B08_Attach_12_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

REPORT COVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed Well No.6 Building Sandy Hook, Monmouth County, New Jersey

April 4, 2022 Terracon Project No. J6215069

Prepared for:

VHB

Williamsburg, Virginia

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

South Plainfield, New Jersey

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 4081 Hadley Road Unit B South Pla inf ie ld, NJ 07080 P (908) 546 6160 F (908) 546 6161 terracon.com

REPORT COVER LETTER TO SIGN

April 4, 2022

VHB

331 McLaws Circle, Suite 3 Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

Attn: Mr. Vikrant Desai, P.E.

P: (757) 279-2832 E: vdesai@vhb.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Well No.6 Building Sandy Hook, Monmouth County, New Jersey Terracon Project No. J6215069

Dear Mr. Desai:

We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with VHB Task Order No. 140P2021F0100 dated June 28, 2021. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of foundations and floor slab for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Gregg Furson Erich Christiansen, P.E.

Senior Project Manager Principal

Geotechnical Department Manager

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT TOPICS

REPORT SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

FLOOR SLABS

GENERAL COMMENTS

FIGURES

ATTACHMENTS

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

Proposed Well No.6 Building ■ Sandy Hook, Monmouth County, New Jersey April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

REPORT SUMMARY

The geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Well No. 6 building that will be constructed Gateway National Recreation Area, Sandy Hook, New Jersey. The project will consist of a one-story structure with a plan area of approximately 450 square feet.

Two borings for the building were advanced for this study to a depth of approximately 30 feet below the existing surface grades to provide geotechnical information for the project. Site subsurface conditions generally consisted of natural deposits of sand soils.

The following geotechnical considerations for project design and construction were identified and are discussed in the report:

n The subsurface conditions generally consisted of native loose sand soils to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 8 below the existing ground surface. These soils are not suitable in their current condition for support of new foundations and slab and would need to be improved via removal and replacement with structural fill. Following improvement, the foundations may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

n The lowest level slab can be constructed at-grade and be supported by either the undisturbed medium dense native sand soils, or structural fill placed directly above these materials.

n Site soils consist of sand soils that are suitable for re-use as compacted structural fill, provided they are maintained at moisture contents suitable for compaction.

n We recommend that Site Class D be adopted for seismic design purposes in accordance with the 2018 International Building Code, New Jersey Edition.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. Details are not included or fully developed in this summary; the report must be read in its entirety of a comprehensive understanding of the information contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUC TION

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Well No.6 Building

Sandy Hook, Monmouth County, New Jersey Terracon Project No. J6215069

April 4, 2022

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed well No. 6 building that will be constructed at the Gateway National Recreation Area located in Sandy Hook, Monmouth County, New Jersey. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Floor slab design and construction

■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Seismic site classification per IBC

The geotechnical engineering field Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of two test borings to a depth of approximately 30 feet below existing site grades. Please note that one boring could not be performed at the prescribed eastern edge of the proposed building, due to dense vegetation. Consequently, VHB requested that this boring be relocated and performed west of the proposed building in order to confirm the subsurface soil conditions at the site.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration.

Item Description

Parcel Information The site is located immediately north of existing Wells 4 and 5 at the Gateway National Recreation Area located in Sandy Hook, Monmouth County, New Jersey. Approximate Latitude, Longitude: 40.0441⁰, -74.8769⁰.

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description Existing Improvements

None

Current Ground Cover Moderately to heavily vegetated.

Existing Topography The site grades are relatively level

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Based on our most recent discussions with VHB, the project will consist of a one-story building with a plan area of approximately 450 square feet. The building will enclose the new well, as well as associated pumping equipment. It is our understanding that the structure would not contain any below grade areas.

Should any of the above information be inconsistent with the planned construction, please let us know, so that we may make necessary modifications to this report.

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. Conditions encountered at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in the Exploration Results section and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures section of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model Layer Layer Name General Description 1 Sand Poorly graded sand

Specific attention should be directed to the loose condition of the upper 5 to 8 feet of the poorly graded sand layer that may impact design or construction as discussed later in this report.

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater and/or water seepage was encountered in both of the exploration performed for this study at a depth of approximately 13 feet below the existing ground surface. Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur because of seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors that may differ from those present at the time the explorations were performed.

Additionally, grade adjustments on and around the site, as well as surrounding drainage improvements, may affect the water table. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Geotechnical Considerations

In general, the explorations conducted at the site indicate the presence of competent native sand soils which are suitable for the support of conventional shallow foundations and slabs-on-grade.

However, approximately 5 to 8 feet of loose sand soils were encountered at the surface in this area. These materials are not suitable for support of new foundations and slabs in their current condition and should be removed and replaced in their entirety. Following removal and replacement of these soils, the proposed structure may be supported on conventional spread foundations bearing on the undisturbed natural soils or compacted structural fill placed over these materials. The lowest level floor slab of the structure may then be supported on-grade by the native soils or compacted structural fill. Design recommendations for shallow foundations and floor slabs are presented later in this report.

Additional site preparation recommendations, including subgrade improvement, fill placement, and excavations are provided in the Earthwork section. The Shallow Foundations section addresses support of the building bearing on the undisturbed native soils, or on structural fill placed over these materials. The Floor Slabs section addresses the building’s slab-on-grade support.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Site Preparation

Prior to any earthwork operations, any subsurface utilities and abandoned subsurface structures should be relocated and/or removed within, as well as five feet beyond the proposed construction area. Following the utility relocation, the vegetation and topsoil should be stripped within and five

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 feet beyond the limits of the proposed construction after the removal and relocation of utilities.

The topsoil will not be suitable for reuse as structural fill, therefore the topsoil will need to be disposed properly offsite or stockpiled onsite for future use in landscaped non-structural areas.

As previously discussed, loose native soils were encountered to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. Therefore, following the stripping operation, these loose soils that are present below the proposed structure should then be removed in their entirety from within and at least five feet beyond the proposed building footprint.

A Terracon geotechnical engineer should be present to confirm that the unsuitable materials have been removed, and to assist the Contractor in limiting the removal of suitable native materials.

Building Pad Preparation

Following the site preparation and ground improvement activities described above, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled to a dense and stable consistency with numerous passes of a 10-ton (static weight) vibratory drum roller, or other compaction equipment approved by the geotechnical engineer due to the relatively small footprint area. Any areas that show signs of instability under the proofrolling equipment should be selectively over-excavated to a suitable bearing layer, as determined by our engineer. Placement of structural fill could then commence as described below to achieve the design subgrade elevations.

Completed subgrades will still be susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic and inclement weather and should be protected by the Contractor prior to the placement of any structural fill. Construction traffic over completed subgrades should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If any subgrades should become frozen, wet, or disturbed, the affected materials should be removed to the surface of stable soils and replaced with controlled compacted fill, or if conditions permit may be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted in place under the observation of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

Excavations

As a minimum, temporary excavations should be sloped or braced, as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations, to provide stability and safe working conditions. The contractor, by his contract, is usually 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. All excavations should comply with applicable local, State and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Reuse of Materials

Materials generated during the site grading operations for pad preparation, foundations and utilities are expected to consist of poorly graded sand soils which are suitable for re-use as compacted structural fill provided that they are maintained at a moisture content suitable for compaction, the soils should be free of any deleterious materials and have a maximum particle size of 6 inches.

Imported Fill Materials

In the event that imported fill is needed for structural fill beneath the proposed buildings, we recommend that the material consist of inorganic, readily compactable, well-graded granular soils with no more than 15 percent fines (no more than 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve).

Additionally, we recommend excluding gradations greater than 6 inches. The moisture content of the fill material should be controlled to within 3% of the optimum moisture content by wetting, aeration, or blending, as necessary to achieve the required compaction. Note that if the ground improvement option includes a load transfer platform, the gradation of the platform material must meet the requirements of the ground improvement designer.

Structural Fill Placement

Structural fill should be installed in controlled layers uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the fill material’s maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Procedures. The layer thickness should be adjusted as needed depending on the type of compaction equipment used and the condition of the fill materials at the time of construction, but should be no greater than 12 inches in loose thickness. It should be expected that thinner lifts will be required to achieve the required compaction in confined areas where portable compaction equipment is used.

Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in both of the explorations performed for this study, at a depth of approximately 13 feet below the existing surface grades. Zones of perched or trapped seepage may be present seasonally and surface runoff and precipitation can impact excavations. The contractor should therefore be prepared to provide dewatering equipment as needed to maintain relatively dry excavations.

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.

Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations

Item Description

Maximum Net Allowable Bearing pressure 1,2 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf)

Minimum Foundation Dimensions Columns: 24 inches Continuous: 18 inches

Minimum Embedment below

Finished Grade for frost protection 4 36 inches

Estimated Total Settlement from Structural Loads 3 1 inch

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied.

2. Unsuitable or soft soils should be over-excavated and replaced per the recommendations presented in the Earthwork.

3. Foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footing, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations.

4. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of frost and/or seasonal water content variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.

Exterior foundations should be established a minimum of 36 inches below the proposed adjacent exterior grades, or deeper if required by the local building official, to provide protection from frost penetration. Interior foundations located in permanently heated portions of the structure may be established at convenient depths below the ground floor slab, provided they bear on appropriate materials as described above.

Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations

The base of foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil before placing concrete.

We recommend that the foundations for the building be underlain by a layer of crushed stone approximately 6 inches in thickness to protect the native subgrade materials from disturbance.

Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at the bearing level become wet, disturbed, or frozen prior to the placement of the crushed stone, or if unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at planned subgrade levels, the materials should be removed prior to placing concrete. As discussed above, the geotechnical engineer

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 should be retained to observe the subgrade preparation activities, to provide guidance regarding any remedial earthwork required, and to evaluate the suitability of the subgrades to support the design foundation loads.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC).

Based on the soil properties encountered at the site and as described on the exploration logs and results, it is our professional opinion that the Seismic Site Classification is D. Subsurface explorations at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 30 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth.

FLOOR SLABS

Design parameters for the floor slabs assumes the requirements for Earthwork have been followed.

Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from the structure and positive drainage of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab.

Floor Slab Design Parameters

Item Description

Floor Slab Support 1 12-inch thick layer of compacted Structural Fill

Estimated Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 2 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for point loads

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point loads. For large area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower.

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Where appropriate, control joints should be saw-cut in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations, the slab designer should refer to the ACI Design Manual.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath a concrete slab-on-grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. We also recommend the installation of a six-inch layer of clean crushed stone to act as a capillary break between the bottom of the floor slab and the underlying subgrade soils.

Slab-on-Grade Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase, and this report assumes that the general slab area will be prepared in accordance with our recommendations above. However, as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed because of utility excavations, construction traffic, precipitation, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of granular base and concrete, and corrective action will be required.

Therefore, immediately prior to placement of the granular base and concrete, we recommend the area underlying the floor slab be proofrolled again with at least six passes of a minimum 4-ton (static weight) vibratory roller compactor. In areas with limited access, a double-drum walk-behind compactor may be used. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located, and manual probes should be performed by Terracon to confirm the stability of these areas. Areas with unsuitable conditions should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill.

We estimate that floor slabs supported by the subgrade soils and/or controlled compacted fill prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report will experience post construction settlement on the order of 1/2-inch or less. The majority of this movement will occur during initial load application.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

FIGURES

Contents:

GeoModel

-5

D E

P T

H B

E L

O W

G R

A D

E

F ee

t) Rehabilitate-Replace Water Well No. 4 at Sandy Hook Middletown, NJ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-1 B-2

GEOMODEL

D R A

F T

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time.

Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details.

First Water Observation

LEGEND

Topsoil

Poorly-graded Sand

Model Layer General DescriptionLayer Name

Poorly graded sand1 Sand

ATTACHMENTS

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Planned Location

2 30 Building

Boring Layout and Elevations: Unless otherwise noted, Terracon personnel provided the boring layout. Coordinates were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±10 feet). If elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend borings be surveyed following completion of fieldwork.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with track-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight augers (solid stem and/or hollow stem, as necessary, depending on soil conditions). Five samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the middle 12 inches of a normal 24-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value.

The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after their completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a geotechnical engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the geotechnical engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. Procedural standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards noted below include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to describe the specific test performed.

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2

■ ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass

■ ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils

The laboratory testing program often included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

SITE LOCATION

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

MAP 1 PORTRA IT

EXPLORATION PLAN

April 4, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. J6215069

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

MAP 2 PORTRA IT

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Boring Logs (B-1 and B-2) Grain Size Distribution

D R A

F T

1/12"-1-1 N=1

1-2-3-4 N=5

3-4-3-4 N=7

3-3-6-8 N=9

4-6-7-10 N=13

9-8-8-7 N=16

2-4-4-3 N=8

2-4-5-7 N=9

4-6-11-13 N=17

6-13-20-23 N=33

7.9

3.8

4.6

4.8

TOPSOIL, 6"

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), dark brown to light brown gray, loose

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown gray, loose to medium dense wet at 13'

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown gray, dense

Boring Terminated at 30 Feet

0.5

8.0

28.0

30.0

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

J

R E

H A

B

IL

IT

A

T E

-R E

P L.

G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

/2 2/

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

)LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 40.4520° Longitude: -74.0002°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

M O

D E

L

LA

Y E

R

DEPTH

Advancement Method:

HSA

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: J6215069

Drill Rig: Mobile B-29

BORING LOG NO. B-1

VHB IncCLIENT:

Williamsburg, VA

Driller: C. Blemings

Boring Completed: 03-10-2022

PROJECT: Rehabilitate-Replace Water Well No. 4 at Sandy Hook

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Sandy Hook Middletown, NJ

SITE:

Boring Started: 03-10-2022

4081 Hadley Rd, Ste B South Plainfield, NJ

While drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

D R A

F T

1/12"-1-2 N=1

3-3-4-6 N=7

4-5-6-6 N=11

3-3-7-7 N=10

3-3-4-5 N=7

4-10-14-19 N=24

5-10-14-19 N=24

5-9-14-19 N=23

5.7

5.9

TOPSOIL, 8"

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown gray to light brown, loose

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), light brown, loose to medium dense wet at 13'

Boring Terminated at 30 Feet

0.7

5.0

30.0

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T . G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

J

R E

H A

B

IL

IT

A

T E

-R E

P L.

G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

/2 2/

D E

P T

H

F t.)

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

)LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 40.4520° Longitude: -74.0003°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

M O

D E

L

LA

Y E

R

DEPTH

Advancement Method:

HSA

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: J6215069

Drill Rig: Mobile B-29

BORING LOG NO. B-2

VHB IncCLIENT:

Williamsburg, VA

Driller: C. Blemings

Boring Completed: 03-10-2022

PROJECT: Rehabilitate-Replace Water Well No. 4 at Sandy Hook

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

Sandy Hook Middletown, NJ

SITE:

Boring Started: 03-10-2022

4081 Hadley Rd, Ste B South Plainfield, NJ

While drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 1/23/8 30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

16 20

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 10 14 506 2001.5 81 140

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

4081 Hadley Rd, Ste B South Plainfield, NJ

PROJECT NUMBER: J6215069

SITE: Sandy Hook Middletown, NJ

PROJECT: Rehabilitate-Replace Water Well No.

4 at Sandy Hook

CLIENT: VHB Inc Williamsburg, VA

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R T

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E : U

S C

S

J

R

E H

A B

IL

IT

A T

E -R

E P

L.

G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/2

/2

B-1

B-1

B-2 fine coarse finemedium

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

D30

D60

BORING ID

#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

100.0 96.56 53.12 7.46 1.21 0.59

#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

100.0 99.25 66.65 12.43 1.82 0.8

100.0 98.78 61.04 11.07 2.05 1.11

#10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

CC

CU

coarse

D10

99.4

99.2

98.9

0.6

0.8

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

2 - 4

6 - 8

3 - 5

SP

SP

SP

0.474 0.398 0.42

0.325 0.297 0.306

0.257 0.222 0.235

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)

1.84 1.79 1.79

0.86 1.00 0.94

0.0

0.0

0.0

Sieve

REMARKS

SOIL DESCRIPTION

% Finer% Finer SieveSieve% Finer

USCS% CLAY% FINES% SILT% SAND% GRAVEL% COBBLESDEPTH

COEFFICIENTS

GRAIN SIZE

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

General Notes Unified Soil Classification System

Rehabilitate-Replace Water Well No. 4 at Sandy Hook Middletown, NJ Terracon Project No. J6215069

0.25 to 0.50

> 4.00

2.00 to 4.00

1.00 to 2.00

0.50 to 1.00 less than 0.25

Unconfined Compressive Strength Qu, (tsf)

Standard Penetration Test

N

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration Test Resistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS

GENERAL NOTES

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations.

Water Initially Encountered

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Cave In Encountered

Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and Longitude are approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the exploration points for this project. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used.

ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification, coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The soil boring logs contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this document.

Use of these soil boring logs for any other purpose may not be appropriate.

RELEVANCE OF SOIL BORING LOG

STRENGTH TERMS

Standard Penetration or N-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term (Density)

Hard

15 - 30Very Stiff> 50Very Dense

8 - 15Stiff30 - 50Dense

4 - 8Medium Stiff10 - 29Medium Dense

2 - 4Soft4 - 9Loose

0 - 1Very Soft0 - 3Very Loose

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)

Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

> 30

Descriptive Term (Consistency)

Standard Penetration or N-Value

Blows/Ft.

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)

Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILSRELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

UNIFIED SOI L CLASSI FICATI ON SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu ³ 4 and 1 £ Cc £ 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu < 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu ³ 6 and 1 £ Cc £ 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu < 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI > 7 and plots on or above “A” line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

< 0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

< 0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains ³ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains ³ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains ³ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

MIf soil contains ³ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

NPI ³ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

OPI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

QPI plots below “A” line.