS THE DISTANCE ALONG THE BASELINE.

3- SEE INDIVIDUAL BORING LOG AND GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION.

4- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE (LEFT OF BORING) IN BLOWS PER

FOOT (ASTM D1586).

Plastic Limit Water Content Liquid Limit X─────────⚫─────────△

[FINES CONTENT%]

BOTTOM OF CASING

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Completion)

WL (Estimated Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

Fill

Possible Fill

Probable Fill

Rock

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE SOIL PROFILE Figure 3

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

619 FL-10A, Lake City, Florida, 32025 Project No: 35:33337 Date: 09/26/2022

WOH/24"

*B -0

EOB @

Water

SP-SM

SM

SP

SC

SP

SP-SM

WOH/24"

*B -0

EOB @

Water

PT

SP-SM

SC

SP

SP-SM

SC

SP

WOH/24"

WOH/24"

WOH/18"

*B -0

EOB @

Water

PT

SC

SP

SM

APPENDIX B – Field Operations

Reference Notes for Boring Logs Subsurface Exploration Procedure: Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) Boring Logs

DE

PT

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Water[12.00"] (SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, brown, saturated, very loose

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, dark gray brown, saturated, very loose

(SP) FINE SAND, gray brown, saturated, loose

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense

(SP) FINE SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense to dense

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, brown, saturated, loose to medium dense

END OF BORING AT 31 FT

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

BL

O

W S/

6"

WOH/24"

(WOH/24")

1-1-1-1 (2)

2-2-3-4 (5)

5-12-18-18 (30)

8-12-15-18 (27)

5-8-12 (20)

12-21-26 (47)

4-5-5 (10)

3-6-8 (14)

WOH/24"

CLIENT:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission

PROJECT NAME:

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

35:33337 B-01

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

ECS

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

619 FL-10A, Lake City, Florida, 32025

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

0.00 BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

PONTOON

Sep 20 2022

Sep 20 2022

LOGGED BY:

JP18

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Manual

Mud rotary

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

20 40 60 80 100

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &

RECOVERY

RQD

REC

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF

1 2 3 4 5

WATER CONTENT %

[FINES CONTENT] %

10 20 30 40 50

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Water[84.00"]

(PT) PEAT, dark brown, saturated

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, gray brown, saturated, loose to medium dense

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense (SP) FINE SAND, brown, saturated, loose

(SP-SM) FINE SAND WITH SILT, brown, saturated, medium dense

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, brown, saturated, loose

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

BL

O

W S/

6"

1-2-3-3 (5)

5-5-7-8 (12)

6-8-12-12 (20)

3-3-5-6 (8)

8-7-6 (13)

8-6-9 (15)

4-5-5 (10)

WOH/24"

CLIENT:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission

PROJECT NAME:

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

35:33337 B-02

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

ECS

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

619 FL-10A, Lake City, Florida, 32025

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

0.00 BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

PONTOON

Sep 20 2022

Sep 20 2022

LOGGED BY:

JP18

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Manual

Mud rotary

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

20 40 60 80 100

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &

RECOVERY

RQD

REC

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF

1 2 3 4 5

WATER CONTENT %

[FINES CONTENT] %

10 20 30 40 50

WOH/24"

(WOH/24")

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-8

S-9

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, brown, saturated, loose

(SP) FINE SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense

END OF BORING AT 37 FT

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

BL

O

W S/

6"

9-12-16 (28)

CLIENT:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission

PROJECT NAME:

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

35:33337 B-02

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

ECS

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

619 FL-10A, Lake City, Florida, 32025

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

0.00 BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

PONTOON

Sep 20 2022

Sep 20 2022

LOGGED BY:

JP18

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Manual

Mud rotary

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

20 40 60 80 100

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &

RECOVERY

RQD

REC

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF

1 2 3 4 5

WATER CONTENT %

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Water[108.00"]

(PT) PEAT, dark brown, saturated

(SC) CLAYEY FINE SAND, brown, saturated, very loose to medium dense

(SP) FINE SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

BL

O

W S/

6"

WOH/18"-1

(WOH/18")

1-1-2-3 (3)

5-6-10-13 (16)

2-2-2 (4)

5-10-11 (21)

WOH/24"

WOH/24"

WOH/18"

CLIENT:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission

PROJECT NAME:

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

35:33337 B-03

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

ECS

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

619 FL-10A, Lake City, Florida, 32025

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

0.00 BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

PONTOON

Sep 20 2022

Sep 20 2022

LOGGED BY:

JP18

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Manual

Mud rotary

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

20 40 60 80 100

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &

RECOVERY

RQD

REC

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF

1 2 3 4 5

WATER CONTENT %

[FINES CONTENT] %

10 20 30 40 50

WOH/24"

(WOH/24")

WOH/24"

(WOH/24")

H (F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

S-8

S-9

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SS

SS

SA

M

PL

E

DI

ST

IN

RE

CO

VE

RY

(I N

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

(SP) FINE SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense

(SM) SILTY FINE SAND, brown, saturated, loose

END OF BORING AT 39 FT

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-60

BL

O

W S/

6"

10-10-10 (20)

4-4-4 (8)

CLIENT:

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva on Commission

PROJECT NAME:

Lake Montgomery Fishing Pier

PROJECT NO.: BORING NO.:

35:33337 B-03

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

ECS

SHEET:

SITE LOCATION:

619 FL-10A, Lake City, Florida, 32025

LOSS OF CIRCULATION

NORTHING: EASTING: STATION: SURFACE ELEVATION:

BOTTOM OF CASING

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Comple on)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

0.00 BORING STARTED:

BORING

COMPLETED:

EQUIPMENT:

PONTOON

Sep 20 2022

Sep 20 2022

LOGGED BY:

JP18

CAVE IN DEPTH:

HAMMER TYPE:

DRILLING METHOD:

Manual

Mud rotary

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

STANDARD PENETRATION BLOWS/FT

20 40 60 80 100

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION &

RECOVERY

RQD

REC

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

CALIBRATED PENETROMETER TSF

1 2 3 4 5

WATER CONTENT %

END ADDENDUM

Blank Page