P22-0080_Geotechnical_Report_-_Eagle_Springs_Additions.pdf

MOBILE · MONTGOMERY · SUMMERDALE · DESTIN · PANAMA CITY · PENSACOLA · TALLAHASSEE · BATON ROUGE · MANDEVILLE · NEW ORLEANS · LONG BEACH

PANAMA CITY OFFICE

7500 McElvey Road, Ste. A

Panama City Beach, FL 32408

Tel: (850) 769-4773 Fax: (850) 872-9967 www.soearth.com

DRMP, Inc. August 1, 2022 1625 Summit Lake Dr, Suite 200 File No: P22-0080 Tallahassee, FL 32317 Attn: Mr. Ryan Culton, PE, Ryan Mitchell, PE

Subject: Geotechnical Services for the Proposed Building and Access Road at Eagle Springs

Golf Course in DeFuniak Springs, Florida

Dear Mr. Culton / Mr. Mitchell:

Southern Earth Sciences, Inc., has completed the geotechnical services for the proposed Building and Access Road Additions at the Eagle Springs Golf Course in DeFuniak Springs, Florida. Our services were performed in accordance with proposal XP21-10.22.21-2A (Revised), dated June 17, 2022. This report presents the results of our field and laboratory testing and includes recommendations with regard to the design and construction of the foundations and pavement as well as soil and groundwater conditions for stormwater management design.

FIELD INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES:

Prior to our field testing, test locations were marked, and Sunshine State One Call of Florida was contacted to locate underground utilities. On July 15 and 19, 2022, the field testing for the above referenced project was performed. For our geotechnical investigation, two (2) standard penetration test borings were performed, extending 20 feet below existing ground surface. Borings were performed with a track mounted drilling rig using the standard penetration technique. The top ten feet were sampled continuously and every five feet thereafter. The soil samples were placed in air-tight containers and delivered back to our laboratory for further testing. Additionally, two (2) borings were performed for the stormwater management areas and four (4) borings were performed for the access road areas.

Test locations were established in the field by using a 100-foot tape and estimating right angles with reference to existing landmarks; therefore, our test locations should be considered approximate. See the attached Figure for our approximate test locations.

DRMP, Inc.

Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES:

Laboratory investigative work consisted of physical examination of samples obtained during the soil test boring operation. Soil samples were visually classified in the laboratory in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Evaluation of these samples, in conjunction with penetration resistances, have been used to estimate soil characteristics.

Natural Moisture: Nine (9) samples were selected for determination of their natural moisture content. In the laboratory, each sample was weighed, dried, and its moisture content was calculated in general accordance with ASTM D2216.

Percent Passing 200 Mesh Sieve: Nine (9) samples were selected to determine their percent of materials, by dry weight, finer than the U.S. Number 200 Mesh Sieve. This test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D1140.

The laboratory test results are shown on the boring logs at the depth of the tested sample. Abbreviations of laboratory data are shown below:

NM = Natural Moisture Content (%) -200 = Percent Finer than the U.S. No. 200 Mesh Sieve

SITE AND SOIL CONDITIONS:

The development consists of a new building, access roadway, and stormwater management facility. The new additions are located east of the existing buildings and developed area. These are near portions of the golf course. The areas are mostly open grassed areas, however, a portion of the new roadway extends through the woodline. The new access road will connect to W Live Oak Avenue. Based upon the provided information existing elevation ranges from approximately +250 near Live Oak Ave sloping upward toward the site to elevation +261 near the proposed building area. The elevations of our test locations are approximate. The logs of our borings are attached.

Based upon the results of our borings, the soils encountered within their depths are predominantly sands. The sands vary in texture and color and range from slightly silty to slightly clayey, clayey and clean. The sands were typically loose to medium dense within the top eight feet then become medium dense to dense for the remaining extent of our borings. Based upon the results of our borings within the top 6-inches, we encountered various amounts of organic matter (roots, grasses, topsoil).

Groundwater levels were measured on the date of our field testing (July 15 and 19, 2022) and are indicated on the attached boring logs, which was approximately 14 to 15 feet in the borings performed for the building (B-1 and B-2). Groundwater was not encountered in the remaining test locations. Fluctuations in the water table depths will occur due to changes in gradient, seasonal precipitation/evapotranspiration differences, any neighboring site/drainage influences, and any perched conditions. Therefore, it is highly recommended that the groundwater levels be verified prior to any excavations on the site.

STRUCTURAL INFORMATION:

The proposed building will be a single story metal frame building, with a footprint area of approximately 9,000 square feet supported on a conventional shallow foundation system. At this time, finished floor elevation is unknown, however will likely be one foot above existing grade. At this time, column loads are not available, however, we understand they will be in the 40 to 50 kip range. We have assumed wall loads of 2 kips per lineal foot. We have also assumed the bottoms of footings will be two feet below the finished floor elevation, however, the column footings are typically oversized for uplift. If any of these assumptions are incorrect we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations, where warranted. Additionally, we understand the access roadway will be primarily for automobiles and light trucks. We anticipate finished grades will be one to two feet above existing grades. The stormwater management area will be a dry retention system, however, size and depths are in development currently.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS:

Our preliminary evaluation of foundation conditions has been based on structural information presented in this report and subsurface data obtained during our investigation. In evaluating soil borings, we have used correlations that were previously made between penetration resistances and foundation stabilities observed in soil conditions similar to those encountered at your site.

The sands in the top few feet are typically loose and should be compacted prior to foundation construction. At the time of this report, the adjacent structures are over 100 feet away from the building footprint, therefore, we anticipate a vibratory roller can be used for compaction. If vibrations are excessive, this will require the partial excavation of the top two feet to achieve proper compaction to a depth of three feet. As previously mentioned, we encountered various amounts of organics within the top 6 to 12-inches. These soils should be removed prior to adding fill soils, if necessary. These soils will likely be removed when cutting the building pad to grade.

Based upon the results of our field and laboratory testing, and with the compaction of the loose surficial sands, it is our opinion the proposed building may be supported on a conventionally designed shallow foundation system. We recommend footings be designed for an allowable soil contact pressure of 2000 psf, or less. Based upon the structural information indicated above, we have calculated settlements of less than one inch. We recommend column footings and continuous footings to have minimum widths of 36-inches and 18 inches, respectively, however footings should be sized appropriately. We also recommend a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches from the bottom of the footings to the outside finished grade.

Prior to foundation construction we anticipate the following site and soil preparations:

1. Clear and grub the surface soils within the building area and extending at least five (5) feet beyond the building perimeter to remove all topsoil, organics, and other deleterious materials. Based upon the results of our borings organics were encountered within the top 6 to 12-inches.

2. Once the site has been grubbed, prior to the addition of fill soils, compact the existing soils until a density of 95% of the Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) maximum dry density is achieved to a depth of three (3) feet below existing grade. Moisture conditioning of the soils including the addition of water may be required to achieve optimum moisture conditions for compaction. A vibratory roller should be used for compaction, however, should be used with caution near any existing or proposed structures. Compact the existing soils with a minimum of ten (10) passes in each of two perpendicular directions, with 20% overlap between passes. The vibratory roller shall have a minimum static weight of ten tons and shall deliver a minimum dynamic force of 20,000 pounds. We recommend that an Engineering Technician with our firm be present during compaction efforts. Compaction should continue until a density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density is achieved to a depth of three (3) feet below compacted grade. It may be necessary to partially excavate two feet to obtain proper compaction to this depth.

3. If necessary, Fill soils used to raise the building area to finished grade shall be sands to slightly silty sands containing no more than 12%, by dry weight, finer than the U.S. No.

200 mesh sieve. Fill should be placed in thin level lifts not to exceed twelve (12) inches, loose, and compacted to a density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density throughout its full depth. The soils cut from the pond location may be used as fill soils if they do not contain organics or any deleterious materials.

4. When footings are excavated, compact the soils at the bottom of footings until a density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density is achieved to a depth of twelve

(12) inches below the bottom of footings.

5. Laboratory moisture-density relationships (Proctors) and in-place density tests should be performed to verify compliance with the foregoing compaction recommendations.

We recommend one density test per 50 lineal feet of wall footing, one density test per column footing, and one density test per 2500 square feet of existing soils and for each foot of fill soils.

FIELD TESTING FOR STORMWATER DESIGN:

While the borings and double-ring infiltrometer test performed for this project are representative of subsurface soil conditions at their respective locations/depths and for their respective vertical reaches, local variations of the subsurface materials, vertical infiltration rates, and seasonal high groundwater levels are anticipated. Soil descriptions and vertical infiltration rates, and seasonal high groundwater levels represent subsurface conditions at the designated locations.

We understand the proposed stormwater pond will be a dry retention system on the northeast side of the proposed building. At this time, pond bottom and pond dimensions are unavailable, however, will likely be two to three feet below existing ground surface. The existing elevation of the proposed pond location ranges from approximately +259 to +260 Feet.

On the date of our field testing (July 15 and 19, 2022), the groundwater levels were measured and at the depths indicated on the attached logs which was approximately 14 to 15 feet below existing ground surface at test locations B-1 and B-2. The groundwater levels were not encountered within the depth of our stormwater borings, which extended ten feet below existing grade. At our test locations, seasonal high groundwater levels were determined by characteristics such as soil colors and soil mottles. Based upon the results of our borings, the estimated depth to seasonal high groundwater level is approximately 6.5 to 7.0 feet (± 0.5 feet) below existing ground surface. Please refer to the attached boring logs. During periods of above average rainfall, groundwater levels may rise above the seasonal high depths indicated above.

Vertical Infiltration Rates:

To estimate the vertical infiltration rates a double-ring infiltrometer test was performed at test locations SW-1 and SW-2 at a depth of two feet below the existing ground surface. The double ring infiltrometer test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D-3385 “Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using Double-Ring Infiltrometers”. The soils were presaturated prior to performing the test. The double ring infiltration test does not include the effect of long-term saturation and groundwater mounding.

The results for the double-ring infiltrometer test is graphically illustrated as accumulated intake (inches) versus time (min) and infiltration rate (in/hr) versus time (min) for the test period on the attached Graph. Based upon the results of our double-ring infiltrometer test, the unsaturated vertical infiltration rate at test location SW-1 is approximately 7.0 inches per hour and at test location SW-2 is approximately 10.5 inches per hour. We should note the infiltration rate is not factored and should be used with an appropriate factor of safety.

The vertical infiltration rate stated above should not be considered the drawdown rate of the pond or swales. The drawdown rate is a complex 3-dimensional phenomenon dependent upon numerous factors including pond/system geometry, vertical and horizontal infiltration rates, groundwater mounding, etc. The prediction of the drawdown rate is made more difficult by varying soil/groundwater conditions. The Northwest Florida Water Management District recommends a correlation factor between unsaturated vertical infiltration rates and horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 1.5.

PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS:

At this time, final pavement grades are not available, however, we anticipate them to be one to two feet above existing grade. Pavement recommendations are based upon a 15-year life. It should be noted that pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, including an overlay, might be required within the life of the pavement. For the light traffic areas, we have assumed automobiles and light trucks as the primary traffic for this site. If this assumption is incorrect, we should be notified to provide revisions to our pavement recommendations.

Fill soils, shall be sands to slightly silty sands (non-plastic) containing no more than 12%, by dry weight, finer than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve and shall be free of organics, organic laden sands, rubble, clay balls, and other deleterious materials. Fill soils shall be placed in thin level lifts, not to exceed 12-inches, and compacted to a density of 95% of the Modified Proctor (AASHTO T-180) maximum dry density throughout its full depth.

Subgrade Preparation: Clear and grub the surface soils within the pavement perimeter, extending at least five (5) feet beyond the curbline, to remove all topsoil, organic laden sands, and other deleterious materials. Based upon these materials were encountered within 6 to 12-inches. However, these soils may extend to greater depths than our borings indicate.

Prior to the addition of fill soils or once the soils have been excavated to the bottom of the base, compact the existing soils until a density of 95% of the Modified Proctor (AASHTO T-180) maximum dry density to a depth of twelve (12) inches. Fill soils described above should be placed to achieve final pavement grades. We recommend using a vibratory roller for compaction since there are no structures within 100 feet of the compaction area. The vibratory roller should have a minimum static weight of ten tons and shall deliver a minimum dynamic force of 20,000 pounds. We also recommend that the top twelve (12) inches of subgrade soils be stabilized to achieve a Limerock Bearing Ratio of 40.

Base: We recommend either a limerock or graded aggregate base with a minimum thickness of eight (8) inches. In light duty parking areas, a minimum of six (6) inches may be used.

Crushed concrete may be used if it meets the FDOT specifications requirements for a graded aggregate base.

Wearing Surface: We recommend a SP-12.5 asphaltic concrete wearing surface having a minimum thickness of two (2) inches. We also recommend the asphalt be compacted to a minimum density of 92% of the laboratory maximum density (Gmm)

All materials and methods of placement shall be in accordance with applicable sections of the Florida Department of Transportation’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction”, (Latest Edition).

TESTING:

The effectiveness of the foundation will depend significantly on the proper preparation of the soils, as indicated previously. Therefore, we recommend Southern Earth Sciences, Inc., be employed as the testing laboratory to perform construction testing services. If we are not employed to provide construction testing services, Southern Earth Sciences, Inc., cannot accept any responsibility for any conditions, which deviate from those described in this geotechnical report. Southern Earth Sciences, Inc., should be invited to the pre-construction meeting to discuss the project with all parties so that the project may be completed expeditiously and to the intent of our geotechnical report. We would be pleased to review the plans and specs as they relate to the soil preparation and provide a proposal for construction testing.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Professional judgments on design criteria are presented in this letter. These are based partly on our evaluations of technical information provided, partly on our understanding of the characteristics of the project being planned, and partly on our general experience with subsurface conditions in the area. We do not guarantee performance of the project in any respect, only that our judgments meet the standard of care of our profession.

This information is exclusively for the use and benefit of the addressee(s) identified on the first page of this report and is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or entity. The contents of this letter may not be quoted in whole or in part or distributed to any person or entity other than the addressee(s) hereof without, in each case, the advance written consent of the undersigned.

This report has been prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the foundation design. It is intended for use with regard to the specific project discussed herein, and any substantial changes in the buildings, loads, locations, or assumed (or reported) grades shall be brought to our attention immediately so that we may determine how such changes may effect our conclusions and recommendations.

We would appreciate the opportunity to review the plans and specifications for the foundation and floor construction to verify that our conclusions and recommendations are interpreted correctly. Our report does not address environmental issues which may be associated with the subject property.

While the borings performed for this project are representative of subsurface soil conditions at their respective locations and for their respective vertical reaches, local variations of the subsurface materials are anticipated and may be encountered. The boring logs and related information are based on the driller’s logs and visual examination of selected samples in the laboratory. Delineation between soil types shown on the boring logs is approximate, and soil descriptions represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions at the designated boring location on the particular date drilled.

SP-

SM

SC

SC

SC

Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Light Orange Clayey Fine SAND

Light Tan and Light Orange Clayey Fine SAND

Light Gray and Light Orange Clayey Fine SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING B-1 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/19/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Mud Rotary

IDI

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Measured at 15.0 Feet Below Existing Ground Surface

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

IN

G

P

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

D T

7/

/2

SP

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SC

SC

SC

SC

Light Brown and Tan Fine SAND

Tan and Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Tan and Light Tan Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Tan and Light Orange Slightly Clayey Fine SAND

Tan and Light Orange Clayey Fine

SAND

Light Gray and Light Orange Clayey Fine SAND

Light Orange Clayey Fine SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING B-2 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/19/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Mud Rotary

IDI

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Measured at 14.0 Feet Below Existing Ground Surface

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

6*

5*

9*

7*

7*

Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING 10+00 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/15/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Hand Auger

PC/HL

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Not Encountered

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

5*

5*

9*

5*

7*

Brown and Tan Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Tan and Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Light Orange and Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING 12+50 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/15/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Hand Auger

PC/HL

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Not Encountered

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

5*

5*

7*

5*

6*

Gray and Light Gray Slightly Silty Medium to Fine SAND

Tan and Brown Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING 15+00 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/15/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Hand Auger

PC/HL

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Not Encountered

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

5*

5*

8*

6*

6*

Tan and Gray Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Tan and Orange Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING 17+50 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/15/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Hand Auger

PC/HL

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Not Encountered

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SC

SC

SC

Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Light Tan and Light Orange Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Tan and Orange Clayey Fine SAND

Orange and Tan Clayey Fine SAND

Light Orange and Tan Clayey Fine

SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING SW-1 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/15/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater at 6.5 Feet (+/- 0.5 Feet) Below Existing Ground Surface

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Hand Auger

PC/HL

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Not Encountered

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Time (min)

Table 1 Double Ring Infiltrometer Test at SW-1

Accumlative Intake (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SP-

SM

SC

SC

Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND with Trace Organics Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Tan and Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Tan Slightly Silty Fine SAND

Light Tan and Tan Slightly Silty Fine

SAND

Tan and Orange Clayey Fine SAND

Tan and Light Orange Clayey Fine

SAND

LL

N Value (blows/ft)

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1LOG OF BORING SW-2 Eagle Springs Golf Course Additions

DeFuniak Springs, Florida

P22-0080

07/15/22

SPT Shelby Tube

Notes:

Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater at 7.0 Feet (+/- 0.5 Feet) Below Existing Ground Surface

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

METHOD:

DRILLER:

ENGR / GEOL:

SURFACE ELEVATION:

Hand Auger

PC/HL

LF

Unknown

Per Plan

Water Level

N A

T U

R A

L M

O

IS

T U

R E

P A

S S

IN

G

S

IE

V

E

)Soil Symbols Sampler Symbols and Field Test Data

Water Observations: Groundwater Not Encountered

Elevation / Depth

PL PI

ATTERBERG

LIMITS (%)

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

L

IM

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LOCATION

USCS

N - SPT Data (Blows/Ft) P - Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

Sample Key:

PL LLMC

20 40 60 80 Atterberg Limits Natural Moisture

Measured: Perched:Est. Seasonal High GWL:

LO

G

O F

B O

R

-0

0.

G

P J

S E

S P

C F

L.

G

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Time (min)

Table 2 Double Ring Infiltrometer Test at SW-2

Accumlative Intake (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.

Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you,

• not prepared for your project,

• not prepared for the specific site explored, or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.

Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;

or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

Important Information About Your

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

Geotechnical Engineering Report The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.

Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi-bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;

e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.

While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org

Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGER06045.0M

ASFE