Salem_Road_Soils_Report.pdf

EVER-TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

FOR FOUR (4) EVERGLADES SITES

(EVERGLADES SAFARI, COOPERTOWN, GATOR PARK, AND

SALEM RADIO TOWER SITE)

GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT FOR

TAMIAMI CURE PLANS AT SALEM RADIO TOWERS SITE

PREPARED FOR: HDR ENGINEERING, INC.

PREPARED BY: GEOSOL, INC.

MAY 30, 2017

(REVISED JULY 21, 2017)

EVER 016547

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 GENERAL

1.2 PURPOSE

2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 GENERAL

3.2 FIELD TEST LOCATIONS

3.3 SITE CONDITIONS

3.4 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SIGNS

3.5 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

3.6 BULK SOIL SAMPLING

3.7 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 GENERAL

4.2 GRAIN-SIZE ANALYSIS

4.3 MOISTURE CONTENT

4.4 ORGANIC CONTENT

4.5 ATTERBERG LIMITS

4.6 LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO

5.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

5.2 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SOIL SURVEY

6.0 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 GENERAL

6.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES

8.0 FHWA REPORT CHECKLIST

9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

APPENDICES

Appendix “A” Sheets 1: Site Vicinity Map Sheet 2: USDA Soils Survey Map Table 1 – Summary of Test Boring Locations Sheet 3: Test Location Plan Sheet 4: Roadway Soil Profiles Sheet 5: Roadway Soils Survey Sheet

Appendix “B” Table 2 – Summary of Laboratory Test Results Natural Moisture Content Test Results Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve Test Results Grain Size Analysis Test Curves Organic Content Test Results Atterberg Limits Test Results LBR Test Results and Graphs

Appendix “C” FHWA Review Checklist

Geotechnical Data Report for Tamiami Cure Plans at Salem Radio Towers Site

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 General

The Tamiami Trail Modifications: Next Steps (TTMNS) project involves the improvement of U.S. Highway 41/State Road 90 also known as the Tamiami Trail, to alleviate the impediment to natural water flows into the Everglades caused by the construction of this roadway around 1928. The National Park Service (NPS) initiated a study that culminated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to assess alternatives for additional bridges along the Tamiami Trail between milepost 13.500 and 24.650 to allow additional hydraulic conveyance from the L-29 Canal (L-29C), along the north side of the road and into the Everglades National Park (ENP). Several alternatives were evaluated by NPS and reflected a Design High Water (DHW) elevation of 9.70 feet (NGVD, 1929) and a bridge Control Water Elevation (CWE) of 8.75 feet (NGVD, 1929).

Alternative 6E was selected as the preferred alternative and consists of approximately 5.4 miles of girder bridges separated into 4 sections with the remaining Tamiami Trail roadway raised to allow a DHW of 9.7 feet (NGVD, 1929) in L-29C, and adding down ramps with mainline acceleration and deceleration lanes at Everglades Safari and Coopertown.

Phase 1 of the TTMNS project involves the development of preliminary concept plans and documents for the

2.60 mile bridge and bridge approaches located between the Osceola Camp and the Airboat Association.

The goal of this phase of the project is to prepare a Development Concept Plan (DCP) and conceptual design program documents for providing a cure to minimize impacts resulting in the raising of water levels (the Cure Plan) to the following four (4) Everglades sites:

Site 1 - Gator Park Site 2 - Everglades Safari Park Site 3 - Coopertown Airboating Site 4 - Salem Radio Towers

The geotechnical scope of services for this phase of the project included the performance of field exploration and laboratory testing programs and preparation of this Geotechnical Data Report which will be used in the development of the preliminary concept plans and documents for Site 4 (i.e. Salem Radio Towers Site). Also, per our scope of services this data report does not contain any geotechnical analysis or recommendations.

GEOSOL previously prepared and submitted a Geotechnical Data Report for Tamiami Cure Plans at Three

(3) Everglades Sites Gator Park, Everglades Safari Park, and Coopertown Airboating dated May 27, 2016.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this geotechnical study was to investigate the subsurface conditions (i.e. subsoil, rock and groundwater conditions) at the above-referenced Salem Radio Towers site. The results of our field exploration and laboratory testing programs are included in this data report.

2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY

In preparation of this geotechnical data report we provided the following services:

1. Discussed with HDR the geotechnical scope of services.

2. Coordinated field activities with HDR.

3. Coordinated field activities and equipment access with owners of the site.

4. Obtained utility clearance notifications from Sunshine State One Call of Florida.

5. Performed Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) during performance of the field exploration program.

6. Performed Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings and hand auger borings for the proposed cure plan.

7. Collected “bulk” soil samples at Site 4 (i.e. Salem Radio Towers Site) in order to perform Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) and modified Proctor testing. The sampling procedure was performed in general accordance with ASTM, test designation D-75, titled "Sampling Aggregate".

8. Inspected the soil/rock samples recovered from the borings performed for visual classification and performed a limited number of laboratory classification testing on selected representative samples.

9. Prepared a geotechnical data report summarizing the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.1 General

For this phase of the project, and in accordance with our scope of services, a field exploration program was conducted consisting of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings at Site 4 (i.e. Salem Radio Towers Site).

Specifically, a total of six (6) SPT borings were performed to depths of 10 feet below existing grades.

Furthermore, “bulk” soil samples were collected from four (4) locations from near surface soils for performance of laboratory Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) and Proctor testing. Table 1 in Appendix “A” summarizes the information about test locations performed for this phase of the project. The field exploration program was performed on May 2, 2017.

A summary of the test locations are presented in Table 1 of Appendix “A” as well as in plan view on Sheet 3 in Appendix “A”. The Roadway Soil Profile sheet for the test borings performed by GEOSOL are shown on Sheet 4 in Appendix "A". These sheets present the boring location information, subsurface conditions and groundwater levels encountered at the time of drilling.

3.2 Field Test Locations

The test boring locations were marked in the field by representatives of GEOSOL utilizing the aerials provided by HDR, standard taping procedures and existing landmarks. The tests were performed as close as possible to the requested locations considering constraints such as existing utilities and equipment accessibility. The “as-drilled” test boring location was obtained by means of a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) device. The latitude and longitude coordinates obtained with the GPS device were converted to northing and easting using the software “Corpscon” developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

Ground surface elevation at the test boring locations have not been provided to us at this point. The approximate test locations are presented in Table 1 and in the Test Location Plans presented in Appendix “A”.

3.3 Site Conditions

The sites of the proposed improvements for this phase of the project are located along U.S. Highway 41/State Road 90 Corridor in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Specifically, Site 4 is the Salem Radio Towers site. This site consists of radio towers and a maintenance building. We have appended a site vicinity map and a USDA soil survey maps, which identify the location of the study area and soils survey of the area. These maps are presented in Sheets 1 and 2 of Appendix "A".

3.4 Traffic Control and Signs

Barricades, cones, and sign devices were continuously used as necessary and in general compliance with Roadway and Traffic Design Standards, Indexes 600 series.

3.5 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

The SPT borings performed were drilled utilizing a truck-mounted drill rig (Foremost-Mobile model B-53) equipped with a recently calibrated automatic hammer. The SPT boring procedure was conducted in general conformance with ASTM D-1586. After seating the sampler six (6) inches, the number of successive blows required to drive the sampler twelve (12) inches into the soil constitutes the test result commonly referred to as the "N" -value. The “N”-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties and is considered to be indicative of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils.

The N-value information for each SPT boring is presented in the Roadway Soil Profile sheet. The recovered split spoon samples from the SPT borings were visually classified in the field with representative portions of the samples placed in jars and transported to our office for review by a Geotechnical Engineer and verification of the field classification.

3.6 Bulk Soil Sampling

As part of the soils survey, "bulk" soil samples of the existing near surface subgrade materials were collected at the site for performance of Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) testing in the laboratory. Two buckets full of soil samples were collected at each of the four (4) sampling locations of the existing near surface soils. The sampling procedure was performed in general accordance with ASTM, test designation D-75, titled "Sampling Aggregate". The approximate "bulk" soil sample locations are presented in Table 1 and in the Test Location Plans in Appendix “A”.

3.7 Water Level Measurements

Water level depths were obtained during the SPT boring operations. They are noted on the Roadway Soil Profile sheets presented in Appendix “A”. In relatively pervious soils/rocks, such as sandy soils and porous limestone, the indicated depths are reasonably reliable groundwater levels at the time of field investigation.

Seasonal variations, temperature, land-use, and recent rainfall conditions may influence the depths of the groundwater.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 General

Representative soil and rock samples collected from the SPT borings performed were visually reviewed in the laboratory by a Geotechnical Engineer to confirm the field classifications. The soil samples were then classified using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Soil Classification System in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test designation D-3282, titled "Classification of Soils and Soils-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes". The soil classification was based on visual observations with the aids of limited confirmatory laboratory testing results, which consisted of grain-size analysis, percent passing the No. 200 sieve, Atterberg limits testing, natural moisture content and organic content. The tests were performed on selected samples believed to be representative of the materials encountered. Also Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) and modified Proctor testing was performed in the laboratory on “bulk” soils samples obtained from the near surface soils.

A summary of the laboratory test results for soil samples are provided in Table 2 of Appendix “B” of this report.

4.2 Grain-Size Analysis

The grain-size analyses were conducted in general accordance with the FDOT Test Designation FM1-T88 (ASTM Test Designation D-422, titled “Particle-Size Analysis of Soils”). The grain-size analysis test measures the grain-size distribution in the soil sample. The test also measures the percent passing the U.S.

#200 sieve, which is the amount of silt and clay-sized particles. A summary of these test results are presented in Table 2 of Appendix “B”. The grain-size analysis curves are presented in Appendix “B” of this report.

4.3 Moisture Content

Laboratory moisture content test consists of the determination of the percentage of moisture contents in selected samples in general accordance with FDOT Test Designation FM1-T265 {ASTM Test Designation D- 2216, titled “Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures”}. Briefly, the moisture content is determined by weighing a sample of the selected material and then drying it in a warm oven. Care is taken to use a gentle heat so as not to destroy any organics. The sample is removed from the oven and reweighed. The difference of the two weights is the amount of moisture removed from the sample. The weight of the moisture divided by the weight of the dry soil sample is the percentage by weight of moisture in the sample. The moisture content test results are presented in Appendix “B”.

4.4 Organic Content

Organic content test consists of the determination of the percentage of organic content in selected samples in general accordance with FDOT Test Designation FM1-T267 (ASTM Test Designation D-2974, titled "Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils"). Briefly, the organic content is determined by weighing a sample of the selected material and then burning off the organic material in a hot oven. The sample is removed from the oven and re-weighed. The difference of the two weights is the amount of organic material removed from the sample. The weight of the organic material divided by the weight of the dry soil sample is the percentage by weight of organic material in the sample. The organic content test results are presented in Appendix “B”.

4.5 Atterberg Limits

Atterberg limit tests (plastic and liquid) measure the moisture content at which a cohesive or clayey soil sample changes from a semi-solid to plastic state and from a plastic to a liquid state, respectively. The plasticity index is the difference between the liquid and plastic limits. The plasticity index is a rough indication of the tendency of a soil to absorb water on the particle surfaces. Some clayey soils have a strong affinity for water, and tend to swell when wetted and shrink when dried. The larger the plastic index, the greater the shrink-swell tendency. The test results are presented in Appendix “B”.

4.6 Limerock Bearing Ratio

Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) testing was performed in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation Standard FM 5-515 including a modified Proctor test. The LBR test is a measure of the bearing capacity of a soil. The test consists of measuring the load required to cause a standard circular plunger (penetration piston) with a diameter of 1.95 inches to penetrate a specimen at a specified rate. The LBR is the load in pounds per square inch units, required to force the plunger into the soil 0.1 inch expressed as a percentage of the load in psi units, required to force the same plunger the same depth into a standard sample of crushed limerock. The average penetration load for a typical crushed limerock found in Florida has been standardized to 800 psi. The LBR laboratory test results are summarized in Table No. 2 in Appendix "B" of this report.

Based on the results of laboratory LBR and modified proctor tests, the existing subgrade soils consist of sand and limerock fragments and exhibited LBR values ranging from 113 to 164, and optimum moisture content values ranging from 8 to 9%. Based on the 90th percentile method recommended by the FDOT Soils and Foundations Handbook (2016), a design LBR value of 114 was obtained for the existing subgrade materials.

The LBR and modified Proctor test results are presented in Appendix “B”.

5.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

The Miami area of southern Florida is underlain by an alternating sequence of cemented and uncemented Pleistocene sedimentary deposits (Pleistocene Epoch, deposited 10,000 to 2 million years before the present).

A near surface Miami Limestone is underlain by a wide variety of loose to dense quartz sands and coarse to fine-grained limestones and sandstones (Fort Thompson Formation). However, in many portions of Miami- Dade, surface sand deposits of the Pamlico Formation and man-made fill materials are encountered. The Pamlico Formation is composed of unfossiliferous, unconsolidated quartz fine sand. The man-made fill deposit generally consists of granular fill material. The thickness of these deposits is in the order of three (3) to five (5) feet. Generally, the Pamlico formation overlies the Miami Limestone Formation.

In the west part of the county, portions of the Everglades interfingers with the Pamlico Formation sands. The Everglades soils consist of peat, organic silt and calcareous silt marl. Generally, the Everglades soils have a thickness in the order of three (3) to seven (7) feet and overlie the Miami Limestone Formation.

The limestones and sandstones found in the Miami area are much softer than the hard rock formations found elsewhere in the U.S. Although the limestone in Miami can be very porous and have a sponge-like open interconnected network of vugs and small voids, large cavities prone to sinkhole activity are not generally found in the Miami area because the rock formations of South Florida are relatively young, as compared to those encountered in other parts of Florida.

5.2 Miami-Dade County Soil Survey

The publication titled Soil Survey of Miami-Dade County Area, Florida, published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), was reviewed for general near-surface soil information within the general project vicinity. This information indicates that there are three (3) primary mapping units for this project. The map soil units encountered are as follows:

Lauderhill muck, depressional (3) Dania muck, depressional (14) Water (99)

A reproduction of the USDA maps for the project area is illustrated on Sheet 2 in Appendix “A” of this report.

6.0 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 General

The subsurface conditions disclosed by the borings are generally consistent with the previously described regional geology. The stratification is based on visual examination of the recovered soil/rock samples, laboratory testing and interpretation of the field boring logs by a Geotechnical Engineer. The boring stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types of significantly different engineering properties; however, the actual transition may be gradual. In some cases, small variations in properties not considered pertinent to our engineering evaluation may have been abbreviated for clarity. The borings present the subsurface conditions at the particular boring location and slight variations do occur among the borings. The Roadway Soil Profiles presented in Appendix "A” provide the conditions at the particular test locations.

Presented in Appendix "A" is the site vicinity map, USDA soil survey map, boring location information, Roadway Soil Profiles, and Roadway Soils Survey Sheet along with the soil legend and other pertinent information such as measured groundwater table levels. A detailed description of the subsurface materials encountered at the project site is presented below. Specifically, we have identified six (6) strata in the subsoils (besides the existing roadway pavement and topsoil) along the limits of the project. They are identified in Table “A” below and described on the Roadway Soil Profiles and Roadway Soils Survey Sheets in Appendix "A".

TABLE “A” – SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY

STRATUM

NO. GENERAL MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AASHTO

GROUP

0 Asphalt Pavement N/A

0A Dark Brown Organic Silty Fine SAND with Grass (TOPSOIL) A-8

1 Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL) (Not Encountered at the Salem Radio Towers Site) A-2-4

2 Brown Slightly Silty to Silty Fine to Coarse SAND and Limerock Fragments (FILL) A-1-a

3 Brown Silty Fine to Coarse SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL) A-1-b

4 Dark Brown Organic Sandy SILT and/or Organic Silty Fine SAND A-8

5 Dark Brown Organic Stained Fine SAND (FILL) (Not Encountered at the Salem Radio Towers Site) A-3

6 Brown Sandy LIMESTONE N/A

6.2 Groundwater Conditions

The groundwater table was measured at each test location immediately following completion of drilling operations performed May 2, 2017. The "static" groundwater table in each test location was measured after a short stabilization period. The groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 2.6 to 4.9 feet below existing grades. The variation of groundwater level is likely due to the difference in the ground elevation at the test locations and recent rainfall. Given the granular nature of the soils and type of limestone formation, we consider the recorded levels to stabilize in a short time and to be reasonably reliable. The Roadway Soil Profile sheet presented in Appendix “A” show the groundwater table information at each boring location.

In relatively pervious soil/rock, such as granular soils and porous limestone, the indicated depths are reasonably reliable groundwater levels. Fluctuation in the observed groundwater levels should be expected due to rainfall variation, construction activity and other factors.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES

The geotechnical data presented in this report was collected to provide general information regarding the subsurface conditions at the planned roadway and drainage improvements previously described for use in the preparation of the preliminary concept plans and documents. The information contained in this report is for information only and the Contractor and Engineer will be responsible for interpretation of all data contained in this document. The Contractor and Engineer shall evaluate the data contained in this report and evaluate the applicability to the proposed improvements. The performance of a supplemental field exploration program will be necessary to perform final design. The supplemental field exploration program shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines established in the FDOT Soils and Foundations Handbook (2016).

8.0 FHWA REPORT CHECKLIST

In conformance with FDOT and FHWA guidelines, a report "Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Final Plans and Specifications" is required when preparing geotechnical reports. The FHWA checklist for this report is enclosed in Appendix "C".

9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and reported in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based on these data. No other warranties are expressed or implied.

The scope of the investigation was intended to obtain information regarding the subsurface conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway and drainage improvements.

The scope of our services does not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in this report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client.

APPENDIX “A”

Sheets 1: Site Vicinity Map

Sheet 2: USDA Soils Survey Map Table 1 – Summary of Test Boring Locations

Sheet 3: Test Location Plan Sheet 4: Roadway Soil Profiles

Sheet 5: Roadway Soils Survey Sheet

TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GEOSOL PROJECT No. 216110

BORING /

TEST

No.

SRT-1/LBR-13 25.74757 -80.54643 514201 805460 N/A

SRT-2 25.74925 -80.54680 514811 805336 N/A

SRT-3/LBR-14 25.75141 -80.54733 515596 805157 N/A

SRT-4 25.75338 -80.54696 516313 805277 N/A

SRT-5/LBR-15 25.75680 -80.54716 517554 805209 N/A

SRT-6/LBR-16 25.76078 -80.54717 519003 805199 N/A

NORTHINGLONGITUDELATITUDE EASTING

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF TEST LOCATIONS

GROUND SURFACE

ELEVATION

(FEET)

APPROXIMATE TEST LOCATION (FEET)

216110 Table 1 - Summary of Test Locations 1 of 1

SP

EC

IF

IC

P U

R

PO

SE

E

LE

VA

TI

O

N S

U R

VE

Y of T

R A

C T

0-w ith in

EA

ST

E

VE

R G

LA

D

ES

E

XP

A

N

SI

O N

A R

EA

, E

VE

R

G

LA

D

ES

N A

TI

O

N A

L

PA

R K

TO

W

N S

H

IP

S O

U

TH

, R A

N G

E

E

A S

T M

IA

M

I-D A

D E

C O

U N

TY

, F

LO

R

ID

A

SPECIFIC PURPOSE ELEVATION SURVEY

of TRACT 130-02 within

EAST EVERGLADES EXPANSION AREA, EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK

TOWNSHIP 54 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Eddie Oval

Eddie Oval

Eddie Oval

Eddie Oval

Eddie Oval

Eddie Oval

Eddie Text Box

Eddie Text Box

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Text Box

SRT-5/LBR-15

Eddie Text Box

SRT-2

Eddie Text Box

SRT-1/LBR-13

Eddie Text Box

LEGEND:

SRT-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION AT SALEM RADIO TOWERS SITE

LBR-13 APPROXIMATE LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO (LBR) SAMPLING LOCATION

Eddie Oval

Eddie Oval

Eddie Text Box

SRT-3/LBR-14

Eddie Text Box

SRT-4

Eddie Text Box

SRT-6/LBR-16

APPENDIX “B”

Table 2 – Summary of Laboratory Test Results Natural Moisture Content Test Results

Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve Test Results Grain Size Analysis Test Curves

Organic Content Test Results Atterberg Limits Test Results LBR Test Results and Graphs

Standard Optimum Natural BORING SAMPLE STRATUM AASHTO Proctor Mositure Organic Moisture NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER Group Density Content Liquid Plastic Plasticity Content Content

1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200 (pcf) (%) Limit Limit Index (%) (%) SRT-1 2 2 A-1-a 2.0 - 4.0 89 81 65 53 41 27 21 15 11 - - - - 13 LBR-13 1 2 A-1-a 0.2 - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - 126 9 117 - - LBR-14 1 2 A-1-a 0.2 - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - 126 8 113 - - LBR-15 1 2 A-1-a 0.2 - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - 126 9 154 - - SRT-4 1 3 A-1-b 0.0 - 2.0 100 100 78 67 61 47 32 26 24 - - - - 26 LBR-16 1 3 A-1-b 0.2 - 2.0 - - - - - - - - - 126 9 164 - -

SRT-1 3 4 A-8 4.0 - 4.5 - - - - - - - - 27 - - - 40 229

SRT-4 3 4 A-8 4.0 - 6.0 - - - - - - - - 26 - - - 69 318

SRT-5 2 4 A-8 2.0 - 4.0 - - - - - - - - 27 - - - 24 N.P. N.P. 47 120

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

Miami-Dade County, Florida GEOSOL Project No.: 216110

Sample Sieve Analysis LIMEROCK

BEARING

RATIO (LBR)

Atterberg Limits Depth (Percent Passing) (%)

(FEET)

MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS (ASTM D-2216)

PROJECT NAME: TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

LOCATION: Miami-Dade County, Florida PROJECT No.: 216110

Boring No. SRT-1 SRT-1 SRT-4 SRT-4 SRT-5 Sample No. 2 3 3 1 2 Sample Depth (Feet) 2-4 4-4.5 4-6 0-2 2-4 Tare No. 239.0 18.0 C-6 232.0 12.0 Tare plus wet soil (grams) 532.5 311.5 277.0 296.5 237.0 Tare plus dry soil (grams) 473.0 100.0 72.0 237.0 112.0 Water Ww (grams) 59.5 211.5 205.0 59.5 125.0 Tare (grams) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Dry soil Ws (grams) 465.5 92.5 64.5 229.5 104.5 Water Content w (%) 12.8 228.6 317.8 25.9 119.6

MATERIAL PASSING THE # 200 SIEVE TEST RESULTS (AASHTO T-11)

LOCATION: Miami-Dade County, Florida PROJECT No.: 216110

Boring No. SRT-1 SRT-4 SRT-5 SRT-1 SRT-4 Sample No. 2 1 2 3 3 Sample Depth (Feet) 2-4 0-2 2-4 4-4.5 4-6 Original Dry Weight of Soil (grams) 465.5 229.5 89.5 77.5 50.0 Weight of Soil After Washing (grams) 416 174.5 65 56.5 37.0 Weight of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (grams) 49.5 55.0 24.5 21.0 13.0 Percent of Soil Passing 200 Sieve (%) 10.6 24.0 27.4 27.1 26.0

GRAIN SIZE DATA SHEET

DATE: 5/1/2017

PROJECT NAME: TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

GEOSOL PROJECT No. 216110 GENERAL LOCATION: Miami-Dade County, Florida

Boring No. SRT-1 Sample No. 2 Depth (feet) 2-4

SOIL DESCRIPTION:

Tare # Dry Soil Wt.

239 465.5

Sieve Size Sieve Sizes Cumulative Wt. Retained % RETAINED % PASSING

% PASSING

TOTAL

SAMPLE

WEIGHT RETAINED

(Grams)

75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0 50 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 25 25mm 1" 50.0 10.7 89.3 89.3 50.0 19 19mm 3/4" 88.0 18.9 81.1 81.1 38.0

9.5 9.5mm 3/8" 163.5 35.1 64.9 64.9 75.5

4.75 4.75mm #4 220.0 47.3 52.7 52.7 56.5

2.36 2 mm #10 276.0 59.3 40.7 40.7 56.0

0.6 425um #40 340.0 73.0 27.0 27.0 64.0

0.3 250um #60 368.0 79.1 20.9 20.9 28.0

0.15 150um #100 397.0 85.3 14.7 14.7 29.0

0.075 75um #200 416.0 89.4 10.6 10.6 19.0

PAN - 465.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 49.5

NOTES: Percent passing the #200 sieve was determined by the wash method.

ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes Coarse Sand < #4 and > #10 Cu = D60 / D10 Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40 Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60)

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200 1000 um = 1 mm tested by: J. Gonzalez computed by: S. Zhang checked by: O. Riccobono

Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine to Coarse SAND and Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-1-a)

PROJECT NAME: TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

GEOSOL PROJECT No. 216110 GENERAL LOCATION: Miami-Dade County, Florida

ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes Coarse Sand < #4 and > #10 Cu = D60 / D10

Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40 Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60)

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200

BORING # SRT-1 SAMPLE # 2 Depth (feet) 2-4

SOIL DESCRIPTION:

Natural Moisture Content: 12.8%

Light Brown Slightly Silty Fine to Coarse SAND and Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-1-a)

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

R

C

EN

T

PA

SS

IN

G

GRAIN SIZE in millimeters

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

R

C

EN

T

PA

SS

PROJECT NAME: TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

GEOSOL PROJECT No. 216110 GENERAL LOCATION: Miami-Dade County, Florida

Boring No. SRT-4 Sample No. 1 Depth (feet) 0-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION:

Tare # Dry Soil Wt.

232 229.5

Sieve Size Sieve Sizes Cumulative Wt. Retained % RETAINED % PASSING

% PASSING

TOTAL

SAMPLE

WEIGHT RETAINED

(Grams)

75 75mm 3" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0 50 50mm 2" 0.0 0.0 100 100 0.0

37.5 37.5mm 1.5" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 25 25mm 1" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 19 19mm 3/4" 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

9.5 9.5mm 3/8" 50.0 21.8 78.2 78.2 50.0

4.75 4.75mm #4 75.5 32.9 67.1 67.1 25.5

2.36 2 mm #10 89.0 38.8 61.2 61.2 13.5

0.6 425um #40 121.0 52.7 47.3 47.3 32.0

0.3 250um #60 157.0 68.4 31.6 31.6 36.0

0.15 150um #100 170.5 74.3 25.7 25.7 13.5

0.075 75um #200 174.5 76.0 24.0 24.0 4.0

PAN - 229.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 55.0

NOTES: Percent passing the #200 sieve was determined by the wash method.

ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes Coarse Sand < #4 and > #10 Cu = D60 / D10 Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40 Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60)

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200 1000 um = 1 mm tested by: J. Gonzalez computed by: S. Zhang checked by: O. Riccobono

Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-1-b)

PROJECT NAME: TAMIAMI CURE PLANS

GEOSOL PROJECT No. 216110 GENERAL LOCATION: Miami-Dade County, Florida

ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes Coarse Sand < #4 and > #10 Cu = D60 / D10

Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40 Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60)

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200

BORING # SRT-4 SAMPLE # 1 Depth (feet) 0-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION:

Natural Moisture Content: 25.9%

Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND with Some Limerock Fragments (FILL; A-1-b)

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

R

C

EN

T

PA

SS

3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

0.0010.010.1110100

PE

R

C

EN

T

PA

SS

ORGANIC CONTENT TEST RESULTS (ASTM D-2974)

LOCATION: Miami-Dade County, Florida PROJECT No.: 216110

Boring No. SRT-1 SRT-4 SRT-5 Sample No. 3 3 2 Sample Depth (Feet) 4-4.5 4-6 2-4 Crucible No. A B C Weight of Crucible and Oven-Dried Sample (grams) 55 56.5 60 Weight of Crucible and Sample after Ignition (grams) 49 46.5 53 Weight of Crucible (grams) 40 42 45 Weight of Oven-Dried Soil (grams) 15 14.5 15 Weight Loss due to Ignition (grams) 6 10 7 Percent Organics (%) 40 69 47

LOCATION: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

PROJECT No.: 216110

Boring No. SRT-5 Sample No. 2 Sample Depth (Feet) 2-4

LIQUID LIMIT DETERMENATION

Run No. 1 2 3 Tare No. 1 2 3 Tare plus wet soil (grams) 27.0 30.0 29.0 Tare plus dry soil (grams) 24.5 28.5 28.0 Water Ww (grams) 2.5 1.5 1.0 Tare (grams) 20.0 20.0 20.0 Dry soil Ws (grams) 4.5 8.5 8.0 Water Content w (%) 55.6 17.6 12.5 Number of Blows 16.0 26.0 30.0

LL = 36%

PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Tare No. LL = 24% Tare plus wet soil (grams) PL = N.P.

Tare plus dry soil (grams) Plasticity Index (LL-PL) = N.P.

Water Ww (grams) Tare (grams) AASHTO Classification: A-8 Dry soil Ws (grams) USCS Classification: OL Water Content w (%) N.P. = Non-Plastic

PL

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

NP

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1.0 10.0 100.0

W

AT

ER

C

O N

TE

N

T, w

NUMBER OF BLOWS

25.0

Client:

Project: SAMPLE NO:

Address: DATE TESTED:

TEST RESULTS MATERIALS DESCRIPTION

Light tan SAND with silt and limestone fragments

Optiumum

Moisture: % REMARKS

B-1

Maximum

Dry Density: lb/ft

Maximum

LBR Value:

Tested By: J.Delgado

14486 Commerce Way, Miami Lakes, FL 33016

Telephone: (305)666-3563 Facsimile: (305) 666-3069

OFFICES NATIONWIDE

Gator Park, Miami, FL

5/11/17

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park

PROJECT No:

LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

126.1

15191.00

Geotechnical Engineering | Foundation Engineering | Construction Materials Testing | Soil Borings | Monitoring Wells

8.5

Geosol, Inc.

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

C o rr e c te d L

B R

V a lu e

% Moisture

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Rectangle

Tested By: J. Delgado

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-1 Sample Number: 13

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

NV NP 10.4237 3.8541 2.3565 0.5058 0.1493 0.0785 0.85 49.13

Light tan SAND with silt and Limestone fragments SP-SM A-1-a

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 1.2 34.6 17.2 19.0 18.3 9.7 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

REPORT OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park Sample tested: 5-11-17

#200 wash sieve performed in accordance with ASTM C117-13

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Report of Laboratory Compaction Test D ry d e n s it y p c f

Water content, %

3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12

8.5%, 126.1 pcf

Test specification: AASHTO T 180 Method D Modified

SP-SM A-1-a NV NP 1.2 9.7

Light tan SAND with silt and Limestone fragments

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

Sample tested: 5-9-17

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-1 Sample Number: 13

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

Maximum dry density = 126.1 pcf

Optimum moisture = 8.5 %

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Tan LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS with sand and silt

Optiumum

Moisture: % REMARKS

B-3

Maximum

Dry Density: lb/ft

OFFICES NATIONWIDE

Gator Park, Miami, FL

5/12/17

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park

PROJECT No:

LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

125.8

15191.00

Geotechnical Engineering | Foundation Engineering | Construction Materials Testing | Soil Borings | Monitoring Wells

7.9

Geosol, Inc.

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

C o rr e c te d L

B R

V a

Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-3 Sample Number: 14

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

NV NP 14.7761 7.2841 4.5699 1.2017 0.1937 0.0987 2.01 73.80

Tan LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS with sand and silt GW-GM A-1-a

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 1.2 48.0 15.2 13.3 13.9 8.4 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

REPORT OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park Sample tested: 5-11-17

#200 wash sieve performed in accordance with ASTM C117-13

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

D ry d e n s it y p c f

Water content, %

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

7.9%, 125.8 pcf

Test specification: AASHTO T 180 Method D Modified

GW-GM A-1-a NV NP 1.2 8.4

Tan LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS with sand and silt

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

Sample tested: 5-10-17

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-3 Sample Number: 14

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

Maximum dry density = 125.8 pcf

Optimum moisture = 7.9 %

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Tan LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS with sand and silt

Optiumum

Moisture: % REMARKS

B-5

Maximum

Dry Density: lb/ft

OFFICES NATIONWIDE

Gator Park, Miami, FL

5/11/17

LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

126.1

15191.00

Geotechnical Engineering | Foundation Engineering | Construction Materials Testing | Soil Borings | Monitoring Wells

8.6

Geosol, Inc.

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130.0

140.0

150.0

160.0

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

C o rr e c te d L

B R

V a

Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Tested By: P.J. Andrews

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-5 Sample Number: 15

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

NV NP 24.9875 13.1948 8.1534 1.3831 0.2119 0.1167 1.24 113.08

Tan LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS with sand and silt GW-GM A-1-a

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 33.5 23.6 9.9 11.2 14.4 7.4 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

REPORT OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park Sample tested: 5-9-17

#200 wash sieve performed in accordance with ASTM C117-13

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

D ry d e n s it y p c f

Water content, %

4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5

8.4%, 126.1 pcf

Test specification: AASHTO T 180 Method D Modified

GW-GM A-1-a NV NP 33.5 7.4

Tan LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS with sand and silt

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

Sample tested: 5-9-17

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-5 Sample Number: 15

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

Maximum dry density = 126.1 pcf

Optimum moisture = 8.4 %

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Light brown SAND with silt and limestone fragments, traces of fiberous organics

Optiumum

Moisture: % REMARKS

B-6

Maximum

Dry Density: lb/ft

OFFICES NATIONWIDE

Gator Park, Miami, FL

5/12/17

LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

126.3

15191.00

Geotechnical Engineering | Foundation Engineering | Construction Materials Testing | Soil Borings | Monitoring Wells

9.1

Geosol, Inc.

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

C o rr e c te d L

B R

V a

Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-6 Sample Number: 16

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

NV NP 16.9176 5.0270 1.9546 0.2502 0.1011

Light brown SAND with silt and limestone fragments, traces of fiberous organics SP-SM A-1-b

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% Cobbles Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 12.1 28.4 9.3 11.3 27.6 11.3 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

REPORT OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS TEST

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park Sample tested: 5-10-17

#200 wash sieve performed in accordance with ASTM C117-13

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

D ry d e n s it y p c f

Water content, %

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

9.1%, 126.3 pcf

Test specification: AASHTO T 180 Method D Modified

SP-SM A-1-b NV NP 12.1 11.3

Light brown SAND with silt and limestone fragments, traces of fiberous organics

15191.00 Geosol, Inc.

Sample tested: 5-10-17

Elev/ Classification Nat.

Sp.G. LL PI

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: B-6 Sample Number: 16

NV5, Inc.

Miami, Florida

Maximum dry density = 126.3 pcf

Optimum moisture = 9.1 %

Tamiami Cure Plan-Everglades Safari Park

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

Eddie Rectangle

APPENDIX “C”

FHWA Review Checklist

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW CHECKLISTS

The following checklists cover the major information and recommendations which should be addressed in project geotechnical reports.

Section A covers site investigation information which will be common to all geotechnical reports for any type of geotechnical feature.

Sections B through I cover the basic information and recommendations which should be presented in geotechnical reports for specific geotechnical features: centerline cuts and embankments, embankments over soft ground, landslides, retaining walls, structure foundations and material sites.

Subject Page

SECTION A, Site Investigation Information SECTION B, Centerline Cuts and Embankments SECTION C, Embankments Over Soft Ground SECTION D, Landslide Corrections SECTION E, Retaining Walls SECTION F, Structure Foundations - Spread Footings SECTION G, Structure Foundations - Piles SECTION H, Structure Foundations - Drilled Shafts SECTION I, Materials Sites

In most sections and subsections, the user has been provided supplemental page references to the Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual. These page numbers appear in parentheses ( ) immediately adjacent to the section or subsection topic. Generalist engineers are particularly encouraged to read these references. Additional reference information on these topics is available in the Geotechnical Notebook, a copy of which is kept in all Division Offices by either the Bridge Engineer or the engineer with the soils responsibility.

Certain checklist items are of vital importance to have been included in the geotechnical report. These checklist items have been marked with an asterisk (*). A negative response to any of these asterisked items is cause to contact the geotechnical engineer for clarification of this omission.

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (SITE INVESTIGATION)

A. Site Investigation Information

Since the most important step in the geotechnical design process is the conduct of an adequate site investigation, presentation of the subsurface information in the geotechnical report and on the plans deserves careful attention.

Geotechnical Report Text (Introduction) Unknown (Pages 322-325) Yes No or N/A

1. Is the general location of the investigation described and/or vicinity map included? X

2. Is scope and purpose of the investigation summarized? X

3. Is concise description given of geologic setting and topography of area? X

4. Are the field explorations and laboratory tests on which the report is based listed? X

5. Is general description of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions given? X

*6. Is the following information included with the geotechnical report (typically included in report appendices):

a. Test hole logs? (Pages 25-33) X

b. Field test data? X

c. Laboratory test data? (Pages 74-75) X

d. Photographs (if pertinent)? X

Plan and Subsurface Profile (Pages 24, 47-49, 335)

*7. Is a plan and subsurface profile of the investigation site provided? x

* A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.

Unknown A. Site Investigation Information (Cont.) Yes No or N/A

8. Are the field explorations located on the plan view? X

*9. Does the conducted site investigation meet minimum criteria outlined in Table 2? X

10. Are the explorations plotted and correctly numbered on the profile at their true elevation and location? X

11. Does the subsurface profile contain a word description and/or graphic depiction of soil and rock types? X

12. Are groundwater levels and data measured shown on the subsurface profile? X

Subsurface Profile or Field Boring Log (Pages 16-17, 25-29)

13. Are sample types and depths noted? X

*14. Are SPT blow counts, percent core recovery, and RQD values shown? x

15. If cone penetration tests were made, are plots of cone resistance and friction ratio shown with depth? X

Laboratory Test Data (Pages 60, 74-75)

*16. Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content, gradation, Atterberg limits, performed on selected representative samples to verify field visual soil identifications? X

17. Are laboratory test results such as shear strength (Page 62), consolidation (Page 68), etc., included and/or summarized? X

THIS SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (CENTERLINE CUTS AND EMBANKMENTS)

B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Pages 6-9)

In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Unknown Are station to station descriptions included for: Yes No or N/A

1. Existing surface and subsurface drainage?

2. Evidence of springs and excessively wet areas?

3. Slides, slumps, and faults noted along the alignment?

Are station to station recommendations included for the following:

General Soil Cut or Fill

4. Specific surface/subsurface drainage recommendations.

5. Excavation limits of unsuitable materials?

*6. Erosion protection measures for backslopes, side slopes, and ditches, including riprap recommendations or special slope treatments?

Soil Cuts (Pages 101-102)

*7. Recommended cut slope design?

8. Are clay cut slopes designed for minimum F.S. = 1.50?

9. Special usage of excavated soils?

10. Estimated shrink-swell factors for excavated materials?

11. If answer to 3 is yes, are recommendations

Unknown B. Centerline Cuts and Embankments (Cont.) Yes No or N/A

Fills (Pages 77-79)

11. Recommended fill slope design?

12. Will fill slope design provide minimum F.S. = 1.25?

Rock Slopes

*13. Are recommended slope designs and blasting specifications provided?

*14. Is the need for special rock slope stabilization measures, e.g., rockfall catch ditch, wire mesh slope protection, shotcrete, rock bolts, addressed?

15. Has the use of "template" designs been avoided (such as designing all rock slopes on 1/4 to 1 rather than designing based on orientation of major rock jointing)?

*16. Have effects of blast induced vibrations on adjacent structures been evaluated?

"GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (EMBANKMENTS OVER SOFT GROUND)

C. Embankments over Soft Ground

Where embankments must be built over soft ground (such as soft clays, organic silts, or peat), stability and settlement of the fill should be carefully evaluated. In addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?

Unknown Embankment Stability (Pages 77-79, 95-97) Yes No or N/A

*1. Has the stability of the embankment been evaluated for minimum safety factors of 1.25 for side slope stability and 1.30 for end slope stability of bridge approach embankments?

*2. Has the shear strength of the foundation soil been determined from lab testing and/or field vane shear or static cone penetrometer tests?

*3. If the proposed embankment does not provide minimum factors of safety given above, are recommendations given for feasible treatment alternates which will increase factor of safety to minimum acceptable (such as change alignment, lower grade, use stabilizing counterberms, excavate and replace weak subsoil, fill stage construction, lightweight fill, geotextile fabric reinforcement, etc.)?

*4. Are cost comparisons of treatment alternates given and a specific alternate recommended?

Settlement of Subsoil (Pages 146-160)

5. Have consolidation properties of fine grained soils been determined from laboratory consolidation tests?

*6. Have settlement amount and settlement time been estimated?

7. For bridge approach embankments, are recommendations made to get the settlement out before the bridge abutment is constructed (waiting period, surcharge, or wick drains)?

* A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions

Unknown C. Embankments Over Soft Ground (Cont.) Yes No or N/A

8. If geotechnical instrumentation is proposed to monitor fill stability and settlement, are detailed recommendations provided on the number, type, and specific locations of the proposed instruments?

9. Construction Considerations (Pages 183, 331-334)

a. If excavation and replacement of unsuitable shallow surface deposits (peat, muck, topsoil) is recommended. Are vertical and lateral limits of recommended excavation provided?

b. Where a surcharge treatment is recommended, are plan and cross-section of surcharge treatment provided in geotechnical report for benefit of the roadway designer?

c. Are instructions or specifications providing concerning instrumentation, fill placement rates and estimated delay times for the contractor?

d. Are recommendations provided for disposal of surcharge material after the settlement period is complete?

GTR REVIEW CHECKLIST" (LANDSLIDE CORRECTIONS)

D. Landslide Corrections (Pages 77-80, 103-105) following information provided in the landslide study geotechnical report? (Refer to Table 4 for guidance on the necessary technical support data for correction of slope instabilities)

Unknown Yes No or N/A

*1. Is a site plan and scaled cross-section provided showing ground surface conditions both before and after failure?

*2. Is the past history of the slide area summarized - including movement history, summary of maintenance work and costs, and previous corrective measures taken ( if any)?

*3. Is a summary given of results of site investigation, field and lab testing, and stability analysis, including cause(s) of the slide?

Plan

4. Are detailed slide features - including locations of ground surface cracks, head scarp, and toe bulge - shown on the site plan?

Cross Section

*5. Are the cross sections used for stability analysis included with the soil profile, water table, soil unit weights, soil shear strengths, and failure plane shown as it exists?

6. Is slide failure plane location determined from slope indicators?

*7. For an active slide, was soil strength along the slide failure plane backfigured using a safety factor equal to 1.0 at the time of failure?

Unknown D. Landslide Corrections (Cont.) Yes No or N/A

Text

*8. Is the following information presented for each proposed correction alternate: (typical correction methods include buttress, shear key, rebuild slope, surface drainage, subsurface drainage-interceptor, drain trenches…