NOAA OMAO Survey Reports 100 Percent Pre-Final Submittal 04072022.pdf

SURVEY REPORTS

100% Pre-Final Submittal

NOAA OMAO Ship & Support Facility Relocation Naval Station Newport

NAVFAC MIDLANT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS LINE

NORFOLK, VA

eProject # 1562331

7 April 2022

GEOTECH REPORT

www.haleyaldrich.com

REPORT ON

NOAA OMAO SHIP & SUPPORT FACILITY RELOCATION

NAVAL STATION NEWPORT

NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND

by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.

Parsippany, New Jersey for Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell, A Joint Venture Norfolk, Virginia

File No. 128424-005 March 2022 www.haleyaldrich.com www.haleyaldrich.com

HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.

299 CHERRY HILL RD.

SUITE 303

PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054

973.263.3900

31 March 2022 File No. 128424-005

Moffatt & Nichol c/o Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell JV 1317 Executive Blvd, 3rd Floor Chesapeake, Virginia 23320

Attention: Anat Mor, AIA

Subject: Final Design Geotechnical Data Report and Recommendations NOAA OMAO Ship & Support Relocation Naval Station Newport Newport, Rhode Island

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This report presents the results of our geotechnical studies for the NOAA OMAO Ship and Support Relocation Project. Services were completed in accordance with our initial proposal, dated 4 August 2017 and as authorized by you on 8 October 2018.

Supplemental services were completed in accordance with our revised proposal dated 2 March 2020 and as authorized by Moffatt & Nichol on 8 September 2020 (Task Order 005, M&N job number 10000- 14), as well as the subsequent authorized field change directives Amendment 01, dated 17 March 2021, and Amendment 02, dated 01 September 2021. This report supersedes previously issued geotechnical reports issued by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. for the subject project.

Sincerely yours, Nathan G. DeRouchey Senior Engineer

Paul B. Pizzimenti Senior Project Manager

John G. DiGenova, P.E.

Senior Project Manager

Enclosures

\\haleyaldrich.com\share\CF\Projects\128424\005 Newport Final Design\Deliverables\Final Report\2022_0331_HAI_NAVSTA Newport NOAA OMAO_Final Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering Report_F1.docx

299 CHERRY HILL RD.

SUITE 303

PARSIPPANY, NJ 07054

973.263.3900

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR

REPORT ON

NOAA OMAO SHIP & SUPPORT FACILITY RELOCATION

NAVAL STATION NEWPORT

NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND

PREPARED FOR

MOFFATT & NICHOL BURNS & MCDONNELL, A JOINT VENTURE

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

PREPARED BY:

Nathan G. DeRouchey Senior Engineer

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Paul B. Pizzimenti

John G. DiGenova, P.E.

Table of Contents Page ii

List of Tables iv

List of Figures iv

List of Appendices v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 GENERAL 1

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1

1.3 ELEVATION AND DATUM 1

1.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1

1.5 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 3

1.6 LIMITATIONS 4

2. Subsurface Explorations 5

2.1 TEST BORINGS 5

2.1.1 On-shore Borings 5

2.1.2 Over-Water Borings 7

2.2 TEST PITS 7

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING 7

2.3.1 Grain Size Analysis 7

2.3.2 Atterberg Limits 7

2.3.3 Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter 7

2.3.4 Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Bulk Density of Rock 7

2.3.5 Corrosion Testing 8

2.4 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS 8

3. Subsurface Conditions 9

3.1 SOIL AND BEDROCK 9

3.2 GROUNDWATER 10

3.3 IN-SITU HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING 10

3.4 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE MANAGEMENT 11

4. Environmental Analytical Sampling and Results 13

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING PROCEDURE 13

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS 13

5. On-Shore Facilities Preliminary Design Recommendations 14

5.1 SOIL PARAMETERS 14

5.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 14

5.2.1 Deep Foundations 14

Table of Contents Page iii

5.2.2 Lightly Loaded Structures 16

5.3 SEISMIC DESIGN 17

5.3.1 Pier Landing Site 17

5.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 17

5.5 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS 18

5.6 LOWEST FLOOR SLAB 18

5.7 UTILITIES 18

5.8 PAVEMENT 18

5.9 EXTERIOR GRADING AND FOUNDATION UNDERSLAB DRAINAGE 19

6. Waterfront Structure Foundation Design Recommendations 20

6.1 SOIL PARAMETERS 20

6.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 20

6.2.1 Pier and Trestle 20

6.2.2 Bulkhead 22

6.3 SETTLEMENT 22

6.4 SEISMIC DESIGN 22

6.5 PILE LOAD TESTING 22

7. Construction Considerations 24

7.1 GENERAL 24

7.2 EARTHWORK 24

7.2.1 Mass Excavation 24

7.2.2 Preparation and Protection of Bearing Surfaces 25

7.2.3 Backfilling 25

7.3 PILE DRIVING 26

7.4 GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING 26

References 27 iv

List of Tables

Table No. Title

I Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy Information (in text)

II Guelph Permeameter Field Testing Results (in text)

III Cased Borehole Falling Head Infiltration Field Testing Results (in text)

IV On-Shore Soil Parameters (in text)

V H-Pile Lateral Load Stiffness (in text)

VI Waterfront Soil Parameters (in text)

VII Estimated Pipe Pile Axial Capacity and Tip Elevations (in text)

VIII Summary of Subsurface Explorations

IX Environmental Laboratory Results

List of Figures

Figure No. Title

1 Project Locus

2 Site and Exploration Location Plan – Pier Landing

3 Site and Exploration Location Plan – Building 11 Parking Area

4 Site and Exploration Location Plan – Area 4 (Non-selected development Area)

5 Pier Landing Site Geologic Subsurface Profile

6 Bulkhead Geologic Subsurface Profile

7 Area 4 - Bulkhead Geologic Subsurface Profile

8 Permanent Lateral Pressures at Bulkhead v

List of Appendices

Appendix Title

A Test Boring Logs

B Rock Core Photo Log

C Test Pit Excavation Logs and Sketches

D Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

E Geophysical Survey Report

F Environmental Laboratory Data

G Lateral Analysis of H-Piles

H Wave Equation Analysis of H-Piles

I Lateral Analysis of Pipe Piles

J Wave Equation Analysis of Pipe Piles

K Seismic Site Classification and Liquefaction Analysis Calculations

1. Introduction

1.1 GENERAL

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration program and provides geotechnical and foundation engineering recommendations for the proposed NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) Ship & Support Facility Relocation project in Newport, RI. The work was conducted under Contract No. N40085-14-D-8113 and under Modification of Contract No. N4008520F6271 for Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell JV (The Joint Venture).

This report was prepared in accordance with our revised proposal dated 2 March 2020 authorized by Moffatt & Nichol on 8 September 2020 (Task Order 005, M&N job number 10000-14) and the subsequent authorized field change directives Amendments 01 and 02, dated 17 March 2021 and 01 September 2021, respectively. This report supersedes previously issued geotechnical reports issued by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. for the subject project.

The general site location is shown on Figure 1, Site Locus.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Our scope of services included performing subsurface explorations to geotechnically characterize subsurface conditions, performing geotechnical engineering analyses using the data obtained, and preparing this report summarizing our recommendations for foundation and geotechnical design and construction for the proposed development. The scope of our services included the following:

Planning and monitoring a geotechnical subsurface exploration program and geophysical survey;

Making engineering interpretations of the subsurface data;

Performing geotechnical engineering evaluations;

Developing geotechnical engineering recommendations; and, Summarizing our subsurface explorations, engineering evaluations, and recommendations in this report.

1.3 ELEVATION AND DATUM

Elevations herein are reported in feet (ft) and refer to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The site figures are based on the horizontal datum North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

The tidal range at the site varies between El. +1.81 ft (Mean Higher High Water (MHHW)) to El. -2.04 ft (Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)).

1.4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

In accordance with NAVFAC MIDATLANTIC Statement of Architect-Engineer Services (SAES) dated 29 March 2017; Attachment 9 NAVFAC MIDLANT Geotechnical Services General Scope of Work Requirements undated, received 21 March 2017; the results of the Design Charrette held on 4 April to 7 April 2017; the Concept Development Workshop (CDW) that took place between the Navy, NOAA, and the Joint Venture design team between 22 and 24 September 2020, and subsequent conversations with the design team and NAVFAC, we understand that the project at Naval Station Newport is planned to serve as the homeport for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) vessels Henry B.

Bigelow (HB), Okeanos Explorer (EX), and Discoverer and will consist of the following improvements:

A new pier and trestle structure located north of the existing T-Pier at the Pier Landing site. The new 587-ft offshore pier will be connected to land by an approximate 525-ft trestle structure.

The new pier will be located approximately mid-way between the existing T-pier and the stone breakwater, extending perpendicularly into Coddington Cove.

An approximately 75-foot-long of pile supported concrete bulkhead will be installed between the existing T-pier and Pier 1 in front of the existing bulkheads. The new bulkhead construction length may be up to approximately 724-feet-long as part of a bid option alternative.

A new small vessel floating dock extending diagonally northwest into Coddington Cove adjacent to the new trestle. The floating dock will be connected to a moveable gangway that will be accessed from a fixed access platform and gangway connected to the bulkhead.

Pier Landing Site – construction of a NOAA OMAO warehouse, exterior storage area, loading laydown area, warehouse expansion area, a boat repair building, and storage expansion area, and associated parking areas.

Utility corridor improvements, which is defined as a linear corridor from the Pier Landing Site to Pier 1 and from the Pier Landing Site to the gas plant to the south. The route of the utilities was identified by the project team prior to field investigations.

Development of the Building 11 Parking Area for additional parking.

Our understanding of the proposed layout of land-based structures are based on the following most recent drawings:

• 65% Design Drawing S-140, “NOAA OMAO Ship & Support Facility Relocation, Admin/ Warehouse – Foundation Plan – Overall” by Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell JV sealed “Preliminary – Not for Construction”, dated 15 October 2021.

• The 65% Design Submittal Basis of Design report, titled NOAA OMAO SHIP & SUPPORT FACILITY RELOCATION - BASIS OF DESIGN - 65% SUBMITTAL”, by Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell JV, dated 15 October 2021.

We understand that the current concept of the Pier Landing site includes the construction of a new Administration/Warehouse Building (16,584 SF first floor with 5,394 SF of second floor space within the administration section), 43,560 SF of exterior storage area, and associated parking. The Administration/ Warehouse Building will be constructed at Elevation 17 and grading will slope away from the building to adjacent parking, exterior storage, or stormwater management areas. Overall grading patterns will match existing conditions to the greatest extent possible.

We understand that deep foundations are preferred for supporting the NOAA OMAO office/warehouse structure and that lightly loaded structures and slabs are preferred to be constructed on a prepared subgrade on the existing soils.

Our understanding of the proposed layout of water-based structures are based on the following most recent drawings:

• 65% Design Drawing SB-101, “NOAA OMAO Ship & Support Facility Relocation, Pier – General Arrangement Plan” by MNFST, JV, sealed “Preliminary – Not for Construction”, and dated 15 October 2021.

• The 65% Design Submittal Basis of Design report, titled NOAA OMAO SHIP & SUPPORT FACILITY RELOCATION - BASIS OF DESIGN - 65% SUBMITTAL”, by Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell JV, dated 15 October 2021.

Either a 75 or 724-foot-long pile supported concrete bulkhead will be installed approximately 3 feet 4 inches outboard of the existing MZ sheet pile and 1-foot in front of the existing double channel wale near Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The bulkhead will be a combination steel pipe-sheet pile wall with concrete lagging (facing) and will extend from the T-pier to Pier 1. The combination bulkhead was designed as a cantilever wall to the extent possible, but an independent anchor system may be required to provide stability.

The access trestle will be 524-feet long by 28-feet wide. Bent 1 of the trestle will be constructed in-land of the existing bulkhead, resulting in an overwater trestle length of approximately 512 feet. A 587-foot-long by 62-foot-wide pier will be configured for vessel berthing on both sides, to accommodate 209-foot-long vessels at the inner berths and 250-foot-long vessels in the outer berths.

The access trestle will be supported by 18-inch diameter, open-ended steel pipe piles driven to an allowable capacity of 230 tons. The pier will be supported on 30-inch diameter, open-ended steel pipe piles driven to an allowable capacity of 400 tons. Piles will be installed into the weathered rock stratum and will achieve capacity through end bearing. Piles will utilize an exterior reinforcing shoe to aid in penetration into the rock and reduce the possibility of damage. Pile installation is anticipated to consist of either a down hold hammer/drill or a predrilled hole and grouted into the rock to provide adequate lateral support. An indicator pile program with dynamic testing (PDA) will be performed to better estimate production pile length.

The fender system for the pier will be capable of sustaining the berthing and mooring loads associated with the Discoverer design vessel on either side of the pier. A continuous fender pile system will be installed along the full perimeter of the pier. The fender system will consist of 16-inch diameter steel pipe piles battered at 1(H):12(V) backed by a continuous HP12 steel wale system, separated from the pier by rubber arch fenders

A floating dock will be constructed northwest of the main pier and trestle structures. The floating system will consist of a single heavy duty approximately 20-foot by 66-foot concrete float and two 80-foot-long gangway segments. Access to the floating dock will be provided directly from land with one end of the gangway supported on the new bulkhead concrete cap. A concrete platform will be provided to connect the two gangway segments and will supported by four 18-inch diameter open-ended steel pipe piles. The floating dock will provide berthing on three sides and contain a continuous preinstalled wale system. Two approximately 3-ft diameter steel casing drilled shaft guide piles, with permanent 3.5-foot-diameter HDPE grouted jackets, will provide lateral support to the floating dock. The drilled shafts will contain minimum 4.8-foot-long and 2.5-foot-diameter rock sockets.

1.5 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

Naval Station Newport is located in Rhode Island on the west coast of Aquidneck Island in Narragansett Bay and spans between the City of Newport and the Town of Middletown, Rhode Island about 1.5 miles north of the Newport Bridge. The new pier and Pier Landing Site are located along Coddington Cove, in the area of the former Derecktor’s Shipyard, the history of which has been well documented by others1,2. The Pier Landing Site is designated as an Installation Restoration (IR) site.

Reportedly, the Pier Landing Site consists of land reclaimed by dredge material from the Pier 1 and Pier 2 berths placed in the mid-1900’s. Former Building 42 was previously located within The Pier Landing Site. We understand Building 42 was constructed in 1952 and used for cold storage. We are not aware of the supporting foundation type nor if those foundations were removed when the building was demolished. Explorations performed as part of the recent site investigations did not discover evidence of former building foundations. The proposed Administration/Warehouse Building is sited outside of the limits of the demolished Building 42 footprint.

Following the September 2020 Concept Design Workshop (CDW) meeting and subsequent design changes, the Building 11 Parking Area was identified and selected as the preferred location for a new approximately 50-space paved parking lot. The Building 11 Parking Area consists of a grassy, open, and undeveloped field with remnant basketball court located to the east of the existing Building 11 parking lot.

1.6 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for specific application to the project as it is planned at this time and is limited to the NOAA OMAO Ship & Support Facility Relocation Project. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon data obtained from referenced explorations. The nature and extent of variations between the explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report.

This report is prepared for the exclusive use of Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell JV in connection with the geotechnical aspects of the project. Recommendations presented in this report address only the conventional geotechnical engineering related aspects of design and construction.

2. Subsurface Explorations

2.1 TEST BORINGS

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley & Aldrich) conducted a subsurface exploration program consisting of 41 onshore test borings and nine borings over water. The test borings were drilled by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) of Manchester, New Hampshire in three separate mobilizations between 3 April and 19 June 2019, between 28 April and 30 April 2021, and between 18 and 28 October 2021 under the observation of a Haley & Aldrich representative.

Generally, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were performed in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586. Rock coring was performed in each boring, using a NX-sized core barrel. Recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) were recorded. Recovery is defined as the length of recovered core divided by core barrel length (in percent), and RQD is defined as the sum of the recovery pieces greater than 4 inches (in.), divided by the core barrel length (in percent).

Planned and as-drilled locations of both the onshore and over-water test borings were located in the field using a hand-held Trimble 7x GPS device. Occasionally, the test boring locations were relocated in the field due to possible underground utilities or various other circumstances. Elevations of the on-shore test borings were obtained from interpolating the as-drilled coordinates from existing topographical site plans provided by the Moffatt & Nichol Burns & McDonnell JV and should be considered approximate. Mudline elevations of the over-water test borings were approximated by measuring the water depth several times throughout the shift and later comparing to the actual tide charts as recorded by the Newport, Rhode Island tide Station ID 8452660 at the time of measurements.

A summary of the subsurface explorations is presented in Table VIII. The approximate test boring locations are shown on Figures 2, 3, and 4. The test boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Rock core photos from the explorations are presented in Appendix B.

2.1.1 On-shore Borings

The 41 on-shore test borings, designated LB-01 through LB-41, were drilled between 3 April 2019 and 11 April 2019, between 28 April and 30 April 2021, and between 18 and 28 October 2021 by Terracon with a CME-850 steel track)-mounted drill rig. Test borings were drilled in the following general locations:

LB-01 through LB-16, LB-27 through LB-30, and LB-36 through LB-41 were drilled near the Pier Landing Site;

LB-17 through LB-26 were drilled in Area 4 during preliminary concept development as a possible alternative location for an office building and parking lot. However, during the CDW and subsequent discussions, NOAA has determined that this area would not be included in the final design;

LB-31 through LB-35 were drilled in the Building 11 Parking Area;

Mud rotary drilling methods were used for test borings LB-01 through LB-16, LB-27 through LB- 29, and LB-36 through LB-41 and hollow stem auger drilling methods were used for test borings LB-17 through LB-26, and LB-30 through LB-35.

2.1.1.1 Pier Landing Site Test Borings

• Test Borings LB-01 through LB-05 were each drilled to depths of 12 ft below ground surface (bgs) to support the design and layout of an underground utility corridor. The proposed linear utility corridor originates near the gas plant facility to the south of the Pier Landing Site and will generally run along the western side of the pier access road to Pier 1. The approximate locations of these five test borings were selected by Moffatt & Nichol. Composite chemical analysis samples were taken between depths of 1 to 4 ft bgs at each one of these five borings for pre-waste class characterization.

• Test Borings LB-06 and LB-07 were drilled to depths of 12 and 14 ft, respectively in what was initially planned to be within a proposed parking lot. After subsequent design changes, the proposed Administrative Office and Warehouse building was sited near these borings.

• Test Borings LB-08 and LB-09 were drilled to depths of about 81 ft and 70 ft, respectively near the proposed bulkhead area of the new pier.

• Test Borings LB-10, LB13, and LB-14 were drilled to depths ranging between approximately 30 ft to 37 ft near the proposed warehouse structure and adjacent northern exterior storage area.

• Test Borings LB-11, LB-12, LB-15, and LB-16 were drilled to depths ranging between 12 ft to 14 ft bgs in the proposed exterior storage and parking lot.

• Test borings LB-27 through LB-29 were drilled to depths ranging from 36 to 48 ft within the approximate footprint of the proposed NOAA administration office structure

• Test boring LB-30 was drilled to a depth of 12 ft in a potential proposed stormwater best management practices (BMP) infiltration area

• Test borings LB-36 to LB-41 were each drilled to depths ranging from 57 to 95 ft along the existing bulkhead.

2.1.1.2 Area 4 Test Borings

• Test Borings LB-17 through LB-20 were each drilled to depths of 12 ft bgs within the preliminary proposed parking lot area of the Area 4 alternative Office and ROV shop building.

• Test Borings LB-20 through LB-26 were drilled to depths of 12 ft to 30 ft within the proposed OMAO Office area and possible future expansion area in the previous Area 4 alternative.

• Note that the Area 4 alternative location for the OMAO office building and parking lot was not selected by NOAA and the area will not be developed as part of the subject project. However, test boring logs are provided in Appendix B, and an Exploration Location Plan is provided Figure 4.

2.1.1.3 Building 11 Parking Area Borings

LB-31 through LB-34 were drilled to depths of 12 ft within the proposed parking lot.

LB-35 was drilled to a depth of 12 ft in a potential proposed stormwater best management practices (BMP) infiltration area.

2.1.2 Over-Water Borings

Nine over-water test borings, designated WB-01 through WB-09, were drilled between 6 June 2019 and 19 June 2019 by Terracon using a Diedrich D-50 steel track-mounted drilling rig from a floating spud barge along the proposed alignment of the new pier and trestle. The barge was owned and operated by Black Dog Divers, Inc. who were subcontracted by Terracon. The movement of the barge and spuds was assisted by a common tug and tender. The purpose of these over-water test borings was to obtain subsurface information to support the design and construction of the four-ship build-out option of the proposed pier as well as a possible future pier extension for a six-ship build-out option. The borings were drilled using mud-rotary drilling methods to depths ranging from approximately 53 to 86 ft below mudline.

2.2 TEST PITS

Five test pit explorations, designated TP-01 through TP-5, were performed by Terracon Consultants, Inc.

(Terracon) of Manchester, New Hampshire on 4 May 2021 under the observation of a Haley & Aldrich representative. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging between 7 and 8 ft bgs within the approximate footprint of the proposed NOAA administration office and warehouse structure in The Pier Landing Site to support foundation design, explore subsurface conditions, and to help identify with the possible presence of historic foundation elements that may affect construction.

The approximate test boring locations are shown on Figure 2. A summary of the subsurface explorations is presented in Table VIII. The test pit logs, and plan view sketches are presented in Appendix C.

2.3 LABORATORY TESTING

Selected soil samples were sent to a geotechnical laboratory (GeoTesting Express, Inc. located in Boston, Massachusetts) for testing to aid in soil classification and for the determination of engineering properties. The testing is described below. Refer to Appendix D for geotechnical laboratory test results.

2.3.1 Grain Size Analysis

A total of 21 samples were submitted for sieve, with or without hydrometer analysis. Testing was performed in general conformance with ASTM D6913 and/or D7928.

2.3.2 Atterberg Limits

Three samples were submitted for Atterberg Limits testing. Testing was performed in general conformance with ASTM D4318.

2.3.3 Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter

Two organic content burn-off tests were performed on samples suspected of containing organic material. Testing was performed in general conformance with ASTM D2974.

2.3.4 Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Bulk Density of Rock

Five samples from the cored bedrock were submitted for rock compressive strength tests and Bulk Density tests. Testing was performed in general conformance with ASTM D7012C.

2.3.5 Corrosion Testing

Two samples from the fill stratum were submitted for corrosion series testing. The soil corrosion series included testing of electrical resistivity (ASTM G57) pH (ASTM G51), redox potential, sulfide response, and concentrations of chloride and sulfate (ASTM D512).

2.4 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS

Geophysical surveys were performed by Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. of Salem, NH between 25 and 29 March 2019. The purpose of the geophysical surveys was to identify utilities, provide boring clearances in the Pier Landing Site and the previous Area 4, and perform shear wave velocity testing at the Pier Landing Site. A detailed description of the work performed, and results are presented in Appendix E.

3. Subsurface Conditions

3.1 SOIL AND BEDROCK

Strata encountered at the site in order of increasing depth below surficial pavements typically consist of Fill, Glacial Till, Weathered Bedrock, and Rhode Island Formation Shale Bedrock. Strata encountered at each exploration are summarized on Table I. Descriptions of each sample/stratum are provided on the test boring logs in Appendix A and a photo log of the rock cores is provided in Appendix B. Interpreted geologic profiles between borings are presented in Figures 5 through 7.

The lines designating the interface between strata on the logs, reports, and profile represent approximate boundaries, which may be gradual. The logs, reports, and profile depict subsurface conditions at the specific exploration location and at the time designated on the logs and reports.

Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these exploration locations. The passage of time may also result in a change in the conditions at these locations.

Table I. Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy Information

Unit Area Approximate Encountered Thickness

Generalized Description

Uncontrolled Fill

Pier Landing Site

10 to 25.5 ft Very soft to very dense, gray to brown, silty SAND with gravel or sandy SILT with gravel. Occasionally poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel or well graded GRAVEL with sand, with probable blast rock fragments. Often contained concrete, brick, or wood fragments and particles.

(Encountered in every on-shore test boring including LB-01 through LB-41, not encountered in any over-water test boring)

Area 4 4 to 8 ft

Over-water Pier

Not encountered

Building 11 Parking Area

3.6 to 6 ft

Estuarine Deposits

Pier Landing Site

2 to 13.5 ft Very loose to medium dense, gray to dark gray or gray-brown, silty SAND, SILT with sand, SAND with silt, and/or poorly graded SAND. Over-water borings occasionally contained very soft to soft CLAY, often contained shells and wood or organic fibers, occasionally contained an organic-like odor.

(Encountered in test borings LB-01, LB-05, LB-08 through LB-10, LB-13, LB-14, LB-27 through LB-29, LB-36 through LB-41, and in each over-water test boring WB-01 through

WB-09)

Area 4 Not encountered

Over-water Pier

14 to 47 ft

Building 11 Parking Area

Not encountered

Glacial Till Pier Landing Site

5 ft to 33 ft Predominantly medium dense to very dense, gray to brown gravelly sandy SILT with varying amounts of silt and gravel or Silty SAND with gravel. Contained occasional cobbles.

(Encountered in test borings LB-08through LB-10, LB-17 through LB-20, LB-22through LB-24, LB-26 through LB-29, LB-34 through LB-41, and in each over-water test boring WB-01 through WB-09)

Area 4 5 ft to 10.5 ft

Over-water Pier

12 ft to 37.5 ft

Building 11 Parking Area

1 to 2 ft

Weathered Bedrock

Pier Landing Site

3.5 to 19 ft Dense to very dense, gray to brown, sandy SILT with varying amounts of gravel WEATHERED BEDROCK.

Unit Area Approximate Encountered Thickness

Generalized Description

Area 4 5 ft to 10.6 ft Typically exhibited a distinct relic bedrock fabric/matrix of decomposed to moderately weathered SHALE with frequent to occasional possible cobble to boulder-sized corestones.

(Encountered in test borings LB-08, LB-09, LB-13, LB-21, LB- 23 through LB-26, LB-29, LB-31 through LB-40, and in each over-water test boring WB-01 through WB-09)

Over-water Pier

8 ft to 24 ft

Building 11 Parking Area

>6 to >8.4 ft

Bedrock Pier Landing Site

TOR elevation:

EL. -40 to -62

The bedrock encountered was generally identified as SHALE and occasionally SANDSTONE as part of the Rhode Island Formation. The range of the recovery, rock quality designation (RQD), and degree of weathering varied greatly. Detailed rock descriptions are provided on the test boring logs in Appendix A and a photo log of the rock cores is provided in Appendix B.

(Encountered in test borings LB-08, LB-09, LB-21 through LB-26, LB-36 through LB-39, LB-41, and in each over-water test boring WB-01 through WB-09)

Area 4 TOR elevation:

EL. +3 to +15.0

Over-water Pier

TOR elevation:

EL. -66.0 to - 103.2

Building 11 Parking Area

Not encountered

3.2 GROUNDWATER

The groundwater levels at the Pier Landing Site were estimated during the test borings based on observations of sample moisture. The groundwater was estimated between 10 to 25 ft bgs at the Pier Landing Site, corresponding to El. 6.1 to -10.9, respectively. The groundwater table was not observed in the Building 11 Parking Area test borings. The soils encountered in the borings for pier and trestle were completely submerged throughout the tide cycles.

Area groundwater levels are commonly influenced by numerous factors including recent precipitation, surface runoff, local construction activity, leakage into and out of utilities and other infrastructure, and seasonal variations. As such, groundwater levels should be anticipated to vary both during and following construction.

3.3 IN-SITU HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING

In-situ hydraulic conductivity testing was performed at two locations in potential proposed stormwater best management practices infiltration areas, one at the Pier Landing Site near test boring LB-30, and one the Building 11 Parking Area near test boring LB-35. The in-situ hydraulic testing included Guelph permeameter tests and in-situ borehole falling head tests. Groundwater was not encountered in either of these two test borings and there was no evidence of seasonal high groundwater in the SPT samples collected noted by our field representative. Our understanding of the locations and initial depths of the proposed BMP areas is based on preliminary design drawings and from email correspondence with representatives of the Joint Venture

Guelph permeameter test were performed on 30 April 2021 within approximately five feet laterally of the completed test boring LB-30 and LB-35 locations. The Guelph permeameter is an instrument used to conduct an in-situ constant head hydraulic conductivity test. The test simulates a wetting front moving through the soil and is therefore a field measurement of the field saturated hydraulic conductivity

(coefficient of permeability) of the soil at the test intervals. The Guelph permeameter testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D5126. The Guelph Permeameter results are as follows:

Table II. Guelph Permeameter Field Testing Results

Location Test Depth bgs (ft)

Subsurface Material and

Stratum

Calculated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

(cm/sec)

Calculated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

(in/hr)

Pier Landing Site

LB-30

1.7* Silty SAND (SM) Fill 1.4E-05 0.02

Building 11 Parking Area

LB-35

1.6 Silty SAND (SM) Fill 7.0E-05 0.10

Notes:

* - The Guelph permeability test performed at the Pier Landing Site near LB-30 was intended to be conducted approximately 2 to 2.5 ft bgs, but obstructions and cobbles encountered in the upper fill soils during test preparations prevented reliable tests to be performed in the zone.

In-situ falling head tests were performed between 28 and 29 April 2021 within approximately five feet laterally of the completed test boring LB-30 and LB-35 locations. The falling head tests were conducted over a flush bottom 4-inch diameter hole. The test boring was then filled with water and the depth to water measurements are recorded over several test periods generally ranging from 15 to 20 minutes long. Note that the rate of head change observed in the Building 11 Parking Area cased boreholes was slow enough to allow some of the tests to run overnight with a total test time of approximately 19 hours. The results for the falling head infiltration tests are as follows:

Table III. Cased Borehole Falling Head Infiltration Field Testing Results

Location Test Depth bgs (ft)

Subsurface Material and Stratum

Calculated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

(cm/sec)

Calculated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

(in/hr)

Pier Landing Site

LB-30

2.8 Silty SAND (SM) Fill 1.5E-05 0.02

5.1 Silty SAND (SM) Fill 1.6E-04 0.23

Building 11 Parking Area

LB-35

2 Silty SAND (SM) Fill 3.2E-06 < 0.01

Building 11 Parking Area

LB-35

Silty SAND (SM) Till/Weathered BR

1.6E-06 < 0.01

Notes:

1. Test zone included a flush bottom of 4 in. diameter casing.

2. Reference: W. E. Schmid, "Field Determination of Permeability by the Infiltration Tests," Permeability and Capillarity of Soils, ASTM STP 417, American Society of Testing Materials, 1967, p. 142.

According to Appendix H of the Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual, the design infiltration rates shall be determined by using a factor of safety of two from the field-derived values.

3.4 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE MANAGEMENT

Soil and liquid investigation-derived waste (IDW) generated during Haley & Aldrich’s supplemental subsurface investigation were containerized in three 55-gallon drums and a 25 cubic yard (CY) steel roll-off container. The drum and roll-off container were labelled and staged in a designated location in the

Pier Landing Site. Four waste characterization samples were collected for the analysis of TCLP and Total VOCs, TCLP and Total SVOCs, Asbestos, Total RCRA, TCLP RCRA Metals, ignitability/flashpoint, pH, PCBs, PFAS, Cyanide, and Sulfides. Disposal of the IDWs is pending NAVFAC profiling at the time of this publication.

4. Environmental Analytical Sampling and Results

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING PROCEDURE

A total of five environmental samples were taken within the utility corridor, from locations LB-01, LB-02, LB-03, LB-04, LB-05. Each was tested for the following:

TCLP Metals, by EPA 1311

TCLP Herbicides and Pesticides, by EPA 1311

TCLP VOCs, by EPA 1311

TCLP-SVOCs by EPA 8270D

RCRA Characteristics

BTEX, by EPA 5035

PCBs by 8270-SIM

TPH GRO and DRO by EPA 8015B

During borings, PID readings and visual cues were used to identify possible depths of chemical impact.

A discrete grab sample was collected from a six-inch depth interval deemed most contaminated according to these characteristics, to be analyzed for VOCs and BTEX.

For the remaining parameters, composite samples were taken from between 1-4 ft bgs at each location.

Soil was homogenized using instruments which were decontaminated between use.

The samples were placed on ice and transported under chain of custody protocols by courier on 8 April 2019 to Alpha Analytical Laboratory (MA Lab Certification M-MA) in Westborough, Massachusetts.

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING RESULTS

Laboratory results are summarized in Table IX, and the Environmental Laboratory Report is presented as Appendix F. Detected concentrations were compared to both the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) hazardous waste criteria and the Massachusetts unlined landfill criteria. In all cases, the detections appeared to be below both sets of applicable criteria. These soils are considered to be nonhazardous and are not likely to present a risk to on-site receptors based on current site use.

The samples were placed on ice and transported under chain of custody protocols by courier on 8 April 2019 to Alpha Analytical Laboratory (MA Lab Certification M-MA) in Westborough, Massachusetts.

5. On-Shore Facilities Preliminary Design Recommendations

5.1 SOIL PARAMETERS

In their unimproved states, it is recommended that the following properties of subsurface materials be used for design purposes:

Table IV. On-Shore Soil Parameters

Stratum Total Unit Weight

(pcf)

Friction Angle (deg)

Cohesion (psf)

Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient

Active (Ka)

Passive (Kp)

Uncontrolled Fill 120 30 N/A 0.33 2.3

Estuarine Deposits 115 34 N/A 0.28 2.6

Glacial Till 120 38 N/A 0.24 3.2

Weathered Bedrock 125 38 N/A 0.24 3.2

Design water levels for Pier Landing Site structures will approximately match that of Coddington Cove.

Based on tidal fluctuations, where continuous sheeting is provided at the shoreline, typically a pressure differential is considered for unbalanced loading on the sheeting. We recommend using a hydrostatic pressure differential of 2 feet greater on the inboard side of the sheeting relative to the outboard side.

We are unaware of the Station’s resiliency policies, but design water levels should consider any such requirements as appropriate.

5.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The Pier Landing Site development is underlain by granular fill soils comprised of medium dense heterogeneous uncontrolled fills overlying loose suspected dredge spoils. Based on preliminary analysis, the use of shallow footings will result in settlements in excess of the project required limits. Therefore, support of new structures will require extending foundations into deeper native soils (Glacial Till, Weathered Bedrock, or Bedrock) which can be accomplished through deep foundations.

5.2.1 Deep Foundations

We understand that deep foundations are preferred for supporting the NOAA OMAO office/warehouse structure and that the required pile design loads are as follows: 140 kips axial compression, 20 kips axial tension, and 10 kips laterally. We assessed the lateral, axial compression, and uplift capacity of various sized steel pipe piles and H-piles. Based on the final structural loading and configuration provided by the Structural Engineers, we recommend that HP 12x53 steel H-piles are utilized, subject to the below discussion points:

The allowable axial compressive capacity of 140 kips will be gained through combination of end-bearing and friction within the till and a small contribution of friction in the overlying soils. Regardless of the penetration depth and friction gained, the compressive capacity will eventually be achieved as the pile is driven into denser and denser materials (glacial till and weathered bedrock). The actual penetration into the glacial till and/or weathered bedrock will likely vary widely, and we recommend pile points be used for all onshore structural piles. The piles should be driven to an ultimate pile capacity of 350 kips.

The tension capacity will be predominantly derived from skin friction within the till and to a much lesser extent in the overlying looser soils. Unfortunately, the depth to which pile will penetrate into the till cannot be reliably predicted in advance, and therefore the same is true for predicting the tension capacity that is achievable. Specifying a minimum tip in such a circumstance leads to construction issues when the pile cannot penetrate as deep as needed, and typically results in expensive change orders. Based on our review of information and from our local experience, it seems reasonable to assume that the piles may penetrate about five (5) feet into the glacial till, at which point we estimate an allowable axial tension capacity of 20 kips.

Tension resistance should be confirmed by dynamic pile testing. The piles should be driven to an ultimate uplift shaft resistance of 60 kips.

We understand that there will only a few column locations subject to uplift loads. At those columns consideration should be given to providing additional piles so the per pile uplift capacity could be reduced. This may avoid having to add piles at the time of construction. The capacity would be verified by dynamic testing (or static), and it is recommended to be done as part of an indicator piling program so that the contractor can procure the appropriate production pile lengths.

In order to achieve lateral capacity, a minimum pile tip embedment depth of 25 ft below the bottom of the pile cap is required. This assumes that there is no uplift on the piles.

For estimating purposes, we anticipate that piles (with fixed pile points) will be able to reliably penetrate approximately 40 ft from below the bottom of the pile caps.

The steel H-piles sections should be designed and manufactured in accordance with ASTM A36, A252, A283, A 572, A 588 or A 913 as appropriate A steel yield stress of 50 ksi for the piles is suggested and is commonly available. A pile tip such as Associate Pile & Fittings Hard-Bite products, or equivalent, should be used that will engage the rock and reduce damage to the flanges in difficult driving conditions.

The recommended axial and lateral pile capacity assumes a corrosion loss of 1/16 in.

Pile caps and grade beams should be embedded a minimum of 40 in. below adjacent ground surfaces that will be exposed to freezing temperatures. Interior pile caps and grade beams (within heated areas) shall be embedded a minimum of 24 in. bgs.

We recommend that concrete slabs and expansion/isolation joints do not rest directly on pile caps.

A minimum center-to-center spacing of 2.5 times the pile diameter is recommended. For H-piles, use 2.5 times the nominal flange width for the minimum center-to-center spacing. When the minimum spacing is maintained, the estimated lateral load and stiffness in the weak and strong axes, respectively, is presented in the table below. Results of lateral pile analyses for H-piles is presented in Appendix G.

Table V. H-Pile Lateral Load Stiffness Pile Section HP 12 X 53

Deflection (in.) Lateral Load in Strong Axis (kips)

Lateral Load in Weak Axis (kips)

0.25 6 4

0.5 11 7

1.0 17 10

In order to achieve the required capacity, piles would need to be driven until the pile tip is either within the Glacial Till, Weathered Bedrock, or on top of Bedrock. We have estimated that an impact piling hammer capable of transferring approximately 10 k-ft of energy into the pile while driving at a rate of approximately 10 blows per inch would be capable of achieving the desired ultimate capacity without damage to the piles. Results of preliminary wave equation analyses of H-piles are presented in Appendix H. Given the relatively short distance to the top of Bedrock, H-piles can likely be delivered to the site and driven in full length without the need for splicing. H-piles are advantageous due to their high durability when driving through possible obstructions in the fill and penetrating the Glacial Till into the top of Bedrock. H-piles could also create less potential disturbance and down-drag of contaminants, pending contaminant type.

Prior to driving piles, the piling contractor should be required to submit a predictive dynamic pile analysis (WEAP analysis) for each pile type, soil condition, and/or proposed piling hammer in order to determine the driving resistance required to achieve an ultimate capacity equal to or greater than the design capacity multiplied the safety factor. The WEAP analysis must show that the pile will not be overstressed at any point during driving. That analysis should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Only after acceptance of the analysis, should the contractor install piles. We recommend that up to five percent of all piles installed be dynamically tested utilizing a Pile Dynamic Analyzer (PDA) as manufactured by GRL, or equivalent. The PDA testing program should consist of piles during initial drive for each pile hammer utilized and after major maintenance of pile hammer. Data from all tests should be further analyzed utilizing CAPWAP, or equivalent. CAPWAP analyses should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. When tested as above, we recommend a safety factor of 2.25 and 3.0 for compression and tension, respectively applied to the ultimate load assuming that only dynamic load testing with signal matching will be performed on at least five percent of production piles.

5.2.2 Lightly Loaded Structures

We recommend the following criteria for design of foundations and slabs of lightly loaded and other miscellaneous auxiliary structures, and the subgrade on which they are supported:

For lightly loaded structures at the Pier Landing Site, we recommend a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf for the fill material. We also recommend that these lightly loaded structures bear on a minimum 1-foot-thick layer of compacted structural fill that is extended a minimum of 1 foot beyond the foundation/slab edges, prepared as described later in this report.

Using a 1-foot-thick layer of compacted structural fill, we recommend a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci for a one-foot square plate.

Size the least lateral dimension (width) of the footing to be 24 in. or greater.

Locate bottoms of footings at least 40 in. below lowest adjacent ground surface exposed to freezing, and a minimum 18 in. below the top of the adjacent ground floor slab at heated interior locations.

Design footings to bear below a reference line drawn upward and outward on a 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.5H:1V) slope from the bottom of adjacent utilities or other underground structures.

5.3 SEISMIC DESIGN

5.3.1 Pier Landing Site

Based on the test borings, the soils in the Pier Landing Site are not considered liquefaction susceptible.

Seismic soil design criteria in accordance with the Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) 3-301-01 are:

Site Class = D

Ss = 0.189g

S1 = 0.052g

5.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Foundation walls serving as retaining walls should be designed to support earth, surcharge (temporary and permanent), and seismic lateral loading as applicable in accordance with the following (where H is the height of soil in ft against the wall above the lowest floor level):

Static Earth:

– 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) equivalent fluid unit weight for restrained walls

– 45 pcf equivalent fluid unit weight for unrestrained walls

Hydrostatic:

– 62.4 pcf fluid unit weight

Seismic Earth:

– 5.5H psf at the top of the wall (distributed as an inverted triangle)

Surcharge:

– 0.5 times the vertical surcharge load (psf), uniformly distributed over the height of the wall starting at the elevation of the loading for restrained walls

– 0.3 times the vertical surcharge load (psf), uniformly distributed over the height of the wall starting at the elevation of the loading for unrestrained walls

These pressures assume level ground surface within a lateral distance H of the backside of walls, and that walls are backfilled with free-draining fill.

For seismic loading conditions, walls should be designed to resist static plus seismic earth pressures.

Temporary surcharge loading does not need to be considered for seismic design unless the surcharge will be applied over an extended time, such as permanent surcharge loading for the adjacent buildings, if applicable.

Foundation walls designed as retaining walls should be designed for a factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding and overturning under static loading conditions and 1.2 under seismic loading conditions.

5.5 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS

A coefficient of friction equal to 0.45 may be used to calculate ultimate sliding resistance between footing bottoms and underlying soil, bedrock, or lean concrete backfill. The surface of lean concrete fill should be roughened if frictional resistance is to be relied upon.

The allowable net (passive minus active) lateral resistance provided by backfill surrounding foundation elements can be estimated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 200 lbs per cu ft (pcf). This value assumes that granular backfill is systematically placed and compacted in lifts within 5 ft laterally against structure elements. The top of the passive zone should be 6 in. below the top of the adjacent soil or backfill surface. If the horizontal distance between nearby footings or walls is less than twice the height of the subject structural element, the passive pressure should be discounted proportionately to the distance (full pressure at twice the height away) to accommodate interaction of the elements.

5.6 LOWEST FLOOR SLAB

Design the lowest level floor slab as a slab-on-grade bearing on a 12-in. minimum thickness layer of 1-in.

sized washed crushed stone placed over the subgrade consisting of natural deposits observed to be stable under proof-compaction or Compacted Granular Fill following excavation and removal of unsuitable materials. Filter fabric (6 oz.