B08_Attachment_4_-_NPS_Gaston_Motel_Preliminary_Report.pdf

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE

EXPLORATION AND

PRELIMINARY

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING

EVALUATION

NPS Gaston Motel Anniston, Calhoun County, Alabama

PREPARED FOR:

Houser Walker Architects

1819 Peachtree Road NE

Suite 102

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

NOVA Project Number: 10102-2022150

March 31, 2023

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

3 9 0 0 K e n n e s a w 7 5 P a r k w a y , S u i t e 1 0 0 , K e n n e s a w , G e o r g i a 3 0 1 4 4 t . 7 7 0 . 4 2 5 . 0 7 7 7 / f . 7 7 0 . 4 2 5 . 1 1 1 3 / u s a n o v a . c o m

March 31, 2023

Rick Bizot, AIA, LEED AP

Director

HOUSER WALKER ARCHITECTS

1819 Peachtree Road NE

Suite 102

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

NPS GASTON MOTEL

NOVA Project Number 10102-2022150

Dear Mr. Bizot:

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

Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the NPS Gaston Motel project located in Anniston, Calhoun County, Alabama. The services were performed in response to Task Order

140P2022FXXXX, National Park Service Contract Number PD2022D0013 dated July 14, 2022, and Master Contract Agreement by Houser Walker Architects dated October 21, 2022. This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the geotechnical consulting services provided by NOVA, and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

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

Sincerely, NOVA Engineering and Environmental, LLC

Usenmfon I. Udo, P.E. Danny C. Brahana, P.E (GA)

AL P.E. License 50872 Geotechnical Service Line Leader

Project Geotechnical Engineer

Copies Submitted: Addressee (electronic)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.2 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

2.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 GEOLOGY

3.2 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS

3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 BACK FILL PLACEMENT

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

4.4 BELOW GRADE ELEVATOR PIT WALLS

5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures and Maps

Appendix B – Subsurface Data

Appendix C – Qualifications of Recommendations

NPS Gaston Motel March 31, 2023

Houser Walker Architects NOVA Project Number 10102-2022150

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

Our understanding of this project is based on a discussion with Rick Bizot of Houser

Walker Architects and the design team and the following provided documents:

• Scope of Services, Task Order Number 140P2022FXXXX

• A.G. Gaston Motel Program Studies, prepared by Houser Walker

The subject property is located at the historical landmark located at 1510 5th Avenue

North, Birmingham, AL. An existing 2- story building is located on the subject site. We understand the existing building has a basement level. The existing building was constructed in the 1950s and was rehabilitated in 1963. We understand the proposed development will consist of restoration and rehabilitation of the 13,000 square feet building. Rehabilitation will include the construction of an elevator shaft within the existing building. During the time of the field exploration, two possible locations are being considered for the elevator pit. The foundation system of the existing building was unknown at the time of exploration.

Structural loading information was not provided. We have assumed the loading in the elevator pit will not exceed 100 kips. We also anticipate excavations will not exceed 4 feet.

1.2 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION

Houser Walker NOVA to provide geotechnical engineering consulting services for the project. This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project, describes our exploratory procedures, and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

The primary objective of this study was to explore subsurface conditions with the area of the proposed elevator additions and to assess these findings as they relate to the geotechnical aspects of the planned addition. The authorized geotechnical engineering services included site reconnaissance, concrete coring, hand auger borings (HABs), dynamic cone penetrometer testing, engineering evaluation of the field data, and the preparation of this report.

The authorized services were performed in general accordance with local practice and the geotechnical report includes the following:

• A description of the site, field and laboratory testing, general soil and groundwater conditions encountered, as well as a Boring Location Plan and individual Boring Records;

• Discussion of potential earthwork-related issues indicated by the exploration, such as materials that would require difficult excavation techniques, unsuitable or deleterious materials, shallow groundwater table, etc.;

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

• Preliminary recommendations for shallow foundation design;

• Preliminary recommendations for lateral earth pressure coefficients for the design of below-grade walls.

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

The assessment of the existing foundation of the building, seismic site class, site environmental conditions, including the presence of wetlands or detection of pollutants in the soil, rock or groundwater are beyond the scope of this exploration.

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

Concrete Core locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel using the provided site plan showing the areas of the proposed elevator. Approximate locations are shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A. The concrete was cored, and the hand auger borings were performed to determine the load-bearing capacity at the various depths below the concrete slab. The scope of services was limited to the two (2) options for the proposed elevator location as of February 7, 2023.

Our field exploration was conducted on February 7, 2023, and included two (2) HAB’s numbered B-1 through B-2 advanced to depths of 6 to 10 feet below the concrete slab on grade.

Hand Auger Borings: Hand auger borings were performed subsequent to the concrete coring. At regular intervals in the hand auger borings, the soil consistency was measured with a portable dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP). After first seating the conical point, the point was driven an additional 1¾ inches with blows of a manually operated 15-pound hammer falling freely over a 20-inch drop. The number of blows required to achieve this penetration was recorded and is an empirical assessment of the soil’s load-bearing capacity and density. Please refer to the Hand Auger Boring Logs included in Appendix B. These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field exploration data, visual examination of the hand auger cuttings, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. The stratification lines and depth designations represent approximate boundaries between various subsurface strata. Actual transitions between materials may be gradual.

2.2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The sampled soils were visually classified on site, using the Unified Soil Classification

System as a guide. The soil classification and physical properties obtained are presented in this report.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 GEOLOGY

The site is located in the Alabama Ridge and Valley Geologic Region. This region is characterized by elongated, northeasterly-trending ridges formed on more resistant sandstones and shales. Between the ridges, broad valleys and rolling hills were formed on less resistant limestones, dolomites, and shales. The Alabama Ridge and Valley

Geologic Region is bounded by the Cumberland Plateau Geologic Region to the northwest, the Piedmont Upland Geologic Region to the southeast, and the East Gulf

Coastal Plain Geologic Region to the southwest.

The site is in a geologic setting referred to as Karst Geology. It includes carbonate bedrock (limestone) that is susceptible to solution weathering in the presence of slightly acidic groundwater over geologic periods. Differential weathering of the rock mass has resulted in erratically varying subsurface conditions, evidenced by abrupt changes in soil type and consistency over relatively short horizontal and vertical distances. Soils in the region are primarily the product of in-situ chemical decomposition and chemical solution weathering of the parent rock. The soil consistency (based on the

SPT or N values) generally is higher in the upper strata, but becomes softer with depth as a result of the solution weathering of the underlying carbonate bedrock. The consistency of the soils near the interface with limestone bedrock is often very soft.

The parent limestone dissolves along joints, fractures and bedding planes into clayey soil. The remnant limestone often has a slotted and pinnacled surface and may contain fingers of more resistant material projecting upward through the soil mass or contain subterranean voids that can range in size from fractions of an inch to very large caverns.

3.2 SOIL AND ROCK CONDITIONS

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

The Hand Auger Borings in Appendix B should be reviewed to provide more detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location. These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field logs and visual observations of samples by an engineer. The lines designating the interface between various strata on the Hand Auger Boring Records represent the approximate interface locations and elevation. The actual transition between strata may be gradual.

Concrete Slab on Grade

The concrete slab on grade was approximately 5 inches thick in the locations explored.

Gravel

Approximately 4 to 5 inches of gravel were encountered in B-2 and B-1 respectively below the slab on grade at the locations explored.

Fill

Fill was encountered in every boring beneath the gravel throughout the explored areas. The fill was extended to depths of 4 to 6 feet below the slab. . The fill soils generally consisted of soft to firm fine sandy CLAY with trace amounts of organics and rock fragments. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer penetration resistance values ranged from 4 to 9 blows per inch (bpi). The following table depicts locations, and depths to the bottom of encountered fill.

Natural Soils

Natural soils were encountered in every boring beneath the fill. The native soils were described as very stiff fine sandy CLAY. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer penetration resistance values ranged from 15 to 25+ bpi.

3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater in the Ridge and Valley typically occurs as an unconfined or semi-confined aquifer condition. Recharge is provided by the infiltration of rainfall and surface water through the soil overburden. More permeable zones in the soil matrix, as well as fractures, joints, and discontinuities in the underlying bedrock can affect groundwater conditions.

Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction activity, surface water runoff, and other site-specific factors. Groundwater levels in the Birmingham area are typically lowest in the late summer-early fall and highest in the late winter-early spring, with annual groundwater fluctuations of 4 to 8 feet; consequently, the water table may vary at times.

Groundwater was not encountered in the hand auger borings performed during the exploration.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

4.1 BACK FILL PLACEMENT

We do not anticipate that significant fill will be required for the elevator addition.

However, some minor fill, such as for to backfill elevator pit walls, may be required. The following recommendations are provided for such fill, if required.

Backfill Suitability

Backfill materials should be low plasticity soil (Plasticity Index less than 30), free of non-soil materials, and rock fragments larger than 3 inches in any one dimension.

Materials to be used as backfill should be evaluated and, if necessary, tested by

NOVA prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for intended use. Prior to construction, bulk samples of the proposed fill materials should be laboratory-tested to confirm their suitability. Organic and/or debris-laden materials are not suitable for re-use as structural fill.

Soil Compaction

Backfill should be placed in thin, horizontal loose lifts and compacted to at least

95 percent of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD-ASTM

D698). Due to potential confined areas portable compaction equipment and thinner fill lifts (4 to 6 inches) will be necessary. Fill materials used in structural areas should have a target maximum dry density of at least 95 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If lighter-weight fill materials are used, the NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted to assess the impact on design recommendations.

Back filling operations should be observed by a NOVA soils technician, who can confirm suitability of material used and uniformity and appropriateness of compaction efforts. The technician can also document compliance with the specifications by performing field density tests using the drive cylinder, nuclear, or sand cone testing methods (ASTM D2937, D6938, or D1556, respectively).

At least one test per day per foot of fill should be performed.

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONTROL

Groundwater was not encountered above boring termination in any of the borings performed. Depending on the depths of the excavation and seasonal conditions during the excavation of the elevation sump pit, groundwater could be encountered on the site.

As previously noted, groundwater levels are subject to seasonal, climatic, and other variations and may be different at other times and locations. The extent and nature of any dewatering required during construction will be dependent on the actual groundwater conditions prevalent at the time of construction and the effectiveness of construction drainage to prevent run-off into open excavations.

4.3 FOUNDATIONS

We were not provided with actual loads but have assumed elevator loads will not exceed

100 kips. We anticipate the excavation for the foundation of the elevator addition will not exceed 5 feet below the slab on grade for the existing building. During the excavation of the elevator pit, care should be taken while excavating adjacent to the existing foundation to avoid disturbing any elements of the foundation system. At the expected foundation depth of 5 feet or less,, the elevator foundation may be supported on conventional shallow foundations as outlined below. If actual structural loads exceed those assumed, additional assessment will be necessary.

Shallow Foundations - Soil

Design: Foundations bearing on undisturbed natural soils and/or structural fill may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). All footing bottoms, after excavation, should be thoroughly compacted using a vibratory or ramming-type compactor (depending on soil types present) to densify exposed soils on the day of concrete placement.

We recommend minimum foundation widths of 24 inches for ease of construction and to reduce the possibility of localized shear failures. Exterior foundation bottoms should be at least 18 inches below exterior grades for protection against frost damage.

Construction: Foundation excavations and elevator pit should be evaluated by the NOVA geotechnical engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe foundation subgrade preparation and confirm bearing pressure capacity.

Excavations should be sloped or shored in general accordance with the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) excavations standards.

Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and loose, frozen, or water-softened soils. Concrete should be placed as soon as is practical after the foundation is excavated, and the subgrade evaluated.

4.4 BELOW GRADE ELEVATOR PIT WALLS

The magnitude and distribution of earth pressures against below-grade walls depend on the deformation condition (rotation) of the wall, soil properties and water conditions.

When the soil behind the wall is prevented from lateral strain, the resulting force is known as the at-rest earth pressure (KO). If the retaining structure moves away from the soil mass, the earth pressure decreases with the increasing lateral expansion until a minimum pressure, known as the active earth pressure (KA), is reached. If the wall is forced into the soil mass, the earth pressure increases until a maximum pressure, known as the passive earth pressure (KP), is obtained.

Free-standing retaining walls are usually designed for active earth pressures. Rigid basement walls are typically designed for at-rest earth pressures. If elevator walls will be backfilled before they are braced by the floor slabs, they should also be designed to withstand active earth pressures as self-supporting cantilever walls. However, the earth pressures must be compatible with the wall rotation, which is limited by the wall rigidity, foundation support conditions and connections to adjoining structures. If active earth pressure development requires horizontal wall movements that cannot occur, or which are architecturally undesirable, walls should be designed for an intermediate pressure based on restraint conditions.

Laboratory analysis to determine actual soil shear strength properties was beyond the authorized scope of services. Based on our experience with similar soils and construction, we have provided the earth pressure estimates shown below:

Earth Pressure

Condition

Earth Pressure

Coefficient

Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf)

Above Water Table Below Water Table

Active (Ka) 0.33 40 80

At-Rest (Ko) 0.50 60 89

Passive (Kp) 3.00 150* TBD**

* Passive earth pressure is frequently used in retaining wall design to resist active earth pressures. Wall movements required to develop full passive earth pressures are significantly greater than movements necessary for active earth pressures.

Consequently, this passive pressure value has been reduced by at least 50% for wall design

** Passive earth pressure for submerged wall design shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.

We recommend a value of 0.35 as the coefficient of friction (sliding resistance) between wall foundations and the underlying natural or fill soils.

Our lateral earth pressure recommendations assume that:

• The ground surface adjacent to the wall is level,

• Natural soils will be reused for wall backfill, compacted to at least

95% of the standard proctor maximum dry density,

• Soil backfill weight is a maximum of 120 pcf

• Heavy construction equipment does not operate within 5 feet of the walls,

• A constantly functioning drainage system is installed between the wall and the soil backfill to prevent hydrostatic pressures from acting on the wall,

• Foundations or other significant surcharge loads are located outside the wall a distance at least equal to the wall height,

• For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height.

• For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

5.1 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and loose, frozen, or water-softened soils. All foundation excavations should be evaluated by the NOVA geotechnical engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe foundation subgrade preparation and confirm bearing pressure capacity. Due to variable site subsurface and construction conditions, some adjustments in isolated foundation bearing pressures, depth of foundations or undercutting and replacement with controlled structural fill may be necessary.

APPENDIX A

Figures and Maps

FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION

Source: Google Earth

Scale: Not To Scale

Houser Walker

NPS A.G. Gaston Motel

Subject Site

FIGURE 2

BORING LOCATION PLAN

SCALE: NTS

SOURCE: A.G. Gaston Motel Program Studies prepared by Houser Walker

B-1

B-2

FIGURE 3

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Source: Geologic Map of Alabama, 1988

Scale: Not To Scale

Anniston, Calhoun County, Georgia

Subject Site

Approximate Property Boundary

APPENDIX B

Subsurface Data

<�z�dK�^zD�K>^��E���>�^^/&/��d/KE^

�Z/>>/E'�^zD�K>^

^Ɖůŝƚ�^ƉŽŽŶ�^ĂŵƉůĞ hŶĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚ�^ĂŵƉůĞ�;h�Ϳ�

^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ�WĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ�ZĞƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ�;�^dD��ϭϱϴϲͲϲϳͿ� tĂƚĞƌ�dĂďůĞ�Ăƚ�ůĞĂƐƚ�Ϯϰ�,ŽƵƌƐ�ĂĨƚĞƌ��ƌŝůůŝŶŐ� tĂƚĞƌ�dĂďůĞ�ϭ�,ŽƵƌ�Žƌ�ůĞƐƐ�ĂĨƚĞƌ��ƌŝůůŝŶŐ ϭϬϬͬϮ͟ EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ��ůŽǁƐ�;ϭϬϬͿ�ƚŽ��ƌŝǀĞ�ƚŚĞ�^ƉŽŽŶ�Ă�EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ�/ŶĐŚĞƐ�;ϮͿ

Ey͕�EY

Z��

ZY�

D�

�ŽƌĞ��ĂƌƌĞů�^ŝnjĞƐ͗�ϮЯͲ�ĂŶĚ�ϮͲ/ŶĐŚ��ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ�ZŽĐŬ��ŽƌĞ͕�ZĞƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJ�

WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ�ŽĨ�ZŽĐŬ��ŽƌĞ�ZĞĐŽǀĞƌĞĚ

ZŽĐŬ�YƵĂůŝƚLJ��ĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶ�ʹ�WĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ�ŽĨ�ZĞĐŽǀĞƌĞĚ��ŽƌĞ�^ĞŐŵĞŶƚƐ�ϰ�Žƌ�ŵŽƌĞ�/ŶĐŚĞƐ�>ŽŶŐ�

>ŽƐƐ�ŽĨ��ƌŝůůŝŶŐ�tĂƚĞƌ

DŽŝƐƚƵƌĞ��ŽŶƚĞŶƚ�dĞƐƚ�WĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ

Not Encountered

Not Measured

Caving

�KZZ�>�d/KE�K&�W�E�dZ�d/KE�Z�^/^d�E���t/d,�Z�>�d/s����E^/dz��E���KE^/^d�E�z

EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ��ůŽǁƐ͕�͞E͟ �ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞ ZĞůĂƚŝǀĞ��ĞŶƐŝƚLJ

^�E�^

Ϭ�ʹ ϰ sĞƌLJ�>ŽŽƐĞ ϱ�ʹ ϭϬ >ŽŽƐĞ ϭϭ�ʹ ϯϬ DĞĚŝƵŵ��ĞŶƐĞ ϯϭ�ʹ ϱϬ �ĞŶƐĞ KǀĞƌ�ϱϬ sĞƌLJ��ĞŶƐĞ

EƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ��ůŽǁƐ͕�͞E͟ �ƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞ �ŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶĐLJ

^/>d^

ĂŶĚ

�>�z^

Ϭ�ʹ Ϯ sĞƌLJ�^ŽĨƚ ϯ�ʹ ϰ ^ŽĨƚ ϱ�ʹ ϴ &ŝƌŵ ϵ�ʹ ϭϱ ^ƚŝĨĨ ϭϲ�ʹ ϯϬ sĞƌLJ�^ƚŝĨĨ ϯϭ�ʹ ϱϬ ,ĂƌĚ KǀĞƌ�ϱϬ sĞƌLJ�,ĂƌĚ

�Z/>>/E'�WZK���hZ�^

^Žŝů� ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ� ĂŶĚ� ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ� ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ� ƚĞƐƚŝŶŐ� ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ� ŝŶ� ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ� ǁŝƚŚ� �^dD� �ϭϱϴϲͲϲϳ͘� dŚĞ� ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ� ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ�ƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶĐĞ�ŝƐ�ƚŚĞ�ŶƵŵďĞƌ�ŽĨ�ďůŽǁƐ�ŽĨ�Ă�ϭϰϬ�ƉŽƵŶĚ�ŚĂŵŵĞƌ�ĨĂůůŝŶŐ�ϯϬ�ŝŶĐŚĞƐ�ƚŽ�ĚƌŝǀĞ�Ă�ϮͲŝŶĐŚ�K͘�͕͘�ϭбͲ ŝŶĐŚ� /͘�͘� ƐƉůŝƚ� ƐƉŽŽŶ� ƐĂŵƉůĞƌ� ŽŶĞ� ĨŽŽƚ͘� �ŽƌĞ� ĚƌŝůůŝŶŐ�ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚ�ŝŶ� ĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞ� ǁŝƚŚ� �^dD� �ϮϭϭϯͲϬϴ͘� dŚĞ� ƵŶĚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚ� ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ�ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞ� ŝƐ�ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚ�ďLJ��^dD��ϭϱϴϳͲϬϴ� ;ϮϬϭϮͿ͘�hŶůĞƐƐ�ŽƚŚĞƌ�ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚƐ� ĂƌĞ�ŵĂĚĞ͕� EKs��ǁŝůů�ĚŝƐƉŽƐĞ�ŽĨ�Ăůů�ƐŽŝů�ĂŶĚ�ƌŽĐŬ�ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ�ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐ�Ăƚ�ƚŚĞ�ƚŝŵĞ�ŽĨ�ƌĞƉŽƌƚ�submission͘

N/E

N/M

C

^K/>��>�^^/&/��d/KE��,�Zd�

�K�Z^��'Z�/E�� ^K/>^

'Z�s�>^ �ůĞĂŶ�'ƌĂǀĞů ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

't tĞůů�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ŐƌĂǀĞů 'W WŽŽƌůLJ�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ŐƌĂǀĞů

'ƌĂǀĞůƐ�ǁŝƚŚ�&ŝŶĞƐ ŵŽƌĞ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϭϮй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

'D ^ŝůƚLJ�ŐƌĂǀĞů '� �ůĂLJĞLJ�ŐƌĂǀĞů

^�E�^ �ůĞĂŶ�^ĂŶĚ ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

^t tĞůů�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ƐĂŶĚ ^W WŽŽƌůLJ�ŐƌĂĚĞĚ�ƐĂŶĚ

^ĂŶĚƐ�ǁŝƚŚ�&ŝŶĞƐ ŵŽƌĞ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϭϮй�ĨŝŶĞƐ

^D ^ŝůƚLJ�ƐĂŶĚ ^� �ůĂLJĞLJ�ƐĂŶĚ

&/E��'Z�/E�� ^K/>^

^/>d^��E���>�z^ >ŝƋƵŝĚ >ŝŵŝƚ ůĞƐƐ�ƚŚĂŶ�ϱϬ

/ŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ �> >ĞĂŶ�ĐůĂLJ D> ^ŝůƚ

KƌŐĂŶŝĐ K> KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ĐůĂLJ�ĂŶĚ�Ɛŝůƚ ^/>d^��E���>�z^

>ŝƋƵŝĚ�>ŝŵŝƚ ϱϬ�Žƌ�ŵŽƌĞ

/ŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ �, &Ăƚ�ĐůĂLJ D, �ůĂƐƚŝĐ�Ɛŝůƚ

KƌŐĂŶŝĐ K, KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ĐůĂLJ�ĂŶĚ�Ɛŝůƚ ,/',>z�KZ'�E/��

^K/>^ KƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ŵĂƚƚĞƌ͕�ĚĂƌŬ� ĐŽůŽƌ͕�ŽƌŐĂŶŝĐ�ŽĚŽƌ Wd WĞĂƚ

W�Zd/�>��^/���/��Ed/&/��d/KE�

'Z�s�>^ �ŽĂƌƐĞ в�ŝŶĐŚ�ƚŽ�ϯ�ŝŶĐŚĞƐ &ŝŶĞ EŽ͘�ϰ�ƚŽ�в�ŝŶĐŚ

^�E�^ �ŽĂƌƐĞ EŽ͘�ϭϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϰ DĞĚŝƵŵ EŽ͘�ϰϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϭϬ &ŝŶĞ EŽ͘�ϮϬϬ�ƚŽ�EŽ͘�ϰϬ

^/>d^��E���>�z^ WĂƐƐŝŶŐ�EŽ͘�ϮϬϬ

STRATA SYMBOLS

Paving

Silty Sand - SMGravel / Graded

Aggregate Base

Clayey Sand - SCFill

Silt - ML

Topsoil

Low Plasticity

Clay - CL

Alluvium

High Plasticity

Clay - CH

Poorly Graded

Sand - SP

Partially Weathered

Rock (PWR)

Well Graded

Sand - SW

Rock

Elastic Silt - MH

Poorly graded silty, clayey sand - SM/SC

Clayey Sand and Gravel - SC/GC

Silty Sand and Gravel - SM/GM

CONCRETE: 6 Inches

BASE STONE: 5 Inches Fill: Soft to firm brown fine sandy CLAY with rock fragments

Stiff brown fine sandy CLAY

NATIVE SOILS: Very stiff fine tan sandy CLAY

Boring Terminated at 10 ft.

PROJECT: A.G Gaston Motel PROJECT NO.: 10102-2022150

CLIENT: Houser Walker Architects

PROJECT LOCATION: Anniston, Alabama

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-1

LOCATION: Elevator Option C ELEVATION:

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering and Environemtal LOGGED BY: U.UDO

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: 02/07/2023

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: NE AFTER 24 HOURS: NM CAVING>

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

M S

L)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le Ty p e

D C

P B lo w s p e r

-3

/4 in ch e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic a ti v e o f th e s it e

CONCRETE: 6 Inches

BASE STONE: 4 Inches

Fill: Soft to firm black and brown fine sandy clay with organics and root fragments Firm brown fine sandy CLAY

NATIVE SOILS: Very stiff fine tan sandy CLAY

Auger Refusal at 7.0 ft.

25+

PROJECT: A.G Gaston Motel PROJECT NO.: 10102-2022150

CLIENT: Houser Walker Architects

PROJECT LOCATION: Anniston, Alabama

HAND AUGER

BORING RECORD

B-2

LOCATION: Elevator Option A ELEVATION:

DRILLER: NOVA Engineering and Environemtal LOGGED BY: 02/03/2023

DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE:

DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING>

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

M S

L)

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le Ty p e

D C

P B lo w s p e r

-3

/4 in ch e s Graphic Depiction

10 20 30 40 60 100

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic a ti v e o f th e s it e

APPENDIX C

Qualifications of Recommendations

QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

The professional opinions presented in this geotechnical report are not final. Field observations and foundation installation monitoring by the geotechnical engineer, as well as soil density testing and other quality assurance functions associated with site earthwork and foundation construction, are an extension of this report. Therefore, NOVA should be retained by the owner to observe all earthwork and foundation construction to document that the conditions anticipated in this exploration actually exist, and to finalize or amend our conclusions and recommendations. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report if NOVA does not perform these observation and testing services.

This report is intended for the sole use of Impact Development Management only. The scope of services performed during this exploration was developed for purposes specifically intended by

Impact Development Management and may not satisfy other users’ requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations, or opinions.

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

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.

Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

• for a different client;

• for a different project or purpose;

• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;

e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

• the site’s size or shape;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members;

• help develop specifications;

• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and

• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.

Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.

Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.

Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.

Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org