Horizon_West_Trail_Phase_1_Geotechnical_Trail_Soil_Survey_Report.pdf

Prepared for:

WBQ Design & Engineering, Inc.

201 N Magnolia Ave, Suite 200

Orlando, FL 32801

Prepared by:

Nadic Engineering Services, Inc.

601 N. Hart Blvd

Orlando, Florida 32818 407-521-4771

Consultants in: Civil ꞏ Environmental ꞏ Geotechnical Engineering Offices in: Orlando ꞏ Miami

Geotechnical Trail Soil Survey Report Horizon West Trail Phase I

From Tiny Road to Winter Garden Vineland Road

Orange County, Florida Orange County Project No.: Y21-806-CH

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD21034

November 30, 2022

WBQ Design & Engineering, Inc.

201 N Magnolia Ave, Suite 200 Orlando FL 32801

Attention: Mr. Troy Vargas, P.E.

Sr. Associate

RE: Geotechnical Trail Soil Survey Report Horizon West Trail Phase I From Tiny Road to Winter Garden Vineland Road Orange County, Florida Orange County Project No.: Y21-806-CH

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034

Dear Mr. Vargas:

Nadic Engineering Services, Inc. (NADIC) is pleased to submit this preliminary Geotechnical Report for Trail Soil Survey for the above referenced project. The purpose of this exploration was to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions along the proposed Horizon West Trail Phase I from Tiny Road to Winter Garden Vineland Road alignment and to use the data obtained to develop geotechnical recommendations for the trail design and construction. This report describes our field exploration procedures, presents our laboratory test results, and includes our analysis and recommendations regarding design and construction of the Horizon West Trail.

NADIC appreciates the opportunity to be of service to WBQ and Orange County Public Works Department on this project. We look forward to a continued association. Please contact us if you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance to you as this project proceeds.

Sincerely, NADIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.

Engineering Business No. 8214

Maria Bridges, M.S. Godwin N. Nnadi, Ph.D., P.E.

Engineer Intern Principal Engineer

Florida Registration No. 50637

New Z Drive\...\PR.GEO-RD21034 – Horizon West Trail Phase 1\Project Working File\Report

WBQ

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page i of i

NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

NADIC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE PUBLISHED DATA

2.1 USGS Topographic Map

2.2 Orange County USDA/NRCS Soil Survey

2.3 Area Geology

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM AND METHODS

3.1 Field Exploration Program

3.2 Field Exploration Methods

3.2.1 Hand Auger Borings

3.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Borings

4.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

4.1 General

4.2 Trail Boring Results

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

6.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.2 Trail Construction

6.3 Pavement Consideration

6.4 Pavement Design Considerations

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation

7.3 Excavation

7.4 Temporary Dewatering

8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map Figure 3 USDA/NRCS Soils Map Figure 4 Boring and LBR Location Map

APPENDIX B

Sheet 1 Trail Soil Survey Sheet 2 Report of Trail Borings

APPENDIX C

Table 2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results Table 3 FDOT Mean Method Design LBR Calculations Table 4 FDOT 90 Percent Method Design LBR Calculations Figure 5 FDOT 90 Percent Graph Plates 1 through 7 LBR Calculations

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 1 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Orange County Public Works Department hired WBQ to provide engineering design and construction plans for the Horizon West Trail Phase I from the existing Tiny Road to the existing Horizon West Trail at Winter Garden Vineland Road in Orange County. The project site is located in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 9 of Township 23 South, Range 27 East of Winter Graden quadrangle in Orange County, Florida. We understand that the project plans include the following elements:

Construction of approximately 1.95 miles of new multi-use trail consisting of a 10- to 14-foot-wide asphalt pavement

Construction of one (1) cantilever sign structure Construction of one boardwalk bridge, approximately 1,100 linear feet long

Specifically, the proposed Horizon West Trail Phase I is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.

This report presents an evaluation of the soil and groundwater conditions encountered and provides geotechnical recommendations to guide design and construction of the proposed trail alignment.

2.0 REVIEW OF AVAILABLE PUBLISHED DATA

2.1 USGS Topographic Map

The WINTER GARDEN, Florida" United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps issued in 2021 were reviewed for ground surface features. The maps show the ground surface elevation in the project vicinity to range from approximately +100 to +140 feet, North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD-88). The project alignment is shown on an excerpt of the USGS Topographic Maps presented on Figure 2 in Appendix A.

2.2 Orange County USDA/NRCS Soil Survey

The “Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida” published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was reviewed. The following table describes the primary mapping unit(s) within the project vicinity. Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix A for a reproduction of the USDA/NRCS Map for the project area.

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 2 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

Table 1: USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Summary

Soil Series Depth

(inches) Soil Description AASHTO* USCS**

USDA

SHGWT***

(ft)

Basinger (3)

0-7 7-32

32-47 47-80

Fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand

A-3 A-3, A-2-4 A-3, A-2-4 A-3, A-2-4

SP

SP, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

0-1.0

Candler (4)

0-5 5-74

74-80

Fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand

A-3 A-3

A-3, A-2-4

SP, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

SP-SM

>6.0

Candler (5)

0-4 4-61

61-80

Fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand

A-3 A-3

A-3, A-2-4

SP, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

SP-SM

>6.0

Ona (26)

0-6 6-15

15-80

Fine sand Fine sand, sand Fine sand, sand

A-3 A-3, A-2-4

A-3

SP-SM, SP

SP-SM, SM

SP-SM, SP

0-1.0

Pomello (34)

0-40 40-55 55-80

Fine sand Coarse sand, sand, fine sand

Coarse sand, sand, fine sand

A-3 A-3, A-2-4

A-3

SP, SP-SM

SP-SM, SM

SP, SP-SM

2.0-3.5

Samsula 0-34

34-80 Muck

Sand, fine sand, loamy sand

Muck

Fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand Sand, fine sand

A-8 A-3, A-2-4

A-8

A-3

A-3, A-2-4 A-3, A-2-4

PT

SP-SM, SM, SP

PT

SP

SP, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

0-1.0

Hootoon

0-80

Basinger (41)

0-6 6-25

25-35 35-80

Sanibel Muck (42)

0-11 11-15 15-80

Muck Sand, fine sand, mucky fine sand

Sand, fine sand

A-8 A-3 A-3

PT

SP, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

0-1.0

Smyrna- Smyrna

(44)

0-17 17-27 27-80

Fine sand Sand, fine sand, loamy fine sand

Sand, fine sand

A-3, A-2-4 A-3, A-2-4

A-3

SP, SP-SM

SM, SP-SM

SP, SP-SM

0-1.0

Tavares

Millhopper (47)

0-6 6-80

0-64

64-76 76-80

Sand, fine sand

Loamy sand, loamy fine sand Sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy clay loam

A-2-4 A-2-4, A-4

SP-SM, SM

SM

SM, SM-SC, SC

3.5-6.0

Zolfo (54)

0-5 5-55

55-80

Fine sand Fine sand, sand Fine sand, sand

A-3, A-2-4 A-3, A-2-4 A-3, A-2-4

SP-SM

SP-SM, SM

SP-SM, SM

2.0-3.5

*AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

** USCS = Unified Soil Classification System.

*** SHGWT = Seasonal High Groundwater Table

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 3 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

The soils classified as A-3 and A-2-4 are appropriate for use as embankment fill; A-4 and A-8 soils if encountered should be treated in accordance with FDOT Standard Specifications and Index Nos. 120-002 and 120-001.

Information contained in the NRCS Soil Survey is very general and may be outdated due to recent development in the site vicinity. Therefore, it may not reflect the actual soil and groundwater conditions, particularly where developments may have modified soil conditions or surface and near surface drainage.

2.3 Area Geology

The geology of the Central Florida area is characterized by sedimentary strata formed during three distinct geologic periods. The surficial stratum is composed of undifferentiated Holocene/Pleistocene/Pliocene age sands containing varying amounts of silt and clay, which extend typically to depths on the order of 40 to 60 feet below the ground surface. This upper, mostly sandy zone contains the surficial aquifer (water table). A Miocene age deposit, the Hawthorn Formation, frequently underlies the surficial sands and is typically composed of clay, clayey sands and sandy limestone sometimes containing appreciable amounts of phosphate. This stratum extends to typical depths of 80 to 120 feet beneath the existing ground surface and serves as the confining layer for the underlying Florida Aquifer.

The Eocene age Ocala and Avon Park limestone formations are contained in the Florida Aquifer, which is one of the most productive aquifers in the world. The extremely high productivity of this aquifer is directly related to its numerous cavities and interconnected channels. The deepest formation of the Eocene age is the Avon Park limestone. The Avon Park limestone consists mostly of hard brown dolostone and tan, granular limestone. Above the Avon Park limestone is the Ocala limestone.

The Ocala limestone is a loose to moderate well cemented mass of very small to large microfossils with much less dolostone than the Avon Park limestone. Typically, the Ocala limestone contains almost pure limestone with no dolostone, although the lower few feet can be partly dolomitized in some areas.

3.0 FIELD EXPLOARATION PROGRAM AND METHODS

3.1 Field Exploration Program

To evaluate the subsurface conditions along the proposed Horizon West Trail Phase I, Auger borings and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were performed. The subsurface conditions along the project alignment were evaluated by performing a series of 5-foot-deep auger borings and 20-foot deep SPT borings below the existing grade.

The boring locations were determined by using a hand-held Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) unit based on alignment of the trail provided to NADIC by WBQ. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figures 4 in Appendix A. The Soil Survey is presented on Sheet 1 in

...A-3 and A-2-4 are appropriate for use as embankment fill...A-4 and A- 8...should be treated...

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 4 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

Appendix B. The results of the boring program are presented on Sheet 2 in Appendix B. All borings were backfilled upon completion for safety.

3.2 Field Exploration Methods

3.2.1 Hand Auger Borings

Hand auger borings were performed to a general depth of five (5) feet below the existing grade by manually twisting and advancing a bucket auger into the ground in 4-to-6-inch increments. These borings were performed in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-1452. As each soil type was revealed, representative samples were placed in air-tight bags and returned to our laboratory for further visual examination and classification by a geotechnical engineer.

Groundwater levels were measured in the borings upon completion and 24 hours later; each borehole was sealed with native soils.

3.2.2 Standard Penetration Test Borings

The SPT borings performed were conducted in general conformance with the American Standard Testing Method (ASTM) test designation D-1586. The borings were advanced by the rotary wash method with bentonite based mud as the circulating fluid to stabilize the borehole. The SPT borings were generally performed continuously from the ground surface to 10.5 feet and at 5-foot depth intervals thereafter. After seating the sampler six inches, the number of successive blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches into the soil constitutes the test result commonly referred to as the “N” value. Adjacent to the SPT boring profiles are the “N” values. The “N” value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties and is considered indicative of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. All recovered samples were visually classified in the field with representative portions of the samples placed in airtight bags and transported to our office for review by a Geotechnical Engineer for confirmation of the field classification and laboratory testing.

Groundwater levels were measured in the borings and upon completion, each borehole was sealed with native soils.

4.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

4.1 General

The soils encountered along the project alignment are shown on the Report of Trail Borings Sheet 1 in Appendix B. The boring profile is described using the American Association of State Highway and Traffic Officials (AASHTO) symbol (e.g. A-3, A-2-4). ASTM soil description, soil classification, and stratification are based on visual examination and interpretation of the boring log by a geotechnical engineer. The soil survey encountered five (5) generalized soil strata within the project limits to the maximum depth explored in the boring. Stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. Actual transition between soils may be gradual.

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 5 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

The boring profiles indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific boring locations at the time of our field exploration. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater conditions may differ from the conditions we encountered at the boring locations at other locations within the project site. In addition, subsurface conditions at the boring locations can change over time.

4.2 Trail Boring Results

The soil borings along the roadway alignment encountered five (5) generalized soil strata within the project limits to the maximum depth explored in the borings. The soil strata encountered as well as soil descriptions, AASHTO classifications and FDOT 120-001 Embankment Soil Utilization designations are summarized below:

The above subsurface conditions are only general descriptions. For details refer to the boring profiles on Sheet 2 in Appendix B.

4.3 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was encountered in all the 20-foot borings and the following 5-foot borings: AB-4, AB-5, AB-13 and AB-14 at elevation range between +97 feet and +137 feet, NAVD-88.

Groundwater was not encountered in the following 5-foot borings: AB-2, AB-6, AB-8, AB-9, AB- 11, AB-12 and AB-16 at the time of our field exploration (August 2022) The encountered and estimated seasonal high groundwater tables are presented on Sheet 2 in Appendix B.

Groundwater levels can vary seasonally and with changes in subsurface conditions between boring locations. Alterations in subsurface and/or subsurface drainage pattern brought about by site development can also affect groundwater levels. In general, the estimated seasonal high groundwater level is not intended to define a limit or ensure future seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels will not exceed the estimated levels. Post-development groundwater levels could exceed the seasonal high groundwater level estimates as a result of a series of rainfall events, changed conditions at the site which alter surface water drainage characteristics, or variations in the duration, intensity, or total volume of rainfall.

Stratum Soil Description

AASHTO

Soil Classification

FDOT Index 120-001

Classification

Brown to gray to yellow fine SAND to fine SAND with silt/clay, occasionally trace limerock/asphalt fragments A-3 Select (S)

Brown to gray silty SAND, occasionally with roots/organic A-2-4 Select (S)

3 Brown to gray sandy SILT A-4 Plastic (P)

Brown to gray to gray with yellow/red specks sandy

CLAY A-6 Plastic (P)

5 Brown clayey SAND A-2-6 Plastic (P)

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 6 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples were retrieved from the borings and returned to NADIC’s laboratory for further visual classification, stratification and selective soil testing. The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Soil Classification System. The borings were described using the ASTM soil description (e.g. sand with silt). Representative soil samples were selected for routine laboratory testing and these tests include grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, organic content and natural moisture content.

The results of these tests are presented on Table 2 in Appendix C and a summary is presented on Sheet 1 in Appendix B.

6.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

The evaluation and recommendations contained in this report are based in part on the data obtained from a limited number of soil samples and groundwater measurements obtained from widely spaced borings. The exploration methods used indicate subsurface conditions at specific boring locations only, at the time they were performed and to the depths penetrated. Borings cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect the variations that usually exist between boring locations and these variations may not become evident until construction. If variations from the conditions described in this report become evident during the course of construction, or project characteristics described in this report change, NADIC should be retained to re-evaluate the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report in light of such changes.

6.2 Trail Construction

The results of our geotechnical exploration indicate that the subsurface soils encountered along the trail alignment are generally suitable for support of the proposed trail improvement after proper subgrade preparation. Non-select soils, muck, clays or debris, if encountered within the limits, should be removed and replaced with selected soils in accordance with FDOT Index Nos. 120-002 and 120-001. Site preparation and roadway construction should be in accordance with the latest version of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and FDOT Standard Specification and Index Nos. 120-002 and 120-001.

The soils encountered in our borings classified as Strata No. 1 and 2 should be treated as Select

(S) materials in accordance with Index No. 120-001. Strata No. 3 through 5 soils are classified as Plastic (P), and can only be used in embankment construction within the limitation as per index 120-001. If plastic and/or organic material is encountered along the project alignment during construction, at locations that were not indicated in this report or where soil borings were not performed, these materials should be removed in accordance with Index Nos. 120-002 and 120- 001.

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 7 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

Site preparation and construction should be in accordance with the latest FDOT Index No. 120-

001. In-place density tests should be performed on the fill soils to verify the specified degree of compaction. The minimum test frequency should be in accordance with the FDOT Materials, Sampling, Testing, and Reporting Guide.

6.3 Pavement Consideration

The results of our study indicate that the site can be made suitable for conventional flexible or rigid pavement sections. Flexible pavement can incorporate either limerock or soil cement base depending on final grades and groundwater levels.

NADIC recommends that a minimum separation of 24 inches be provided between the bottom of the pavement base course and the estimated seasonal high groundwater table. If this separation is not provided between the naturally occurring normal seasonal high groundwater table, soil-cement base course or underdrain may be utilized to protect the pavement from groundwater related damage. If the bottom of the base course is within 12 inches of the estimated seasonal high groundwater level, underdrains should be installed to protect the pavement from groundwater related damage. NADIC should be provided with the final Horizon West Trail Phase I plans to evaluate the need for soil-cement base and underdrains.

Prepare pavement areas as stated in the Construction Considerations section of this report.

6.4 Pavement Design Considerations

A total of seven (7) LBR tests were performed on representative samples along the project alignment. Locations of the LBR samples can be found in Figure 4 in Appendix A. Presented below is a table of LBR samples, locations, stratums, and LBR values.

The LBR test results were evaluated using the FDOT Mean Method and FDOT 90 Percent Method with the results of our analyses presented on Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix C, respectively. The FDOT Mean Method yielded a design LBR value of 34 and the FDOT 90 Percent Method resulted

Sample ID Approx.

Station

Approx.

Offset (ft) Baseline

Depth

(ft) Stratum

No.

Maximum LBR Value

LBR 1 1005+93 17’ RT BL_TINY1 0 - 1 1 49

LBR 2 2005+36 16’ RT BL_HORIZON1 0 - 1 1 32

LBR 3 2028+26 5’ LT BL_HORIZON1 0 - 1 2 75

LBR 4 2038+06 5’ LT BL_HORIZON1 0 - 1 3 64

LBR 5 2050+77 13’ LT BL_HORIZON1 0 - 1 5 100

LBR 6 2067+41 3’ LT BL_HORIZON1 0 - 1 1 34

LBR 7 2086+13 8’ LT BL_HORIZON1 0 - 1 2 63

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 8 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022 in a design LBR value of 33. For pavement design of filled trail sections, we recommend an LBR of 40.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Site Preparation

Prior to construction of the proposed development, the location of any existing underground utility lines within the project area should be established. Provisions should then be made to relocate any interfering utility lines within the construction area to appropriate locations consistent with project specifications.

The ground surface within the limits of construction should be cleared or stripped of all vegetation, roots, topsoil, debris, surficial muck and other deleterious material in accordance with the appropriate sections of the FDOT current edition of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and Orange County Public Works Department requirements. Site preparation and roadway construction should be in accordance with Section 110 of the latest version of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and FDOT Standard Specifications and Index Nos. 120-002 and 120-001.

After proper subsoil preparation, the pavement subgrade, pavement base and surface courses should be constructed in accordance with current FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Roadway construction should be performed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the FDOT current edition of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. After the clearing\grubbing operations, the stripped areas should be proof rolled. This should be accomplished using a large self-propelled vibratory compactor (e.g., Dynapac CA-25). Proof rolling should be carried out by making repeated overlapping coverage of the subgrade; to attain a degree of densification of at least 95 percent of the material’s ASTM D-1557 modified proctor maximum dry density. Undercut any yielding soils such as loose or soft soils and replace with clean sand fill. Our borings encountered some clayey sand. These materials can be unstable during proofrolling if they contain excess moisture. The contractor should be prepared to manipulate the moisture content of unsuitable subgrade soils as necessary to achieve stability and compaction requirements. Positive control of surface runoff to prevent water ponding should be able to help reduce instability during proofrolling or fill compaction.

Fill should be placed in 12 inch lifts as measured in loose thickness. Each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s ASTM D-1557 modified proctor maximum dry density, prior to placement of the next lift. The fill should be placed at moisture content within 2 percent of optimum required to attain maximum dry density. Subsequent lifts should be placed and constructed in a similar manner.

Fill material should consist of clean sand, free of organic matter and other deleterious substances with fine content not exceeding 12 percent (i.e. 12 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. Number 200 sieve).

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 9 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

In-place density tests should be performed on the fill soils to verify the specified degree of compaction. The minimum test frequency should be in accordance with the FDOT Materials, Sampling, Testing and Reporting Guide.

7.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation

Prepare pavement areas in accordance with the General Site Preparation provided above. The 12-inch subgrade beneath the base should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of ASTM D-1557 modified proctor maximum dry density. Subgrade beneath a limerock base should be stabilized to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40. Stabilization is not required beneath a soil-cement base or rigid pavement; however, the lack of subgrade stabilization should be considered in the pavement design.

Excavation should be performed in accordance with Section 120 of the current FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.

7.3 Excavation

All excavation and below grade construction activities should be in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The side slopes of all excavation greater than four feet deep should be sloped at a maximum of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.5H: 1V) as required by OSHA. Steeper slopes can be established by a “competent person” (as defined by OSHA) and supported with a system designed by a registered Professional Engineer.

For a temporary excavation support system, we recommend the following:

Saturated unit weight 120 pcf

Angle of soil friction 30 degrees

Cohesion 0

Surcharge load 250 psf

7.4 Temporary Dewatering

Temporary dewatering may be required at the site, if excavation and construction proceed during the wet season. Depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction and final design grades, temporary dewatering may also be required to facilitate excavating and fill placement and compaction. This can be accomplished by a sanded well point system or by open sumps and pumps. The dewatering method used will depend on the level of the groundwater at the time of excavation and the water flow rate. The groundwater table, however, should be maintained at least 24 inches below all earthwork and compacted surfaces.

All excavations should be sloped as required to prevent slope failures and to allow proper backfilling. The excavations should be constructed in accordance with current OSHA regulations.

Where restrictions do not permit the excavation to be sloped appropriately, the excavation should

Horizon West Trail Phase I Page 10 of 10 NADIC Project No.: PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022 be shored in accordance with current OSHA requirements. During excavation, material should not be stockpiled at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth.

8.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.

We are not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on this data.

The scope of the exploration was intended to evaluate soil conditions within the influence of trail construction. It does not include any evaluations of deep potential soil problems such as sinkholes.

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated and does not reflect any variations which may occur among these borings. If any variations become evident during the course of this project, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had the opportunity to observe the characteristics of the conditions encountered. The applicability of the report should be reviewed in the event significant changes occur in the design, nature or location of the proposed improvements.

The scope of services, included herein, did not include any environmental assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, and groundwater, air on the site, below and around the site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious items and conditions are strictly for the information of the client.

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 Vicinity Map

Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map

Figure 3 USDA/NRCS Soils Map

Figure 4 Boring and LBR Location Map

APPENDIX B

Sheet 1 Trail Soil Survey

Sheet 2 Report of Trail Borings

APPENDIX C

Table 2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Table 3 FDOT Mean Method Design LBR Calculations

Table 4 FDOT 90 Percent Method Design LBR Calculations

Figure 5 FDOT 90 Percent Graph

Plates 1 through 7 LBR Calculations

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

*AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Boring No.

Approx.

Station &

Offset Baseline

Sample Depth (ft.)

Stratum No.

Moisture Content

Organic Content

Sieve Analysis (Cumulative Percent Passing)

Atterberg Limits

(%) AASHTO*

Classification 3/8” #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

AB-1

1005+93, 17’ RT

BL_TINY1

1 1 2 - - - - - - - 7 - - A-3 3 1 4 - 100 100 99 95 59 18 1 - - A-3

AB-3

2005+36, 16’ LT

BL_HORIZON1

1 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - A-3

AB-4

2010+81, 5’ LT

3 1 19 - 100 100 100 88 41 13 1 - - A-3

AB-12

2067+41, 3’ LT

1 1 1 - - - - - - - 7 - - A-3

AB-5

2023+79, 5’ LT

BL_HORIZON1

1 2 10 - 100 99 99 96 89 53 23 17 3 A-2-4

AB-6

2028+26, 5’ LT

1 2 8 - - - - - - - 16 - - A-2-4

AB-11

2058+76, 6’ LT

4.5 2 17 - 100 100 100 99 94 66 30 - - A-2-4

AB-14

2081+17, 8’ LT

1 2 39 2 100 100 100 98 95 62 24 - - A-2-4

AB-15

2086+13, 8’ LT

1 2 9 - - - - - - - 15 - - A-2-4

AB-8

2038+06, 5’ LT

BL_HORIZON1 1 3 17 - 100 100 100 100 94 70 41 24 9 A-4

AB-9

2043+00, 10’ LT

BL_HORIZON1 3 4 18 - 100 100 100 98 90 69 37 34 16 A-6

AB-10

2050+77, 13’ LT

BL_HORIZON1 1 5 9 - - - - - - - 21 - - A-2-6

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

Table 3 FDOT Mean Method Design LBR Calculations

Sample

ID

Approximate Station

Approximate Offset

(ft) Baseline

Depth (ft)

Stratum No.

Maximum

LBR

Value (%)

LBR Value at ±2% of Moisture at Maximum LBR

-2% +2%

LBR-5 2050+77 13' LT BL_HORIZON 1 0-1 5 100 47 40

LBR-3 2028+26 5' LT BL_HORIZON 1 0-1 2 75 51 8

LBR-4 2038+06 5' LT BL_HORIZON 1 0-1 3 64 35 42

LBR-7 2086+13 8' LT BL_HORIZON 1 0-1 2 63 41 55

LBR-1 1005+93 17' RT BL_TINY1 0-1 1 49 30 40

LBR-6 2067+41 3' LT BL_HORIZON 1 0-1 1 34 15 22

LBR-2 2005+36 16' LT BL_HORIZON 1 0-1 1 32 22 23

Mean Value 34 33

±2% LBR Average 34

Table 4

FDOT 90 Percent Method Design LBR Calculations

Sample

ID

Baseline Stratum

No.

Maximum LBR

Value No. values Equal or

Greater Than % of Values Equal to or Greater Than

LBR-2 Horizon West 1 32 7 100

LBR-6 Horizon West 1 34 6 86

LBR-1 Tiny Road 1 49 5 71

LBR-7 Horizon West 2 63 4 57

LBR-4 Horizon West 3 64 3 43

LBR-3 Horizon West 2 75 2 29

LBR-5 Horizon West 5 100 1 14

90 Percent LBR Value = 33

NADIC Project No. PR.GEO-RD21034 November 30, 2022

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 o f v al ue s e qu al to o r g re at er th an

Maximum LBR Value

Figure 5 FDOT 90% Graph

90% LBR

P l a t e | 1

Orlando, FL 32818

Project Information

Project Name: Horizon West trail Phase I

NADIC Project No: PR.GEO-RD21034

Sample Information

Sample No: LBR-1 (AB-1)

Station: 1005+93

Offset: 17’ RT

Baseline: BL_TINY1

Date Tested: 11/23/2022

Material Description: Yellowish brown fine SAND with silt, trace limerock and asphalt fragments, (A-3)

Modified Proctor Test Results

(FM 5-521)

Optimum Moisture (%) = 10.8 Max. Dry Density (pcf)= 112.6

LBR Test Results (FM 5-515)

Max. LBR at Optimum LBR Moisture= 49 LBR at -2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 30 LBR at +2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 40

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

D ry

D es n si ty p cf

Moisture Content (%)

MC VS. Dry Density (LBR-1)

P l a t e | 2

Phase I

NADIC Project No: PR.GEO-RD21034

Sample Information

Sample No: LBR-2 (AB-3)

Station: 2005+36

Offset: 16’ RT

Baseline: BL_HORIZON1

Date Tested: 11/2/2022

Material Description: Light brown fine SAND, trace silt, (A-3)

Optimum Moisture (%) = 9.45 Max. Dry Density (pcf)= 105.8

Moisture= 32 LBR at -2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 22

Moisture= 23

104.00

105.00

106.00

107.00

7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

D ry

D es n si ty p cf

MC VS. Dry Density (LBR-2)

P l a t e | 3

Phase I

NADIC Project No: PR.GEO-RD21034

Sample Information

Sample No: LBR-3 (AB-6)

Station: 2028+26

Offset: 5’ LT

Baseline: BL_HORIZON1

Date Tested: 10/14/2022

Material Description: Brown silty

SAND, (A-2-4)

Optimum Moisture (%) = 11.1 Max. Dry Density (pcf)= 119.9

Moisture= 75 LBR at -2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 51

Moisture= 8

118.00

119.00

120.00

121.00

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

D ry

D es n si ty p cf

MC VS. Dry Density (LBR-3)

P l a t e | 4

Phase I

NADIC Project No: PR.GEO-RD21034

Sample Information

Sample No: LBR-4 (AB-8)

Station: 2038+06

Offset: 5’ LT

Baseline: BL_HORIZON1

Date Tested: 11/23/2022

Material Description: Grayish brown sandy SILT, (A-4)

Optimum Moisture (%) = 11.4 Max. Dry Density (pcf)= 118.9

Moisture= 64 LBR at -2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 35

Moisture= 42

9 10 11 12 13 14

D ry

D es n si ty p cf

MC VS. Dry Density (LBR-4)

P l a t e | 5

Phase I

NADIC Project No: PR.GEO-RD21034

Sample Information

Sample No: LBR-5 (AB-10)

Station: 2050+77

Offset: 13’ LT

Baseline: BL_HORIZON1

Date Tested: 11/4/2022

Material Description: Brown clayey

SAND, (A-2-6)

Optimum Moisture (%) = 12.1 Max. Dry Density (pcf)= 120.9

Moisture= 100 LBR at -2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 47

Moisture= 40

118.00

119.00

120.00

121.00

122.00

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

D ry

D es n si ty p cf

MC VS. Dry Density (LBR-5)

P l a t e | 6

Phase I

NADIC Project No: PR.GEO-RD21034

Sample Information

Sample No: LBR-6 (AB-12)

Station: 2067+41

Offset: 3’ LT

Baseline: BL_HORIZON1

Date Tested: 11/21/2022

Material Description: Yellowish brown fine SAND with silt, (A-3)

Optimum Moisture (%) = 10.4 Max. Dry Density (pcf)= 110.2

Moisture= 34 LBR at -2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 15

Moisture= 22

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

D ry

D es n si ty p cf

MC VS. Dry Density (LBR-6)

P l a t e | 7

Phase I

NADIC Project No: PR.GEO-RD21034

Sample Information

Sample No: LBR-7 (AB-15)

Station: 2086+13

Offset: 8’ LT

Baseline: BL_HORIZON1

Date Tested: 11/4/2022

Material Description: Brownish gray silty SAND, trace limerock and roots, (A-2-4)

Optimum Moisture (%) = 12 Max. Dry Density (pcf)= 113.3

Moisture= 63 LBR at -2% of Optimum LBR Moisture= 41

Moisture= 55

111.00

112.00

113.00

114.00

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

D ry

D es n si ty p cf

MC VS. Dry Density (LBR-7)