Appendix_6_-_Geotechnical_Report_Intertek.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT

For the

M10 Starkey Pond Outfall Retrofit 126th Avenue North and Starkey Road

Largo, Florida 33773

Prepared for

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

1511 East State Road 434, Suite 1005 Winter Springs, Florida 32708

Prepared by

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.

5801 BENJAMIN CENTER DRIVE

SUITE 112

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33634

TELEPHONE (813) 886-1075

FAX (813) 249-4916

PSI PROJECT NO. 07752761

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019)

PSI Project No. 07752761 M10 Starkey Pond Retrofit

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.3 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION

2.4 REVIEW OF PUBLISHED DATA

3.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 GENERAL

3.2 SITE CLEARING AND STRIPPING

3.3 FILL PLACEMENT AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION

3.4 ENGINEERED FILL

3.5 SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

3.6 EARTH PRESSURES ON ABOVE GRADE CONCRETE STRUCTURES

4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONCERNS

4.3 UTILITY EXCAVATIONS

4.4 EXCAVATIONS

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX

BORING LOCATION PLAN ..................................................................................................................................... SHEET 1 SOIL PROFILES .................................................................................................................................................... SHEET 1

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) has completed a geotechnical exploration for the proposed M10 Starkey Pond Retrofit project located along 126th Avenue North in Largo, Florida. This evaluation has been performed in general accordance with Master Subcontractor Services Agreement between Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. and Professional Services Industries, Inc. dated October 16, 2018 as well as PSI Proposal No. 0775- 258283r2, issued December 19, 2018. Our services were authorized by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. by executing the Subconsultant Work Order for Pinellas County Contract 156-0095-CN effective January 8, 2019.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on the information provided to us, we understand it is planned to construct a new weir in an existing drainage facility to the north of 126th Avenue, west of Starkey Road in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida. In addition, some limited regrading and/ or reshaping may be performed on each side of the weir. We understand the new weir may be constructed with sheet piles, as a broad-crested concrete weir or some other type of thin concrete structure spanning the existing ditch width. Formal structural plans for weir construction as well as grading and topographic information has not been provided at this time.

Should any of the above information or assumptions made by PSI be inconsistent with the planned construction, we request that you contact us promptly to allow us to make any necessary modifications to the recommendations in this report.

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of our exploration was to obtain information on the general subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, geotechnical engineering evaluations for the following issues were addressed.

1. Recommendations for shallow foundation design consisting of estimated settlements and bearing capacity to aid in weir construction.

2. Soil subgrade preparation, including stripping, cut/fill considerations, grubbing and compaction. Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill materials.

3. Suitability and availability of materials on-site that may be moved during site grading for use as structural fill in the area of the proposed weir and as general backfill.

4. Identification of groundwater levels including information on anticipated seasonal fluctuations.

5. Recommended for soil parameters, lateral earth pressures (at-rest, active, and passive) and internal friction angle of typical backfill materials for use in the design of above grade retaining walls.

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building

The following services were provided to achieve the preceding objectives:

1. Reviewed readily available published geologic and topographic information. This published information was obtained from the “Clearwater, Florida” quadrangle map published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the "Soil Survey of Pinellas County, Florida" published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS).

2. Executed a program of subsurface sampling and field testing consisting of one (1) Dynamic Cone

Penetrometer (DCP) test boring to a depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grade. Two

(2) Hand Auger borings were also performed in the middle of the existing ditch in an effort to collect soil samples and perform laboratory testing on the materials under the water (erodible materials). In the DCP soil boring, samples were collected and Standard Penetration Test resistances (N-values) were measured virtually continuously for the top ten (10) feet.

3. Visually classified and stratified representative soil samples in the laboratory using the Unified

Soil Classification System. Conducted a limited laboratory testing program. Identified soil conditions at each boring location and formed an opinion of the site soil stratigraphy.

4. Collected groundwater level measurements in the boreholes and estimated normal wet seasonal high groundwater levels.

5. The results of the field exploration and laboratory tests were used in the engineering analysis and in the formulation of our design-level geotechnical recommendations for the project. The results of the subsurface exploration, including the recommendations and the data on which they are based, are presented in this engineering report.

Boring locations were selected by PSI with approval from the client. Boring locations were established in the field by using hand-held GPS equipment as well as project plans and photographs supplied. The boring locations shown on the Boring Location Plan presented on Sheet 1 should be considered approximate.

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

At the time of our fieldwork, the site was recently mowed for a portion of the ditch length to allow access for the men and equipment. The site consisted of predominantly grass and vegetated ditch slopes with a few trees and vegetation overgrowth in the middle/ bottom of the ditch. The ditch bottom appeared to be approximately 5 to 6 feet below the adjacent road grade.

The southern side of 126th Avenue North, just south of the proposed weir location, was apparently recently cleared of excess vegetation overgrowth. The middle of the ditch was under approximately 1 to 1½ feet of standing water. Standing water can also be seen in the site photographs provided, although the dates of the photos are not known. The existing concrete drainage structure retains a significant amount of fill and also retains a portion of the roadway and associated driveways. Based on a review of aerial photography, the site has apparently been operating as a drainage ditch and pond for over 25 years.

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building

The approximate locations of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) test and hand auger borings are presented on Sheet 1 in the Appendix. The soil types encountered at each respective boring location are presented in the form of soil profiled on Sheet 2 along with a legend describing the encountered soils in USCS format and laboratory test results. The stratification presented is based on visual observation of the recovered soil samples, laboratory testing, and interpretation of field logs by a geotechnical engineer. It should be noted that variations in the subsurface conditions are expected and may be encountered between and away from the borings. Also, whereas the individual boring logs indicate distinct strata breaks, the actual transition between the soil layers may be more gradual that shown on the soil profiles.

2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Generally, the borings revealed a series of fine sands grading relatively clean to slightly silty in composition (SP, SP-SM) from the existing ground surface to depths of 10 feet below existing grade. In one location within the ditch bottom, PSI encountered silty sands (SM) to a depth of 2 feet. Shell, rock, asphalt and wood debris indicating disturbed or previously placed fill materials were noted in the samples to depths of approximately 1 to 4 feet at the boring locations. All the borings performed for this project encountered some apparent fill materials in the upper 2 to 5 feet. A significant amount of organic material was found to exist in the ditch bottom.

The relative density of the soil was measured using a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) as the borehole was advanced. The DCP test involved driving a steel point into the soil with repeated blows from a 15-pound hammer free-falling 28 inches. The point was driven through three increments of 1¾ inches, and the total number of blows was recorded for each increment. The average of the final two blow counts is termed the DCP resistance value (N30L). When evaluated, the DCP resistance value can be correlated with strength, stiffness and compressibility parameters of the tested soils. Based on the blow counts recorded during field exploration, the soils generally grade loose to medium dense sands to silty sands.

2.3 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION

Groundwater was observed in the DCP boring at a depth of 5 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of field exploration services (January 2019). The DCP boring was performed near the existing road grade, while 1 to 2 feet of standing water was noted at the boring locations performed within the existing ditch. Based upon the elevation data provided at the boring locations, the groundwater level observed in the boreholes in January was approximately elevation +10 to +11 feet. Facultative wetland plants were identified to exist within the ditch and along the side slopes of the ditch. Standing water can also be seen within the roadway in site photographs provided.

It should be noted that groundwater levels tend to fluctuate during periods of prolonged drought and extended rainfall and may be affected by man-made influences. In addition, a seasonal effect will also occur in which higher groundwater levels are normally recorded during rainy seasons. The estimated normal seasonal high groundwater levels presented herein are based on the observed soil stratigraphy, conditions observed in the borings, USDA Soil Survey information, and our experience in the project vicinity. In this regard, we estimate the depth to the normal wet seasonal high groundwater table (SHWT) to occur at approximate elevation +13 feet. However, higher water levels and flooding may occur during and following rain events as this area is a ditch that receives run-off and drainage from the surrounding area.

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building

2.4 REVIEW OF PUBLISHED DATA

The topographic survey map published by the USGS entitled “Clearwater, Florida” Photo revised 1987, was reviewed for ground surface features in the area of the proposed development. Based on this review, the natural ground surface elevation ranges between approximately +15 and +20 feet.

The Web Soil Survey provided by the United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service lists the primary relevant soils in the vicinity of the project site to be under mapping units “15 - Manatee loamy fine sand, frequently ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes” and “17 - Myakka soils and Urban land”. These soils have a listed high groundwater depth of 0 inches to 1½ feet.

3.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 GENERAL

The following recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered. If there is any change in the project criteria, including the location or orientation of the proposed structure, a review must be made by PSI to determine if additional fieldwork and/or any modifications to our recommendations will be required. Once final design plans and specifications are available, a general review by PSI is strongly recommended as a means to check that the evaluations made in preparation of this report are correct and that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented.

3.2 SITE CLEARING AND STRIPPING

At the outset of construction, clearing and grubbing including root raking and removal of any organic-laden topsoil or organic sands that may remain on the site should be completed. This normally includes removing the surface vegetation, stripping topsoil, grubbing major root systems, and removing any miscellaneous debris, bricks/rocks and/or other deleterious materials that may exist in the ditch. Previously placed fill or debris laden soils within the ditch bottom should also be removed. The borings encountered 1 to 4 feet of debris laden soils at the boring locations including 1 to 2 feet within the existing pond bottom.

At a minimum, it is recommended that the clearing/stripping operations extend at least ten feet beyond the proposed construction area, where practical. Material generated during stripping operations should be disposed of off-site in a proper manner as directed by the Owner. Initial site clearing and preparation work should be carried out under the observation of a representative of the geotechnical engineer.

3.3 FILL PLACEMENT AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION

Following the clearing operations, the exposed subgrade should be evaluated as directed by representatives of PSI to confirm that all unsuitable materials have been removed. It should be noted during our filed exploration PSI encountered rock fragments, asphalt chunks, wood debris, roots and shells in the bottom of the ditch, indicative of reworked or imported fill soils.

Following stripping and removal of debris or unsuitable materials from the proposed weir area, we recommend a minimum depth of two feet below stripped grade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density. Following satisfactory completion of initial

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building compaction of the stripped subgrade, the proposed development areas may be brought up to finished grades with Engineered Fill.

Dewatering of the ditch will likely be required to facilitate compaction. Additionally, it will likely be necessary to cut back the ditch sides to a flatter slope and widen the ditch bottom to facilitate the contractors proposed compaction equipment. New fills should be keyed into existing slopes to facilitate compaction.

3.4 ENGINEERED FILL

Any off-site fill imported for the project should consist of clean fine sand with less than 12 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve and be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other deleterious material. Fill should be tested and approved prior to import and placement. Each lift should have a loose thickness not exceeding 12 inches. Density tests should be performed to confirm the required compaction is being achieved prior to placing the next lift. Prior to beginning compaction, soil moisture conditioning may be required. Soil moisture contents should be controlled in order to facilitate proper compaction. A moisture content within two percentage points of the material’s optimum indicated by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D-1557) is recommended prior to compaction of the natural ground and fill.

All engineered fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s modified Proctor (ASTM D- 1557) maximum dry density.

3.5 SHALLOW FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the anticipated construction and recommended site preparation, continuous footings required to support the weir or walls may be designed for a net allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). If the weir will consist of a slab or mat like concrete structure, a modest net allowable bearing capacity of 500 psf should be used, depending on how the slab or mat is designed. The weir should bear on properly placed and compacted cohesionless (sand) fills or on compacted native sands.

The subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum density requirement of 95 percent of the material’s modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density for a minimum depth of two feet below the bottom of the weir, as determined by field density compaction tests. Backfill soils placed adjacent to the weir or walls should be carefully compacted with a light walk-behind roller or vibratory plate compactor to avoid damaging in-place footings or walls.

All excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to explore the extent of any fill, excessively loose, soft, or otherwise undesirable materials. If soft or undesirable materials are encountered in the excavations, then such materials should be removed and the subgrade re-established by backfilling. This backfilling may be done with a well-compacted, suitable fill such as clean sand (engineered fill), gravel, or crushed FDOT No. 57 or FDOT No. 67 stone. Sand backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557), as previously described.

Gravel/stone should be compacted to a firm/unyielding condition.

Immediately prior to placement of reinforcing steel, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces directly underneath the proposed weir area be re-compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers. In this manner, any localized areas that have been loosened by excavation operations should be adequately recompacted.

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building

The settlement of the proposed weir supported on sandy soils should occur relatively quickly after initial loading. If the recommended subgrade preparation presented herein are properly performed, and assuming the recommended maximum bearing pressure is used for design, total foundation settlement should be one inch or less. Differential settlements should be approximately 50 percent of the total movements over 20 feet. These estimates are based on available information provided to PSI to date regarding estimated loading.

Lateral loads that are applied to the weir and associated walls may be resisted by earth pressure mobilized on the buried vertical faces of the structure and by shearing forces acting along the structure-subgrade interface. Earth pressure resistance may be determined using an equivalent fluid density of 360 pounds per cubic foot for moist soil and 180 pounds per cubic foot for submerged soil below the water table. A friction factor of 0.4 should be used to determine base shearing resistance. The noted values are based on the assumption that the weir and wall structures are surrounded by compacted sand fill.

To develop passive resistances, the foundations must be able to tolerate some lateral movement. In order to minimize the movement required to develop resistance, the pressure values presented above can be halved. We estimate lateral movements in the range one-quarter to three-eighths of an inch to fully develop the passive resistance. A factor of safety of at least 2 is recommended for design.

3.6 EARTH PRESSURES ON ABOVE GRADE CONCRETE STRUCTURES

Conventional above grade retaining walls such as concrete drainage structure walls and sheet pile walls for the project should be designed to resist pressures exerted by the adjacent soils and hydrostatic head. For walls that are not restrained during backfilling but are free to rotate at the top, active earth pressure should be used in design. Walls that are restrained should be designed assuming at-rest pressures.

Recommended soil parameters for the near-surface granular soils encountered at the site are presented in the following:

Total Unit Weight, γb = 105 lb/ft3 Angle of Internal Friction,φ = 29° Coeff. of Sliding Friction = 0.40 Active Soil Pressure coeff., Ka = 0.35 At-rest Soil Pressure coeff., Ko = 0.51 Passive Soil Pressure coeff., Kp = 2.88

The recommended parameters assume that adequate drainage is provided behind the walls to prevent the buildup of excess hydrostatic pressures and do not account for any external loads. In order to avoid wall damage due to excessive compaction, hand operated mechanical tampers should be used to densify backfill soils; heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed within five feet of walls. The soils behind walls should be compacted to approximately 95 percent of the material’s modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density. If any portion of a proposed wall is to retain an active roadway with vehicle and/ or truck traffic, all applicable county and FDOT design guidelines should be implemented in order to uphold public safety of the roadway.

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building

4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 GENERAL

It is recommended that PSI be retained to provide observation and testing of construction activities involved in the foundation, earthwork, and related activities of this project. This will promote project continuity and will reduce the potential for misinterpretation of our recommendations.

4.2 DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONCERNS

Depending on finished grades and the time of year construction occurs, significant dewatering of this site will likely be necessary during weir and deeper utility construction. Dewatering should maintain the groundwater level at least 2 feet below the lowest excavation. We recommend that the dewatering system be designed, constructed, and maintained by an experienced dewatering contractor. The effects of the proposed dewatering system on adjacent properties or nearby structures should also be considered in the design.

Water should not be allowed to collect in the excavations, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped toward one corner to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the construction area. The grades should be sloped away from the construction area and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to infiltrate the backfill. In pavement areas, standing water on the pavement surface or within the base course layer can lead to softening of the subgrade and other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement.

4.3 UTILITY EXCAVATIONS

Utility trenches may be required for this project. We recommend all utility trench backfill comply to the gradation and requirements of structural fill, as described above and be placed and compacted to the recommendations contained in the site preparation section of this report.

4.4 EXCAVATIONS

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P”. This document was issued to better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with current OSHA guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractors “responsible person”, as defined in 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no

January 30, 2019 (Revised March 29, 2019) www.intertek.com/building case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in all local, state, and federal safety regulations.

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. PSI does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s or other party’s compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations. It is the policy of PSI not to provide recommendations regarding temporary slopes during construction which is the sole responsibility of the contractor as indicated above.

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

The services provided were conventional in nature and did not include any special services that may lessen the risk of conditions that can contribute to moisture, mold or other microbial contaminant growth in structures. You may be aware that mold is abundant throughout nature and is comprised of a wide variety of microscopic fungi. Due to its nature, the potential for mold infestations cannot be completely eliminated.

Florida is underlain by a soluble limestone formation, which can dissolve and result in surface subsidence and the formation of sinkholes. A comprehensive assessment of the potential for sinkhole development at this site was not included in our scope of services. Typically, such an assessment would include geophysical surveying methods and the extension of deeper soil borings into the underlying limestone formation.

The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by PSI and design details furnished by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. for the proposed M10 Starkey Pond Retrofit project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, PSI should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the recommendations are required.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. and its consultants for the specific application to the proposed M10 Starkey Pond Retrofit project located along 126th Avenue North in Largo, Pinellas County, Florida.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROJ. NO.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DRAWN

AutoCAD SHX Text

CHECKED

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROVED

AutoCAD SHX Text

SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING LOCATION PLAN

AutoCAD SHX Text

PLAN SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 40'

AutoCAD SHX Text Approximate DCP test location

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text Gray/brown fine SAND to slightly

AutoCAD SHX Text Measured blow count over 300mm

AutoCAD SHX Text N

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

SP

AutoCAD SHX Text Unified Soil Classification System

AutoCAD SHX Text (ASTM D 2487) group symbol as

AutoCAD SHX Text determined by visual review

AutoCAD SHX Text

SOIL PROFILES

AutoCAD SHX Text

VERTICAL SCALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text 5'

AutoCAD SHX Text silty SAND (SP/SP-SM)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEVATION (FEET, NAVD 88)

AutoCAD SHX Text B-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES

AutoCAD SHX Text

STARKEY POND RETROFIT

AutoCAD SHX Text

LARGO, FLORIDA

AutoCAD SHX Text

JAN 19

AutoCAD SHX Text 07752761

AutoCAD SHX Text

SHEET 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

DJG

AutoCAD SHX Text

RTH

AutoCAD SHX Text

LTL

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTED

AutoCAD SHX Text Groundwater level, AutoCAD SHX Text January 2019

AutoCAD SHX Text Approximate Hand Auger boring location

AutoCAD SHX Text

GS-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

GS-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text With shell fragmets

AutoCAD SHX Text With rock/asphalt fragments

AutoCAD SHX Text With wood/roots

AutoCAD SHX Text A

AutoCAD SHX Text B

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text 30L

AutoCAD SHX Text N

AutoCAD SHX Text 30L

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

LATITUDE: 27.887218 N

AutoCAD SHX Text

LONGITUDE: 82.764336 W

AutoCAD SHX Text B

AutoCAD SHX Text A

AutoCAD SHX Text C

AutoCAD SHX Text B

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text A,B,C

AutoCAD SHX Text A,C

AutoCAD SHX Text Fines passing No. 200 sieve (%)

AutoCAD SHX Text -200

AutoCAD SHX Text Organic Content (%)

AutoCAD SHX Text

OC

AutoCAD SHX Text -200=22

AutoCAD SHX Text -200=3

AutoCAD SHX Text -200=6

AutoCAD SHX Text -200=2

AutoCAD SHX Text

OC=11

AutoCAD SHX Text B-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

GS-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

GS-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

126TH AVE N

AutoCAD SHX Text from DCP results

AutoCAD SHX Text Dark brown silty SAND (SM)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEVATION (FEET, NAVD 88)

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEV. 15.3'

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEV. 8.4'

AutoCAD SHX Text

ELEV. 9.8'

AutoCAD SHX Text (+1.5')

AutoCAD SHX Text (+1.0')