GATE_200607B_MIFI_Geotech_Report_20151026.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

National Park Service Gateway National Recreation Area – Miller Field Staten Island, New York

Schnabel Reference 15615018.00

October 14, 2015

October 14, 2015

Graham H. Smith, PLA, ASLA, LEED ® AP DHM Design 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603

Subject: Project 15615018.00, Geotechnical Engineering Report NPS – Gateway National Recreation Area – Miller Field, Staten Island, New York

Dear Mr. Smith:

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (Schnabel) is pleased to submit our geotechnical engineering report for this project. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated June 11, 2015 (Revised June 19, 2015), as authorized by you on July 31, 2015. Note that the geotechnical report for the proposed facilities at Fort Wadsworth has been submitted under a separate cover.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.

William K. Petersen, PE Senior Associate

REA:WKP:hcf

October 14, 2015 Page i Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Project 15615018.00 ©2015 All Rights Reserved

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA – MILLER FIELD

STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

4.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing

4.2 Previous Explorations by Others

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.1 Soil Index Testing

5.2 Compaction and CBR Testing

6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Regional and Site Geology

6.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

6.3 Groundwater

6.4 Seismic Site Classification

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Spread Footings

7.2 Floor Slab

8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

9.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Foundations

9.2 Pavements

9.3 Engineering Services During Construction

10.0 LIMITATIONS

October 14, 2015 Page ii Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Figure 3: Geologic Map

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Summary of Infiltration Testing in Borings MFI-1 through MFI-4 Table 6.1: Summary of Water Level Readings Table 8.1: Recommended Pavement Sections

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Data

October 14, 2015 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering recommendations developed for the design and construction of the proposed maintenance and ranger facility, and new parking areas at Miller Field.

We are providing this executive summary solely for purposes of overview. Any party that relies on this report must read the full report. This executive summary omits several details, any one of which could be very important to the proper application of the report. Our executive summary is as follows:

The subsurface conditions at the site consist of approximately 15 ft of medium dense, silty sand fill material (Stratum A) overlying glacial outwash deposits consisting of fine to medium sand (Stratum B).

We recommend shallow foundations to support the new maintenance building. External spread footings should be embedded a minimum 3.5 ft below the final ground surface for frost protection, and designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Internal spread footings are to be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf.

We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 125 pci for design of the new floor slab. The entire floor slab footprint should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 4 inches below the bottom of slab, and backfilled with compacted coarse aggregate.

A Geotechnical Engineer familiar with the design intent of this project should perform an inspection of the footing and floor slab subgrades to confirm their suitability, and to identify whether overexcavation and replacement with compacted coarse aggregate are necessary in localized areas.

Specific recommendations for rigid and flexible pavements are presented in the report.

The Seismic Site Classification according to the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) is “D.”

Groundwater was encountered at depths of between 9 ft and 14.2 ft below the ground surface.

October 14, 2015 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The proposal from SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (Schnabel) dated June 19, 2015, defines the scope of services for this project. The scope of services includes the following:

Coordinate access to the site with designated NPS personnel.

Obtain necessary permits to conduct site investigations.

Employ a private utility-locating service to clear all boring locations using a combination of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic (EM) pipe locating techniques.

Drill eight (8) test borings to collect soil samples, define the stratigraphy, and obtain geotechnical information at the site; including: three (3) borings to depths of 30 ft at proposed structure locations, and five (5) borings to depths of 10 ft at proposed pavement/parking areas.

Drill four (4) shallow test borings to perform water infiltration testing, collect soil samples, and define stratigraphy.

Oversee the drilling of the test borings, prepare field boring logs, and collect soil samples.

Perform geotechnical laboratory testing to classify soil and develop site stratigraphy.

Prepare a geotechnical engineering report to present the results of our subsurface exploration and engineering recommendations for design and construction.

October 14, 2015 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The area currently occupied by Miller Field had been utilized as farmland before being converted into an airfield and coastal defense station immediately after World War I. This land is now owned by the National Park Service (NPS) and is part of the NPS – Gateway National Recreation Area. As shown by the Site Vicinity Map in Figure 1, the facility is located along the southeastern side of Staten Island, extending from the property of New Dorp High School at Hylan Boulevard to the shoreline of Raritan Bay.

The proposed improvements at Miller Field consist of new maintenance and ranger buildings that will be constructed to replace facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy at other locations. The proposed maintenance and ranger buildings will be reinforced masonry structures, having footprint areas of 93.3 ft x

32.7 ft and 36 ft x 22 ft, respectively. These structures will be located just to the south of the existing parking lot within a grass-covered area that is presently part of the athletic fields at Miller Field.

The project site is roughly level and at an approximate elevation of 13.5 ft above mean sea level. The ground surface slopes vary gently toward the southeast in the direction of the Raritan Bay. According to old maps of Staten Island, prior to the early 1900s there were large areas along the southeastern shoreline of the island that consisted of inland bays and marshes that were separated from Raritan Bay by barrier islands and spits. For the most part, these low-lying inland areas had been subsequently filled in to create useable land. Based on the original mapping and on our observations during our site investigation, we conclude that the Miller Field site had been raised and graded through the placement of variable depth fill materials during the early 1900s.

October 14, 2015 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

We performed a subsurface exploration and field testing program to identify the subsurface stratigraphy underlying the site and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials encountered. As discussed below, this program included test borings and infiltration testing.

Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings; classification criteria; drilling methods; and sampling protocols. We will retain soil samples up to 45 days beyond the issuance of this report, unless you request other disposition.

4.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing

4.1.1 Test Borings

Our drilling subcontractor, SANO Drilling, Inc. of Sewell, New Jersey, drilled eight (8) test borings, designated as MF-1 through MF-8, under our observation on September 8 and 9, 2015. The borings were drilled using a Mobile B-57 truck-mounted drill rig and hollow-stem augers. The approximate boring locations are indicated on the Boring Location Plan in Figure 2.

Borings MF-1 through MF-3 were located at proposed structure locations, with MF-1 and -2 at the site of the maintenance building, and MF-3 at the site of the ranger building. These three borings were all extended to depths of 30 ft, with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) performed continuously for the upper 10-ft depth and then at 5-ft intervals thereafter. As shown by Figure 2, Borings MF-4 through MF-8 were located within proposed driveway and parking areas. All of these borings were extended to a 10-ft depth with continuous SPT sampling for full depth.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we use corrected SPT N-values for the higher energy when using N-values in our analyses.

Prior to drilling the test borings, a utility check was performed by our subconsultant, Master Locators, Inc., using ground penetrating radar and electromagnetic pipe locating techniques. The only utility encountered was a suspected abandoned pipe, which is oriented roughly perpendicular to the existing parking lot and between borings MF-1 and MF-2.

4.1.2 Infiltration Testing

As part of the test boring program, four shallow borings, designated as MFI-1 through MFI-4, were drilled for the purpose of performing downhole infiltration testing at proposed basin locations. As shown by Figure 2, the basins are to be located to the southeast of the new buildings and parking area. In each of these borings, SPT sampling was performed continuously to a 6-ft depth. Upon completion of the sampling, the hollow stem auger was advanced to 5 ft to allow for the installation of a temporary 4-inch diameter PVC casing in each hole. Prior to installing the casing, approximately 4 inches of gravel was typically placed in the holes in order to stabilize the base of the casings.

October 14, 2015 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Infiltration testing was conducted on September 8 and 9, 2015, and was performed in general accordance with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) standards. Following installation of the temporary casings, a 24-hour presoak was initiated in each hole. Following the presoak, each PVC pipe was filled with water to a height of 24 inches above the bottom of hole (at a 5-ft depth), and then the reading of water levels was carried out at 15-minute intervals. Water level readings were performed using a wooden rod attached to a float device referenced to the top edge of the casing. Table 4.1 presents the results of the infiltration testing.

Table 4.1: Summary of Infiltration Testing in Borings MFI-1 through MFI-4

Boring

Depth (inches)* at Initial Reading

Depth (inches) at

15 min.

Reading

Depth (inches) at

30 min.

Reading

Depth (inches) at

45 min.

Reading

Depth (inches) at

60 min.

Reading

Infiltration Rate

(inch/hour)

MFI-1 24 21 20 19.5 19 5

MFI-2 24 20 19 18.5 16.5 7.5

MFI-3 24 21.75 19.75 19.5 18.75 5.25

MFI-4 24 23 22.75 22.5 21.5 2.5

*Depth refers to height of water column referenced to bottom of boring.

4.1.3 Bulk Samples

On September 17, 2015, two bulk soil samples were obtained by hand-digging immediately adjacent to the locations of Borings MF-5 and MF-8 for the purpose of laboratory testing at proposed pavement areas. Even though the samples were not taken during the drilling of the test borings, they have been assigned the same designation as the respective adjacent test boring for clarity. The samples were taken between depths of 1 ft to 1.5 ft by a Schnabel representative, and subsequently each hole was backfilled with hand-tamped fill material that was brought from our laboratory.

4.2 Previous Explorations by Others

No previous subsurface information for the project site was made available to us as part of this study.

October 14, 2015 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was performed at our West Chester laboratory on selected samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. The testing aided in the classification of materials encountered in the subsurface exploration and provided data for use in the development of geotechnical recommendations.

Moisture contents and index test results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A, and all of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

5.1 Soil Index Testing

We performed natural moisture content on 23 soil samples, gradation tests on 16 soil samples, and Atterberg limit testing on three (3) soil samples representing Strata A and B. The laboratory test results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A, and the laboratory summary and gradation curves are presented in Appendix B. In addition, the results are summarized for each stratum in Section 6.0.

5.2 Compaction and CBR Testing

We performed Standard Proctor compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing on bulk soil samples representing Stratum A in order to evaluate compaction characteristics and to provide soil parameters for pavement design. The test results are included in Appendix B and are summarized (for each stratum) in Section 6.0.

October 14, 2015 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Regional and Site Geology

A review of existing geologic data and the results of our subsurface exploration indicate that the project site is underlain by glacial outwash which was deposited over unconsolidated sediments of the Cretaceous-aged Raritan Formation. The location of the project site is shown by the Geologic Map in Figure 3.

During our exploration, we encountered fill materials extending to depths of about 15 ft below the existing ground surface overlying glacial outwash. These observations are consistent with the available geologic data and with old maps of Staten Island showing inland marsh areas in the general vicinity of the project site. Based on this information, it appears that the entire area surrounding Miller Field was likely filled in to develop the low-lying marsh land through the placement of fill materials having variable depth and composition.

6.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

We characterized the following generalized subsurface stratigraphy based on the exploration and laboratory test data included in the appendices.

Ground Cover

The ground cover at the site consists of both pavement (existing parking lot) and maintained grass fields, with small to medium trees adjacent to the parking area. Based on Boring MF-4, the parking lot pavement consists of a thin asphalt overlay on top of about 6 inches of Portland cement concrete.

Stratum A: Existing Fill

As mentioned, a layer of surficial fill material was observed extending to an approximate depth of roughly 15 ft below the existing ground surface. The fill is comprised primarily of reddish-brown, silty sand with gravel and rock fragments (SM). Locally, some samples of the fill material were also classified as either well-graded sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM), poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM), silty gravel with sand (GM), or clayey sand (SC). The variation in the appearance and color of rock fragments within the fill suggests that this material may have originated from excavations at multiple sources.

Corrected N-values with respect to hammer efficiency and overburden pressure range from 9 to 64 blows per foot (bpf), with an average of 28 bpf. These N-values are indicative of a loose to very dense condition throughout Stratum A.

Laboratory moisture content values for Stratum A range from 4.1% to 16.2%. Atterberg limit testing was performed on one sample from Borings MF-4, MF-5, and MFI-8. Based on the results, the fine-grained constituents of these samples exhibit low plasticity, with plasticity indices (PI) ranging from 7% to 12%.

We performed Standard Proctor Compaction tests and CBR tests on the two (2) shallow bulk samples taken from the locations of Borings MF-5 and MF-8. The samples consisted of silty sand with gravel, and classified as A-2-4 in accordance with AASHTO classification systems. The compaction test at MF-5

October 14, 2015 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

resulted in a maximum dry density of 120.5 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 11.9%. The compaction test at MF-8 resulted in a maximum dry density of 122.8 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 10.8%. We obtained laboratory CBR values of 8.9 and 15.3 for samples MF-5 and MF-8, respectively.

Stratum B: Glacial Outwash

Underlying the fill material of Stratum A, glacial outwash deposits consisting of reddish-brown sand with silt was encountered to depths of 30 ft in Borings MF-1, MF-2, and MF-3. Since all of the other borings were terminated at shallow depth within the fill material, outwash was not encountered in any of these borings. The corrected N-values in Stratum B vary from 8 to 30 bpf, with an average of 15 bpf.

Laboratory moisture content values for Stratum B range from 14.6% to 21.9% and the tested samples classified as poorly graded sand with silt (SP) by the United Soil Classification System (USCS).

6.3 Groundwater

We observed groundwater during drilling in the three structure borings at depths between 9.0 ft and 14.2 ft, corresponding to EL 4.5 ft to -0.7 ft. The test boring logs in Appendix A include groundwater observations obtained during our subsurface exploration.

The water level readings taken after completion of these borings are presented in Table 6.1. Note that all of the other shallow borings were dry upon completion.

Table 6.1: Summary of Water Level Readings

Boring Number Estimated Water Level

(EL)

MF-1 4.5

MF-2 -0.7

MF-3 2.5

The groundwater levels on the boring logs indicate our estimate of the hydrostatic water table at the time of our subsurface exploration. The final design should anticipate the fluctuation of the hydrostatic water table depending on variations in precipitation, surface runoff, flooding, and season.

We performed our exploration during an extended period of dry weather; therefore, groundwater levels observed during our subsurface investigation are considered to be possibly lower than normal. For the purpose of our analyses, we have assumed that it is possible for seasonal water levels to rise within a few feet of the ground surface.

6.4 Seismic Site Classification

We evaluated the Seismic Site Class for this project according to the International Building Code (IBC) Section 1615 (2012). Our analysis indicates Site Class D for this location. This Site Class was evaluated based on corrected measured SPT N-values, and extrapolated conditions below the termination depths of our test borings. Owing to the density and gradation of the fill materials, liquefaction potential for this site is low, in our opinion.

October 14, 2015 Page 9 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

We based our geotechnical engineering analysis and recommendations on the information developed from our subsurface exploration and soil laboratory testing, along with the project development plans, site plans, and structural loading furnished to our office. We recommend shallow spread footings for support of the proposed maintenance and ranger buildings based on our analyses. The following sections provide our detailed recommendations.

7.1 Spread Footings

We consider shallow spread footings to be suitable for support of both the proposed maintenance and ranger structures. Footings may be founded directly on silty sand (fill) of Stratum A, as long as deleterious unsuitable materials (i.e., organic soils, buried trash, etc.) are not encountered. We recommend that exterior spread footings be designed for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf, and that interior strip footings be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. These bearing pressures provide a minimum factor of safety against general bearing capacity failure of 3.0, and assume minimum widths of 1.33 ft for strip footings and 4 ft for square footings.

The above allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 33 percent for wind and seismic loads when used in conjunction with load combinations defined in IBC Section 1605.3.2, Alternative Basic Load Combinations for use with allowable stress design. This increase is not applicable for other allowable stress load combinations, strength design, or load and resistance factor design.

We recommend that the excavated subgrade of spread footings be inspected by a Geotechnical Engineer familiar with these recommendations. If unsuitable fill soils are encountered locally at the footing subgrade, these should be removed and replaced as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer on site. Unsuitable soils should be replaced with compacted aggregate, consisting of open graded crushed stone such as AASHTO No. 57 or No. 78 coarse aggregate.

Settlements of shallow foundations supported on suitable fill soils (or on properly placed compacted aggregate) are anticipated to be less than about ½ inch. Differential settlements between similarly loaded footings are not anticipated to exceed roughly half this value.

Exterior footings should be founded at least 3.5 ft below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior footings may be founded at nominal depths below the floor slabs. Interior footings subject to freezing should be founded at least 3.5 ft below slab grade.

7.2 Floor Slab

The entire floor slab footprints should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 4 inches below the bottom of slab elevation, and backfilled with compacted No. 57 coarse aggregate to act as a capillary moisture barrier. A vapor barrier shall be placed between the compacted No. 57 coarse aggregate and the slab to prevent moisture transmission through the slab. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 125 pci for design of floor slabs. The recommended modulus value is for a 1-ft square plate.

Some slab design software may consider different definitions of k for input. The Structural Engineer should contact our office if their software considers a different definition of k.

October 14, 2015 Page 10 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

We developed the recommended pavement sections according to the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) design methods for flexible and rigid pavements, with the former based on a design CBR value of 8.

The traffic volumes considered in our analysis consist of more than 25 percent trucks. The trucks are expected to be multi-axle and up to 40,000 pounds according to the information provided to us.

We recommend that the concrete pads be constructed using minimum 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) concrete. Reinforcement should consist of W5 welded wire mesh (6-inch by 6-inch) with a minimum of 0.10 sq inch reinforcement per foot. The recommended asphalt pavement and concrete pad designs are summarized in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Recommended Pavement Sections

Type Section Depth of Surface

(inches)

Concrete Pad - Type I Section

Reinforced Concrete Surface Course (4000 PSI) 6

Dense-Graded Aggregate Base Course 4

Driveways and Parking Areas - Type II Section

Asphalt Concrete Surface Course 2

Asphalt Concrete Base Course 4

Dense-Graded Aggregate Subbase Course 8

Our analysis considers that proper grading will be maintained to provide runoff from the pavement surface and beyond the limits of paved areas.

The Type I Section should be used only in automobile parking areas. The Type II Section should be used where truck traffic or high traffic volumes are anticipated. Expansion joints should be used to separate different pavement sections.

Concrete pads should be designed based on a modulus of subgrade reaction value, k, of 125 pci. The recommended modulus value is for a 1-ft square plate. Some pavement design software may consider different definitions of k for input. The Civil Engineer should contact our office if their software considers a different definition of k.

October 14, 2015 Page 11 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

9.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 Foundations

The Contractor should exercise care during excavation for spread footings and the floor slab to minimize disturbance at the foundation level. A Geotechnical Engineer from our firm should observe the footing and slab subgrades during construction to evaluate whether subgrade soils meet the requirements as recommended in this report. As necessary, the Contractor should carefully remove unsuitable soils from the bottom of the excavation at locations determined by the Geotechnical Engineer before placing concrete.

Footing subgrades needing undercut may be concreted at the elevation of undercut or backfilled to the original design subgrade elevation with compacted aggregate, as recommended in Section 7.1. The aggregate should extend at least 12-inches laterally beyond the footing in all directions. Concreting should take place on the same day as the excavation of footings.

Although the shallow fill soils at this site are generally free-draining, the Contractor should take provisions to prevent surface water from draining directly into footing excavations. Owing to the apparent depth of groundwater, we do not anticipate that dewatering of excavations is required.

9.2 Pavements

The Contractor should prepare pavement subgrades as described in Section 7.0 of this report. Final pavement subgrades should be proofrolled under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer immediately prior to placing subbase or base course aggregate to evaluate their suitability to support the pavement. Dense-graded aggregate placed as pavement base course should be compacted to at least 98 percent of maximum dry density according to ASTM D698, Standard Proctor. Aggregate base material should be placed in maximum 8-inch thick loose lifts.

Adequate control of surface drainage will be a very important consideration for the overall performance of this pavement design. The area surrounding pavements should be graded to direct surface water away from paved areas. Utility excavations within pavement areas should be backfilled with compacted structural fill.

9.3 Engineering Services During Construction

Subsurface conditions at the site may vary between the discrete locations observed at the time of our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until during construction.

To account for this variability, we highly recommend that our firm provide professional observation and testing of subsurface conditions revealed during construction as an extension of our engineering services.

These services will also help in evaluating the Contractor's conformance with the plans and specifications. Additionally, we should be retained to review the final construction documents to verify that the recommendations presented herein are reflected in the drawings and specifications.

October 14, 2015 Page 12 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

10.0 LIMITATIONS

We based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information revealed by our exploration. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.

It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We based our recommendations on information on the site and proposed construction as described in this report. Substantial changes in loads, locations, or grades should be brought to our attention so we can modify our recommendations as needed. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations contained in this report, and to submit our comments to you based on this review.

We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or other instrument of service.

October 14, 2015 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Figure 3: Geologic Map

³ arc gis

/9/

T his M ap w as C rea ted

In Sc hn ab el En gin ee rin gs

Si te

Vic ini ty Ma p A pp lica tio n

NOT TO SCALE

NPS - GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

PROJECT NO. 15615018.00

SITE VICINITY

MAP

FIGURE 1

MILLER FIELD - STATEN ISLAND, NY

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, © Schnabel Engineering, 2015. All Rights Reserved.#

NPS – GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION

AREA

MILLER FIELD – STATEN ISLAND, NY

PROJECT NO. 15615018.00

© Schnabel Engineering 2015 All Rights Reserved

BORING LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 2

BORING LOCATION (APPROX.)

MF-1

MF-2

MF-7

MF-3

MF-6 MFI-2

MFI-1

MFI-3

MFI-4

MF-5

MF-4

MF-8

NPS – GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION

AREA

MILLER FIELD – STATEN ISLAND, NY

PROJECT NO. 15615018.00

© Schnabel Engineering 2015 All Rights Reserved

GEOLOGIC MAP

FIGURE 3

PROJECT LOCATION

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA

Subsurface Exploration Procedures General Notes for Subsurface Exploration Logs Identification of Soil

Boring Logs: MF-1 through MF-8, and MFI-1 through MFI-4

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers

The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 2¼ or 3¼ inches. A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights. Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger by standard methods after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.

Standard Penetration Test Results

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is performed in the borings at regular depth intervals to collect soil samples. The numbers in the Sampling Data column of the boring logs represent SPT results. Each number represents the blows needed to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler 6 inches, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler is typically driven a total of 18 or 24 inches.

The first 6 inches are considered a seating interval. The total of the number of blows for the second and third 6-inch intervals is the SPT “N value.” The Standard Penetration Test is performed according to

ASTM D1586.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we correct SPT N values for the higher energy when using N values in our analyses.

Soil Classification Criteria

The group symbols on the logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbols (ASTM D2487) based on visual observation and limited laboratory testing of the samples. Criteria for visual identification of soil samples are included in this appendix. Some variation can be expected between samples visually classified and samples classified in the laboratory.

Infiltration Testing

Water infiltration testing was performed at borings MFI-1, MFI-2, MFI-3, and MFI-4 by inserting a 4-inch PVC pipe in each of these borings to a depth of 5 ft below ground surface. Each test location was presoaked for 24 hours to specification and measurements were taken every 15 minutes. Soil mixed with cement was used to backfill the holes upon completion.

Boring Locations and Elevations

Boring locations were staked by Schnabel personnel by taking measurements from site features.

Approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were estimated from site plans provided to our office. Locations and elevations should be considered no more accurate than the methods used to determine them.

GENERAL NOTES FOR

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS

1. Numbers in sampling data column next to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) symbols indicate blows required to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. sampling spoon 6 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N value is the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after a 6 inch seating interval. The Standard Penetration Test is performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586.

2. Visual classification of soil is in accordance with terminology set forth in “Identification of Soil.”

The ASTM D2487 group symbols (e.g., CL) shown in the classification column are based on visual observations.

3. Estimated water levels indicated on the logs are only estimates from available data and may vary with precipitation, porosity of the soil, site topography, and other factors.

4. Refusal at the surface of rock, boulder, or other obstruction is defined as an SPT resistance of 50 blows for 1 inch or less of penetration.

5. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled or excavated. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and water level conditions at the subsurface exploration location.

6. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types as obtained from the subsurface exploration. Some variation may also be expected vertically between samples taken. The soil profile, water level observations and penetration resistances presented on these logs have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

7. Key to symbols and abbreviations:

S-1, SPT Sample No., Standard Penetration Test 5+10+1 Number of blows in each 6-inch increment

LL Liquid Limit MC Moisture Content (percent) PL Plastic Limit %Passing#200 Percent by weight passing a No. 200 Sieve

IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL

I. DEFINITION OF SOIL GROUP NAMES (ASTM D2487) SYMBOL GROUP NAME

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels – More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Coarse, ¾” to 3” Fine, No. 4 to ¾”

Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines

GW WELL GRADED

GRAVEL

GP POORLY GRADED

GRAVEL

Gravels with fines More than 12% fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

Sands – 50% or more of coarse Fraction passes No. 4 sieve Coarse, No. 10 to No. 4 Medium, No. 40 to No. 10 Fine, No. 200 to No. 40

Clean Sands Less than 5% fines

SW WELL GRADED

SAND

SP POORLY GRADED

SAND

Sands with fines More than 12% fines

SM SILTY SAND

SC CLAYEY SAND

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit less than 50 Low to medium plasticity

Inorganic CL LEAN CLAY

ML SILT

Organic OL ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit 50 or more Medium to high plasticity

Inorganic CH FAT CLAY

MH ELASTIC SILT

Organic OH ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor PT PEAT

II. DEFINITION OF SOIL COMPONENT PROPORTIONS (ASTM D2487)

Examples

Adjective Form

GRAVELLY

SANDY

>30% to <50% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY

CLAYEY

SILTY

>12% to <50% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

SILTY SAND

“With” WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <30% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL

WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <50% coarse grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

WITH SILT

WITH CLAY

>5% to <12% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

III. GLOSSARY OF MISCELLANEOUS TERMS

SYMBOLS ............................ Unified Soil Classification Symbols are shown above as group symbols. A dual symbol “-“ indicates the soil belongs to two groups. A borderline symbol “/” indicates the soil belongs to two possible groups.

FILL ....................................... Man-made deposit containing soil, rock and often foreign matter.

PROBABLE FILL .................. Soils which contain no visually detected foreign matter but which are suspect with regard to origin.

DISINTEGRATED ROCK

(DR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 60 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an SPT of 100 blows for 2" or less penetration.

PARTIALLY WEATHERED

ROCK (PWR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 100 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an SPT of 100 blows for 2" or less penetration.

BOULDERS & COBBLES ..... Boulders are considered rounded pieces of rock larger than 12 inches, while cobbles range from 3 to 12-inch size.

LENSES ................................. 0 to ½-inch seam within a material in a test pit.

LAYERS ................................ ½ to 12-inch seam within a material in a test pit.

POCKET ................................ Discontinuous body within a material in a test pit.

MOISTURE CONDITIONS ..... Wet, moist or dry to indicate visual appearance of specimen.

COLOR .................................. Overall color, with modifiers such as light to dark or variation in coloration.

A

B

FILL

SP-SM

-1.5

-16.5

15.0

30.0 Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 10.3%

MC = 8.3%

% Passing #200 = 11.5

MC = 16.2%

MC = 9.2%

MC = 7.6%

MC = 15.6%

MC = 20.3%

% Passing #200 = 5.6

MC = 18.2%

MC = 14.6%

S-1, SS

1+3+8+9

REC=12", 50%

S-2, SS

8+8+7+7

REC=14", 58%

S-3, SS

10+9+8+10

REC=2", 8%

S-4, SS

7+7+8+8

REC=20", 83%

S-5, SS

10+9+8+8

REC=11", 46%

S-6, SS

7+6+7+7

REC=2", 8%

S-7, SS

2+3+3+3

REC=14", 58%

S-8, SS

3+4+3+4

REC=16", 67%

S-9, SS

3+3+3+4

REC=20", 83%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Change: WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL; at 2'-4'

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

fine to coarse grained sand; wet, reddish brown, probable GLACIAL OUTWASH material

Start at 14:13

Variable rock fragments

End at 14:27 on 9/8/2015 Start at 8:30 on 9/9/2015

Clean out boring

End at 9:25

Completion 9/9 9:25 AM 9.0' --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 30.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 14± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/8/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-1

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

4/

FILL

SP-SM

-1.5

-16.5

15.0

30.0 Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 8.3%

% Passing #200 = 13.0

MC = 21.9%

% Passing #200 = 5.0

S-1, SS

3+7+14+12

REC=14", 58%

S-2, SS

13+12+11+11

REC=16", 67%

S-3, SS

10+8+9+7

REC=19", 79%

S-4, SS

10+11+15+10

REC=18", 75%

S-5, SS

8+10+11+11

REC=14", 58%

S-6, SS

11+10+9+9

REC=15", 63%

S-7, SS

9+11+11+8

REC=0", 0%

S-8, SS

3+3+4+5

REC=14", 58%

S-9, SS

3+4+5+7

REC=16", 67%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

fine to coarse grained sand; wet, reddish brown, probable GLACIAL OUTWASH material

Start at 12:45

Variable rock fragments

End at 13:30

Completion 9/8 1:30 PM 14.2' --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 30.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 14± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/8/15 Finished: 9/8/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-2

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

FILL

SP-SM

-1.5

-16.5

15.0

30.0 Bottom of Boring at 30.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 4.3%

% Passing #200 = 26.6

MC = 7.0%

% Passing #200 = 11.7

S-1, SS

5+7+8+11

REC=18", 75%

S-2, SS

7+5+4+3

REC=0", 0%

S-3, SS

7+5+3+2

REC=12", 50%

S-4, SS

3+3+3+4

REC=21", 88%

S-5, SS

6+7+8+9

REC=24", 100%

S-6, SS

10+8+8+9

REC=12", 50%

S-7, SS

10+12+9+6

REC=19", 79%

S-8, SS

4+4+7+9

REC=23", 96%

S-9, SS

3+3+7+11

REC=23", 96%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT,

fine to coarse grained sand; wet, reddish brown, probable GLACIAL OUTWASH material

Start at 11:05

Variable rock fragments

End at 12:40

Completion 9/8 12:40 PM 11.0' --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 30.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 14± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/8/15 Finished: 9/8/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-3

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

FILL

13.5 13.0

3.8

0.3 0.8

10.0 Bottom of Boring at 10.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 8.0%

% Passing #200 = 20.5

AUGER

S-1, SS

13+10+10+7

REC=16", 67%

S-2, SS

16+11+8+6

REC=8", 33%

S-3, SS

7+8+11+9

REC=8", 33%

S-4, SS

12+8+8+8

REC=16", 67%

Asphalt

Concrete

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Start at 11:25

Variable rock fragments

End at 11:45

Completion 9/9 11:45 AM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 10.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 14± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/9/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-4

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

AFILL

3.310.0 Bottom of Boring at 10.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

LL = 32

PL = 24

MC = 8.8%

% Passing #200 = 32.5

MC = 8.6%

% Passing #200 = 14.8

S-1, SS

4+8+14+15

REC=12", 50%

S-2, SS

10+11+11+12

REC=14", 58%

S-3, SS

12+10+8+8

REC=14", 58%

S-4, SS

7+8+10+10

REC=16", 67%

S-5, SS

15+11+9+8

REC=16", 67%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Start at 11:08

Bulk sample collected from 1'-1.5'

End at 11:20

Completion 9/9 11:20 AM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 10.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 13± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/9/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-5

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

3.010.0 Bottom of Boring at 10.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 4.1%

% Passing #200 = 14.9

S-1, SS

5+6+6+6

REC=12", 50%

S-2, SS

9+8+9+9

REC=10", 42%

S-3, SS

7+9+9+10

REC=14", 58%

S-4, SS

11+6+8+8

REC=14", 58%

S-5, SS

13+10+12+9

REC=16", 67%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Change: SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND;

at 2'-4'

Start at 9:58

End at 10:16

Completion 9/9 10:16 AM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 10.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 13± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/9/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-6

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

4.010.0 Bottom of Boring at 10.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 4.7%

% Passing #200 = 47.9

S-1, SS

5+10+17+15

REC=12", 50%

S-2, SS

10+5+6+4

REC=12", 50%

S-3, SS

4+3+2+5

REC=14", 58%

S-4, SS

4+4+6+6

REC=15", 63%

S-5, SS

8+12+10+9

REC=14", 58%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Start at 9:38

End at 9:52

Completion 9/9 9:52 AM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 10.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 14± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/9/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-7

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

4.510.0 Bottom of Boring at 10.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cement upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

LL = 30

PL = 23

MC = 8.8%

% Passing #200 = 29.4

MC = 5.0%

% Passing #200 = 24.2

S-1, SS

6+11+10+18

REC=8", 33%

S-2, SS

13+17+13+9

REC=12", 50%

S-3, SS

8+7+7+11

REC=14", 58%

S-4, SS

6+3+2+3

REC=16", 67%

S-5, SS

2+2+2+2

REC=10", 42%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Start at 10:48

Bulk sample collected from 1'-1.5'

End at 11:03

Completion 9/9 11:03 AM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 10.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 15± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/9/15 Finished: 9/9/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MF-8

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

6.86.0 Bottom of Boring at 6.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

MC = 6.1%

% Passing #200 = 5.7

S-1, SS

4+5+7+9

REC=12", 50%

S-2, SS

7+8+9+9

REC=16", 67%

S-3, SS

7+3+2+2

REC=21", 88%

FILL, sampled as poorly graded sand with silt and gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Start at 9:25

Set casing to 5-ft

End at 9:42

Completion 9/8 9:42 AM Dry --- --- Schnabel Representative: Ryan Anstotz

Total Depth: 6.0 ft

Method: 4-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: Mobile B57

Ground Surface Elevation: 13± (ft)

Contractor: SANO Drilling, Inc.

Sewell, New Jersey

Contractor Foreman: Steve Parisano

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/8/15 Finished: 9/8/15

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Project:

STRA

TUM

NPS - Gateway National Recreation Area Miller Field Staten Island, New York

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 15615018.00 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

TESTS

Boring Number:

DATA

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

MFI-1

REMARKS

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

.G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

_0 7_

6.

G D

T

0/

7.36.0 Bottom of Boring at 6.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cuttings upon completion.

Elevations approximate.

S-1, SS

3+6+7+4

REC=16", 67%

S-2, SS

4+3+4+6

REC=15", 63%

S-3, SS

4+7+8+9

REC=17", 71%

FILL, sampled as silty sand with gravel, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, reddish brown

Start at 10:02

Contains 2" band of…