New_Zydeco_Amend_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

J

PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Nov-2018

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE W912P8 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODE

CONTRACTING DIV- CHIEF

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 7400 LEAKE AVENUE

NEW ORLEANS LA 70160-0267

See Item 6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONT RACT OR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

W912P818B0060

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

26-Oct-2018

10A. MOD. OF CONT RACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. T HIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENT S OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 (one) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNT ING AND APPROPRIAT ION DAT A (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICAT IONS OF CONT RACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES T HE CONT RACT /ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. T HIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT T O: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORT H IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONT RACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONT RACT /ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINIST RAT IVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO T HE AUT HORIT Y OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. T HIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENT ERED INT O PURSUANT TO AUT HORIT Y OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT /MODIFICAT ION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Solicitation W912P818B0060 is hereby amended as follow s:

1. Answers are provided for all Bidder submitted questions.

2. Details for a Pre-Bid Conference and Site Visit scheduled December 28/29, 2018 are provided.

3. Additional Drawings and Survey/Test data are provided.

The Bid Opening Date is extended to December 6, 2018, at 2:00 PM. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONT RACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

15B. CONT RACT OR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNIT ED ST AT ES OF AMERICA

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

21-Nov-2018

EXCEPTION TO SF 30

30-105-04

ST ANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84 Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

W912P818B0060

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Questions and Answers

Question 1. Does the Presolicitation posted as solicitation number W912P818B0060 on FBO contain requirements similar to an existing contract or will this be a new requirement?

Answer 1. Solicitation W912P818B0060 posted on FBO in a new requirement.

Question 2. If possible, please provide the current contract number.

Answer 2. The solicitation referenced in question 1 (above), is a Request for Bids. The Bid Opening Date has not occurred yet and no contract has been awarded.

Question 3. Are you planning to conduct a pre-bid conference for this solicitation?

Answers 3. Yes, a pre-bid conference will be established by amendment. Tentative date for Pre-Bid Conference is currently 29 November at the New Orleans District.

Question 4. I was reviewing the project but I did not see a section for planting. Will planting be done and if so will it be part of a separate bid once the construction is complete?

Answer 4. Planting of the completed wetland creation platforms is not a requirement of this solicitation. It will be part of a separate bid once construction of the earthen platform(s) is complete.

Question 5. In the document A21_-_W912P818B0060_IFB.pdg (attached) project table of contents it lists Division 02 – SITE WORK 02 21 10.00 12 Surveys. However I cannot seem to find this section in any of the documents. I remember for the 2016 solicitation there was a section for surveys. Am I missing something or will there be an addendum issue?

Answer 5. The contract specifications, when loaded to FBO, were divided into multiple files. See file A21_-_ W912P818B0060_Spec_Sections for the referenced survey section.

Question 6. In the BLH-Wet Creation Fill Area (middle area), there are no overflow weirs in the design. As hydraulic dredging material is mostly water, how is the contractor to remove the excess water from this fill area? Please clarify?

Answer 6. Please refer to contract drawing C-18. Weirs for effluent water removal are allowed in the BLH- WET West Exterior Retention Dike. In addition, as per note 2 of the referenced drawing, “Effluent discharge from the BLH-WET creation area shall overflow or flow through weirs or spill boxes along the Baseline and BLH-WET North retention dikes into the marsh creation areas.”

Question 7. From the end of the board road it is approx. 1500 LF to the southeast corner of the South Marsh Creation Fill Area. What is an acceptable method for the contractor to get their equipment to the Marsh Creation work area? Can the contractor excavate a draft area (canal) over to the Marsh Creation work area and then restore to original condition upon completion of the project. Please clarify?

Answer 7. The Contractor shall restrict activities between the board road and the southeast corner of the South Marsh Creation Fill area to the allowable 200’ access corridor shown on the Contract drawings. No excavation of the open water area within this corridor is allowed. Pushing and pulling of equipment on flexi float type structures is an acceptable method for movement of equipment. See response to Question 9.

Question 8. Will USACE's supply copies of all permits before Bid Date?

Answer 8. No. All Contractor requirements regarding permits secured for this work are included in the Contract language.

Question 9. Will USACE's locate ends of existing 36" sleeve under Hwy. 443?

Answer 9. The referenced sleeve extends approximately 20 feet beyond the shoulder of the road along the alignment defined by XY coordinates provided on drawing C-05 of the contract drawings. Field data indicates that the road elevation at the casing is approximately 5.4' NAVD88. The top of the casing is 4.6' below the road, and the bottom of the casing is 7.6' below the road. Therefore, the casing invert elevation is approximately -2.2' NAVD88. It will be the Contractors responsibility to excavate as necessary in order to access the sleeve.

Question 10. Will USACE's locate required Drainage Runoff Locations along the West side of Chef Menteur Highway, so Contractor can confirm the number of Timbers needed for Discharge Pipe to rest on before Bid Date.

Answer 10. The dredge pipeline corridor runs between the roadway and adjacent drainage ditch. The intent of this requirement is that rain runoff from the roadway does not pond between the road and the dredge pipeline.

As per the detail on contract drawing C-03 the proposed configuration of timber blocking to allow for drainage under the dredge pipeline is four (4) 6” x 6” timbers every 200 feet between Old Spanish Trail Road and the Staging Area at Salt Bayou; a distance of approximately 2 miles. The potential bidders shall use this configuration in estimating quantity of required timbers.

Question 11. What are the required Water Quality Standards for Borrow Site?

Answer 11. There are no contract specific requirements for Water Quality Standards or testing at the borrow site.

Question 12. Is there an Existing Topo Survey Plan for Marsh Creation Sites, vs only the Cross Sections, so Contractor can figure out required fill quantities for each section?

Answer 12. In response to this question, an addition plan drawing C-02a will be added to the Contract drawing portfolio to display existing water depths within the creation sites. Survey data to be portrayed was taken in June 2018. Raw data files will be included for the Contractors convenience.

Question 13. What is the depth of water between ends on Timber Board Rd. & Marsh?

Answer 13. Based on a survey obtained in July 2014 and as shown on Drawing C-03 of the contract drawings, the bottom elevations of the open water area between the board road reach and the southern marsh creation site is approximately -1.1 feet to -2.1 feet NAVD88. Associated water depths at this site would depend on tidal variations at the site.

Question 14. Can a Small Shallow Draft "Self-Propelled Landing Craft" be used in water area between end of Timber Rd. & S/E Cor. of Marsh Areas, to transport earthwork equip, etc. to Marsh Areas, as long as the Contractor maintains Water Quality Standards., and restores area to its original condition.

Answer 14. Yes – it was envisioned that transportation of earthwork equipment to the Marsh Creation site would be by some type of shallow draft flexi float arrangement within the allowable access corridor. Small Shallow Draft "Self-Propelled Landing Craft" would be permissible.

Question 15. What type of Vessels use Lake Pontchartrain that would cause the Channel to be 82 ft. deep as shown on Drawing C-06?

Answer 15. The extreme water depths referenced are not likely caused by vessel traffic, but more probably a result of tidal action through the Rigolets.

Question 16. What type of Construction Office/ Trailer is required, and expectable location?

Answer 16. The Contractor shall furnish for the exclusive use of Government employees, a temporary waterproof land based building/trailer or a suitable separate room on board the dredge or other craft for a Corps of Engineers field office. The field office shall meet the requirements of Section 01100 of the contract specifications including heating, air conditioning, lighting, electrical power, washing conveniences, furniture, internet service, janitorial service, etc. If land based, the trailer shall be placed within the location and limits of the Government environmentally cleared right of way (staging areas).

Question 17. Is a Certified Bird Monitor required to perform Bird Nest Survey Locations or can this be done by the Contractor?

Answer 17. This effort can be conducted by the Contractor.

Question 18. Will USACE provide a detail for the existing and potential effluent return sections?

Answer 18. Per submittal from previous contract effort, the existing spill boxes were metal framed (8’ wide front with 2” slots for weir boards) sections with 24” steel pile discharge lines. Approximate locations of existing spill boxes are indicated on Drawing C-18. However, all effluent spill boxes/weirs are to be Contractor designed as needed in order to accommodate the anticipated quantity of effluent water to be handled during dredging operations.

Question 19. The spec states the contractor shall submit a "Board Road Plan" for approval. Is there a thickness spec for this board road?

Answer 19. Board Road specifications are a responsibility of the contractor to assure that completed board roadway is adequate to accommodate anticipated contractor transport requirements of equipment and vehicles, and any associated staging requirements.

Question 20. Is this project sales tax exempt?

Answer 20. No. All applicable taxes shall be included in the Contractors bid package.

Question 21. Is there an unsuitable material spec for the Retention Dikes? Is there any requirements for lifts or compaction?

Answer 21. There are no requirements for lift construction or compaction of dikes during construction. As noted in the P&S package, many reaches of required retention dike have been previously built to partial or full grade. See Drawing C-19 which depicts existing grades of specific retention dike reaches as of June 2018. In addition, there is no unsuitable material specification for the retention dike construction. However, as per Note 3 on drawing C-10, “Material within the dike borrow template found unsuitable for dike construction due to character of material or water content shall be wasted within the marsh creation footprint.” Dike construction to achieve required grade and template is the responsibility of the Contractor.

Question 22. On Drawing C-10 - Theoretical North and South Marsh Retention Dike Section detail is stays that the "existing north marsh ground grade (prior to previous fill operation) is approx. -2.0' NAVD88". Will USCAE provide topo survey of the existing ground grade?

Answer 22. Yes – see response to Question 12 above.

Question 23. This project was previously bid in 2016 and most of the retention dikes were previously built.

Were these dikes built from the 80' available borrow that is being designated for use in the current bid? Please clarify.

Answer 23. Yes, the 80’ available borrow that is being designated for use in the current bid was partially depleted to construct previously built dikes. As stated in Note 4 of drawing C-10, “If additional borrow is required for dike construction, a borrow expansion plan shall be approved by the COR prior to implementation.”

Question 24. Were there any additional boring samples taken within the borrow area that are not shown on the contract drawings?

Answer 24. No additional boring were taken within the borrow area that are not shown on the drawings.

Material that was dredged and placed in the proposed borrow site was sampled after placement from the marsh creation site. See response to Question 25.

Question 25. Please release the testing report and logs of the 36 samples taken from the previously filled portion of the south marsh creation site.

Answer 25. Concur. The referenced testing report will be released in conjunction with this Question and Answer amendment.

End of Questions and Answers

Pre-Bid Site Visit and Pre-Bid Conference

1. Pre-Bid site visit has been established for 28 November 2018. RSVP required by contacting Glenn

Gremillion at phone (504) 862-1873 or email Glenn.M.Gremillion@usace.army.mil or Patrick Erwin at phone (504) 862-1948 or email Patrick.J.Erwin@usace.army.mil .

2. A Pre-Bid Conference has been scheduled at the New Orleans District for 29 November 2018 at 1:00

PM in Room 125. Point of Contact for this conference is Patrick Erwin at (504) 862-1948.

DRAWINGS

1. Add Drawing C-02a (attached)

SECTION SF 30 - SF 30 CONTINUATION

The required response date/time 06-Dec-2018 02:00 PM has been added.

(End of Summary of Changes) mailto:keith@smith-tank.com

U.S. Army Corps of Engineering New Orleans District 10 August 2018

Scope

Our scope of work included 35 continuous borings to 6-ft depths, and up to 210 grain size analyses, 35 specific gravity tests, 35 organic content tests, and 35 bulk unit weight tests. In addition, Eustis Engineering subcontracted Linfield, Hunter, & Junius, Inc. (LH&J) to stake out boring locations according to a grid layout provided by the USACE. A third party subcontractor, Professional Technical Support Services, Inc. (Protech), was hired to provide the cargo buggy, airboats, drill rig, and operators for the field exploration.

Sampling locations were selected by the USACE. Eustis Engineering was consulted during the proposal process to evaluate the number of borings for the project. We used the USACE Galveston District Sampling and Analysis Plan - Private Dredging and the USACE and Environmental Protection Agency “Green Book” for Dredging Standards. For the approximately 54 acres of placed dredge material, 81 grain size samples were required. As outlined subsequently, 141 samples were actually tested. This volume of testing is sufficient to screen the 2,775,000 cubic yards of dredge material as required by the Green Book. However, should the total volume of material placed exceed this amount, one additional sample per 20,000 cubic yards of dredge material should be taken. Eustis Engineering did not perform water quality or elutriate tests, which are considered part of the Green Book requirements to evaluate water quality which was not within our scope of service for the project.

METHODOLOGY

Field Exploration

A Geoprobe® 6620 DT rig and necessary ancillary equipment were mobilized to the site and transferred onto a 22-ft wide marsh buggy with low pressure tracks on 21 May 2018. Eustis Engineering and Protech completed 36 borings between 22 and 29 May 2018. The boring location plan is shown in Enclosure 1.

Prior to our field exploration, LH&J staked out 23 of the initially proposed 35 boring locations. Due to loose sands and overwater conditions, LH&J were unable to complete staking the final 12 locations. Eustis Engineering and Protech also encountered site access issues with seven boring locations during our field exploration. Subsequently, the USACE provided coordinates for alternate boring locations for these seven locations as well as one additional location.

- 2 -

10 August 2018

The boring locations shown in Enclosure 1 should be considered approximate as they were taken with a handheld GPS unit during our exploration. We understand a surveyor representing the contractor may have obtained more accurate location details.

Sampling was performed using a Geoprobe DT60 dual tube sampling system. The system consists of a 6-in. drive probe acting as the outer tube of the dual tube system. The inner tube consists of a DT60 split sheath containing the DT60 sheet liner. The split sheath halves and sheet liner within the inner tube assembly are kept in place with the upper drive head and lower retainer. The sheet liner has its own holding ring and samples are retained within the assembly by a wedge ring/core catcher. The inner tube assembly enables the sampling of a 4-in. sample. During the proposal process, a 4-in. sampler diameter was preferred to accommodate the collection of 1-in. nominal diameter shells. Eustis Engineering assumed sampling with this shell size or slightly larger would be required based on information provided by the USACE. The use of smaller sampler sizes was proposed to reduce the rig size and corresponding marsh equipment. However, the use of a 4-in.

diameter sampler met the current standard of practice for a minimum inside diameter to nominal sampler size ratio of 3:1. The sampler was advanced using the percussion hammer of the Geoprobe 6620 DT rig.

The exploration team and the USACE representative worked together to determine the best sampling procedure for obtaining the samples. Initial plans called for advancing the sampler in 2-ft increments and retrieving samples once per foot. After testing the initial procedure with Borings NZR-2G through NZR-7G, a different sample catcher was determined to be needed, and advancing the sampler to a depth of 7 feet was best. Between 6 and 7 feet below the existing ground surface, naturally deposited clay and organic materials were encountered in most borings. This material acted as a clay plug and held the sandy material encountered above it within the sampler.

Initial sampling procedures did not retain the granular fill material. Reductions in sample recovery were noted at the 2 to 6-ft depths when multiple advancements of the sampler were performed in the same sample location. We observed the upper/surficial soil layer was more dense than the underlying material. This phenomena has a tendency to reduce sample recovery in the upper sampler advancements as the dense material’s frictional resistance within the liner is not overcome by loose soil penetration resistance during sampling. Lower advancement of the sampler in short intervals was hampered by the semi-rigid catcher unless cohesive material was encountered.

To verify these observations of relative density, we performed dynamic cone penetrometer testing (DCPT)at ten locations. Based on DCPT testing (ASTM D6951), significant changes in relative density of the material below approximately 25 inches below the ground surface. This behavior

- 3 -

10 August 2018 can be attributed to how sands increase in relative density with compaction as well as how materials were placed on the site. Samples that were higher in shell concentration experienced greater relative density below the first 2 feet of the existing ground surface. Samples that were lower in shell concentration typically were more compact near the existing ground surface and exhibited lower relative density below 2 feet below the existing ground surface. The correlation with shell percentage also likely corresponds with the location of the dredge pipe.

The borings taken with a 7-ft advancement of the sampler were completed with a three-man drill crew from Protech and a soil technician and geologist from Eustis Engineering. A representative from the USACE was present during the field activities to observe. In general, Protech drilled a boring to 7 feet below existing ground surface and extruded the core liner. The core liner was not cylindrical in nature, but a flat, rectangular polypropylene sheet that was inserted and retained within a sampling barrel. Eustis Engineering photographed and logged the samples once extracted from the core liner. The samples were split into 1-ft intervals with all material being retained. The samples were visually classified and estimates of shell percentage, material type, consistency, and recovery were annotated on the field boring logs. The field boring logs and photographs are provided in Appendix I.

Laboratory Testing

Eustis Engineering completed 141 grain size analyses, 24 specific gravity tests, 12 organic content, and 19 bulk unit weight tests. Material retained within each individual sieve above the No. 200 sieve were examined for shell and shell fragment content. The percentage of each sieve was estimated by use of diagrams contained with the Munsell Color Chart classification kit. These classifications were used to estimate total shell percentages by mass within a soil sample. In total, 141 samples were tested. From the tested samples, 93 samples had less than 1% shell content.

To create a method for estimating volumetric shell percentages, Eustis Engineering grouped five soil types encountered during our exploration which were visually classified based on their group classification and respective modifiers. These classifications are summarized subsequently in Table

1. The general group classification was Fine Sand [SP] (Group 1). Modifiers for the [SP] included shells (Group 2), shell fragments (Group 3), clay and shell fragments (Group 4), and other (Group 5). These five groups generally represented all of the sample types encountered at the New Zydeco Ridge Mitigation site. Representative samples from each group were tested to confirm the initial visual classification and determine the soil group’s engineering properties. These tests included particle size distribution, organic content, bulk unit weight, and specific gravity.

Laboratory photographs of coarse fractions and laboratory data sheets are presented in Appendix

II.

- 4 -

10 August 2018

Digital Processing

Eustis Engineering utilized a program called Surfer®, Version 15.5.382, published by Golden Software, Inc., of Golden, Colorado. This program uses data input by users to create contour lines and 3D surfaces by interpolating the values between them. In Enclosures 2 and 3, we have presented contour maps of field, laboratory, and interpreted shell contents in percentage by mass.

Eustis Engineering chose to divide the borings by 1-ft sample intervals to create seven horizontal “slices” of the site. These slices were then mapped by shell content (concentration) in percentage by mass. In Enclosure 2 we present one contour map for each 1-ft sample depth (seven plots) and one additional plot representing the weighted shell content for the full sample depth.

Enclosure 2, Sheet 1, presents contour maps created using the particle size distribution values and the estimates of shell content from each individual sieve from the laboratory testing. Each boring location is identified on the count maps with a post-mark. The Surfer program interpreteds the percentages of shell (and shell fragments) between borings to develop contours. Actual values of shell content were used at each 1-ft interval at a boring location when a representative sample of this interval was tested. At sample locations where a test was not performed, the average value of the group was entered as the sample value to populate the model. Thus, these contour maps reflect both field observations and laboratory test results.

Enclosure 2, Sheet 2 was created using laboratory testing values only. This mapping technique also utilized the Surfer program to interpret shell content values between boring locations with samples that were tested, but does not include any additional interpolations.

Enclosure 2, Sheet 3 presents visual classifications of shell percentage at each boring, taken during the time of the exploration. These values are typically higher than the laboratory measured values, but can be utilized to interpret the general site trends.

Enclosure 2, Sheets 1 through 3 should be used for visual comparison of field and laboratory test data. The boring logs and laboratory test data themselves should be used to create volumetric estimate of shell content.

Enclosure 3 presents the same data as Enclosure 2, Sheet 2, but in a grid format using distance in feet as the X and Y axes instead of latitude and longitude. Enclosure 3 was used to create a volumetric estimate of shell content. First, we estimated the surface area of material containing shell content denoted by each percentage in each slice with the Surfer program to interpret values between boring locations. These values were then multiplied by the percentage of shell per contour within each slice and multiplied by the slice thickness to create a volume of shell for each

- 5 -

10 August 2018 slice. The total volume of shells were then added from the seven slices and divided by the total volume of the project area to get an estimated volumetric shell content.

FINDINGS

Stratigraphy

A generalized stratigraphy can be interpreted from the field exploration. Typical deposits consisted of loose, tan and gray, fine sand with trace of shell fragments between 0 and 2 feet below the existing ground surface. The borings continued to a depth of 5 feet encountering loose, tan and gray, fine sand with some shells and shell fragments. Underlying these strata was typically loose, gray, fine sand with some roots, shells and shell fragments, with trace of humus. The borings terminated in a native swamp marsh deposit between 6 and 7 feet below the existing ground surface. This material consisted of silty gray and brown clayey sand with some roots and humus, and trace shell fragments. These results are presented below in Table 1.

TABLE 1: AVERAGE SOIL GROUP TEST VALUES(1)

GROUP

NUMBER

VISUAL CLASSIFICATION

(ASTM D2487)

BULK UNIT

WEIGHT

(ASTM C29)

IN PCF

SPECIFIC

GRAVITY

(ASTM D2726)

ORGANIC

CONTENT

(ASTM D2974)

IN PERCENTAGE

FINES CONTENT

(ASTM D1140)

IN PERCENTAGE

Fine sand

[SP]

95.4 2.63 0.4 0.2

Fine sand with shells

[SP]

97.1 2.62 0.4 9.4

Fine sand with shell fragments

[SP]

96.3 2.61 0.5 1.1

Fine sand with clay and shell fragments

[SP]

95.9

2.62 10.5 0.4

Fine sand with silt, organics, and shell fragments [SP]

95.4 2.63 2.4 1.4

(1) All values reported are group averages

- 6 -

10 August 2018

The results of these tests indicate the bulk specific gravity is higher in samples with lower shell contents, and the bulk unit weight is greater in samples with higher shell contents.

Eustis Engineering issued a memorandum, dated 27 June 2018, to request additional time to process the samples and perform additional tests to eliminate wide variations in statistical analysis of the samples. After completing the additional tests, we were able to summarize that a narrower standard deviation can be achieved. This deviation is achieved by removing obvious outliers from the standard deviation calculations.

Final statistics are presented in Table 2. Note, the standard deviation values for D85 indicates the samples within each group are relatively consistent in grain size despite the wide variation in shell content. This can be attributed to the variation of fractured shell. Microscopic shell fragments could not be classified by weight, and could increase the shell content calculations if considered by type/classification rather than particle size. Additional laboratory testing could be performed if this is a project consideration, but is not part of our scope at this time.

TABLE 2: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SHELL CONTENT AND PARTICLE SIZE

VISUAL

CLASSIFICATION

(ASTM D2487)

TOTAL

NUMBER

OF

SAMPLES

NUMBER

OF TESTS

AVERAGE

SHELL

PERCENTAGE

AVERAGE

D85(2) ó(1)

SHELLS

ó(1)

D85(2)

MAXIMUM

PERCENT

SHELL

MINIUM

PERCENT

SHELL

Fine sand [SP] 32 16 0.5 0.2184 0.25 0.0206 2.1 0.1

Fine sand with shells

[SP]

16 12 7.6 2.4039 0.52 0.0939 22.8 0.7

Fine sand with shell fragments

[SP]

48 88 1.2 0.2355 0.50 0.0562 13.2 0.0

Fine sand with clay and shell fragments

[SP]

20 13 0.5 0.2154 0.24 0.0241 1.2 0.1

Fine sand with silt, organics, and shell fragments [SP] 25 10 0.8 0.2076 0.21 0.0481 2.5 0.1

(1)The symbol ó represents standard deviation.

(2)The D85 value denotes the particle size (mm) at the corresponding percent passing 85%.

- 7 -

10 August 2018

Copy w/Enclosures and Appendices to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District Attention Mr. Randy M. Perrin, Mr. Leeland J. Richard, Ms. Kelly L. Danton, and Mr. Glenn M.

Gremillion Emai ls Randy.M.Perrin@usace.army.mil , Leeland.J .Richard@usace.army.mil , Kelly.L.Danton@usace.army.mil, and Glenn.M.Gremillion@usace.army.mil

- 9 -mailto:cjeanice@gisy.com mailto:Leeland.J.Richard@usace.army.mil mailto:Kelly.L.Danton@usace.army.mil mailto:Glenn.M.Gremillion@usace.army.mil

J.L.S.

CADD FILE:

DATE:

JOB NO.:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

N.B.R.

23821

LOCPLAN.DGN

ENCLOSURE 1

9 AUG 2018

CONTRACT NO. W912P8-16-D-0008, TASK ORDER NO. W912P818F0150

ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA

RETRIEVED FOR LPV MITIGATION NEW ZYDECO RIDGE MITIGATION PROJECT

RETRIEVAL, CLASSIFICATION, AND TESTING OF SOIL SAMPLES

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SITE VICINITY MAP AND BORING LOCATION PLAN

N

C H E F

M E N T E U

R H

W Y

PREVOST ISLAND

LAGOON

LITTLE

LAGOON

DOUBLE BAYOU

LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN

OLD SPANISH TRAIL RD

N

PROJECT AREA

SITE VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

BORING LOCATION PLAN

THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

LIMITATIONS PER REVISED LOCATION PLAN PROVIDED BY

MOVED FROM THE INTIAL LOCATION DUE TO SITE ACCESS

BORING PLAN. BORINGS ENDING IN THE LETTER "A" WERE

2. BORINGS ENDING WITH THE LETTER "G" INDICATE INITIAL

2018.

WITH MODIFIED 4-IN SAMPLER BETWEEN 22 AND 29 MAY

SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. USING A GEOPROBE 6620DT RIG

1. BORINGS WERE DRILLED BY PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL

NOTES:

DENOTES APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS

25 AUGUST 2015SATELLITE IMAGERY DATED:

050010001500200025003000

SCALE: 1" = 300'

0300 300150

EXPLORATION LIMIT

NZR-1G

NZR-2G

NZR-3G

NZR-4G

NZR-5G

NZR-6G

NZR-7G

NZR-8G

NZR-9G

NZR-10G

NZR-11G

NZR-12G

NZR-13G

NZR-14G

NZR-15G

NZR-16G

NZR-17G

NZR-18G

NZR-19G

NZR-20G

NZR-21GNZR-22G

NZR-23G

NZR-24A

NZR-25A

NZR-26A

NZR-32G

NZR-27G

NZR-28G

NZR-29G

NZR-30A

NZR-31A

NZR-33A

NZR-35A

NZR-34A

NZR-36G

DISTANCE IN FEET

D

IS

T A

N C

E I

N F

E E

T

JOB NO.: 23821

0.5

0.5

NZR-1

NZR-3

NZR-4

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-7

NZR-8

NZR-9

NZR-12

NZR-14

NZR-15

NZR-17

NZR-18

NZR-20

NZR-21

NZR-24

NZR-25

NZR-27

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-31

NZR-33

NZR-34

NZR-36

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 3-4 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

0.5

0.5

NZR-1

NZR-2

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-7

NZR-8

NZR-9

NZR-10

NZR-11

NZR-12

NZR-13

NZR-15

NZR-16

NZR-18

NZR-19

NZR-20

NZR-22

NZR-23 NZR-25

NZR-28

NZR-31

NZR-32

NZR-35

NZR-36

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 4-5 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.51

NZR-2

NZR-3

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-14

NZR-16

NZR-21

NZR-22

NZR-23

NZR-26

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-32

NZR-33

NZR-34

NZR-35

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 5-6 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

0.5

0.5

NZR-1

NZR-2

NZR-3

NZR-4

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-7

NZR-8

NZR-9

NZR-10

NZR-11

NZR-12

NZR-13

NZR-14

NZR-15

NZR-16

NZR-17

NZR-18

NZR-19

NZR-20

NZR-21

NZR-22

NZR-23

NZR-24

NZR-25

NZR-26

NZR-27

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-31

NZR-32

NZR-33

NZR-34

NZR-35

NZR-36

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Average Shell Concentration Per Boring: Depths 0-7 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

LEGEND

1TESTED LABORATORY

SAMPLE

0.5

0.5

NZR-1

NZR-3

NZR-4

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-7

NZR-8

NZR-9

NZR-12

NZR-14

NZR-15

NZR-17

NZR-18

NZR-20

NZR-21

NZR-24

NZR-25

NZR-27

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-31

NZR-33

NZR-34

NZR-36

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 3-4 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

0.5

NZR-1

NZR-2

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-7

NZR-8

NZR-9

NZR-10

NZR-11

NZR-12

NZR-13

NZR-15

NZR-16

NZR-18

NZR-19

NZR-20

NZR-22

NZR-23 NZR-25

NZR-28

NZR-31

NZR-32

NZR-35

NZR-36

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 4-5 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

0.5

0.5

1 NZR-2

NZR-3

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-14

NZR-16

NZR-21

NZR-22

NZR-23

NZR-26

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-32

NZR-33

NZR-34

NZR-35

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 5-6 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

NZR-1

NZR-2

NZR-3

NZR-4

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-7

NZR-8

NZR-9

NZR-10

NZR-11

NZR-12

NZR-13

NZR-14

NZR-15

NZR-16

NZR-17

NZR-18

NZR-19

NZR-20

NZR-21

NZR-22

NZR-23

NZR-24

NZR-25

NZR-26

NZR-27

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-31

NZR-32

NZR-33

NZR-34

NZR-35

NZR-36

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Average Shell Concentration Per Boring: Depths 0-7 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

LEGEND

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 3-4 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 4-5 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Shell Concentration Depth 5-6 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

NZR-1

NZR-2

NZR-3

NZR-4

NZR-5

NZR-6

NZR-7

NZR-8

NZR-9

NZR-10

NZR-11

NZR-12

NZR-13

NZR-14

NZR-15

NZR-16

NZR-17

NZR-18

NZR-19

NZR-20

NZR-21

NZR-22

NZR-23

NZR-24

NZR-25

NZR-26

NZR-27

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-31

NZR-32

NZR-33

NZR-34

NZR-35

NZR-36

-89.717 -89.716 -89.715 -89.714 -89.713 -89.712 -89.711 -89.71 -89.709

Average Shell Concentration Per Boring: Depths 0-7 ft

30.206

30.208

30.21

LEGEND

NOTE:

1.) GRIDS ARE PRESENTED IN FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE DREDGE MATERIAL

PLACEMENT BOUNDARY WHERE X IS FEET SOUTH OF THE ORIGIN AND Y IS FEET WEST.

2.) THIS ORIENTATION ALIGNS WITH BORING LAYOUT PLAN PRESENTED IN ENCLOSURE 1.

SHELL CONCENTRATION DATA ALIGNS WITH SAMPLED INTERVAL DATA PRESENTED IN

ENCLOSURE 2, SHEET 1.

0.

0.5

.5

0500100015002000

3-4 FEET

0.5

0.5

0.5

0500100015002000

6-7 FEET

0.5

0.

0500100015002000

4-5 FEET

0.5

.5

0500100015002000

5-6 FEET

.51

0500100015002000

2-3 FEET

0.

0.

0.5

0500100015002000

0-1 FEET

NOTE:

1.) GRIDS ARE PRESENTED IN FEET FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DREDGE MATERIAL

PLACEMENT BOUNDARY WHERE X IS FEET SOUTH OF THE ORIGIN AND Y IS FEET WEST.

2.) THIS ORIENTATION ALIGNS WITH BORING LAYOUT PLAN PRESENTED IN ENCLOSURE 1.

SHELL CONCENTRATION ALIGNS WITH SAMPLED INTERVAL DATA PRESENTED IN

ENCLOSURE 2, SHEET 1.

NZR-1NZR-2NZR-3

NZR-4NZR-5NZR-6NZR-7

NZR-8NZR-9

NZR-10

NZR-11NZR-12

NZR-13

NZR-14

NZR-15

NZR-16

NZR-17

NZR-18NZR-19

NZR-20

NZR-21NZR-22

NZR-23

NZR-24

NZR-25 NZR-26

NZR-27

NZR-28

NZR-29

NZR-30

NZR-31

NZR-32

NZR-33

NZR-34NZR-35

NZR-36

EXPLORATION AREA BY SURFER ( 1,898,583.5 )

SURFACE AREA OF SHELL CONTENT GREATER THAN X% CONTOURS BY DEPTH EXPLORATION AREA BY MICROSTATION ( 2,097,006.7 )

SLICE DEPTH (FT) 0‐1 1‐2 2‐3 3‐4 4‐5 5‐6 6‐7

20% 258.5 496.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 THESE VALUES ARE DETERMINED IN THE

15% 34,231.8 9,791.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PROGRAM SURFER. CONTOURS ARE PRESENTED IN

10% 151,310.9 68,703.5 7,012.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ENCLOSURE 3, SHEET 1.

5% 316,080.6 273,011.9 422,403.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1% 599,203.5 884,738.8 1,601,975.8 1,102,822.9 709,930.7 76,580.5 334,982.9 EACH VALUE REPRESENTS SQUARE FOOTAGE

0.5% 839,344.0 1,310,294.9 1,808,649.7 1,205,937.2 1,310,752.5 612,920.2 1,290,758.2 GREATER THAN ROWS SHELL CONTENT BY MASS

0.3% 1,620,626.3 1,533,066.0 1,858,007.2 1,454,590.6 1,570,126.1 1,262,434.7 1,667,213.2

0.0% 1,898,583.5 1,898,583.5 1,898,583.5 1,898,583.5 1,898,583.5 1,898,583.5 1,898,583.5

SURFACE AREA OF SHELL CONTENT CONTOURS BY DEPTH

SLICE DEPTH (FT) 0‐1 1‐2 2‐3 3‐4 4‐5 5‐6 6‐7

20% 258.5 496.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHELL PERCENT IN SQ FEET EQUALS

15% 33,973.3 9,294.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VALUE OF SURFACE AREA SHELL PERCENT

10% 117,079.1 58,911.9 7,012.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MINUS VALUE OF SURFACE AREA

5% 164,769.7 204,308.5 415,390.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHELL PERCENT LESS THAN

1% 283,122.9 611,726.8 1,179,572.3 1,102,822.9 709,930.7 76,580.5 334,982.9

0.5% 240,140.4 425,556.1 206,673.9 103,114.3 600,821.8 536,339.7 955,775.3

0.3% 781,282.4 222,771.1 49,357.4 248,653.5 259,373.6 649,514.4 376,455.0

0.0% 277,957.2 365,517.5 40,576.4 443,992.9 328,457.4 636,148.9 231,370.3

VOLUME OF SHELL CONTOURS BY DEPTH

SLICE DEPTH (FT) 0‐1 1‐2 2‐3 3‐4 4‐5 5‐6 6‐7

20% 51.7 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 VOLUME OF SHELLS PER SLICE EQUALS

15% 5,096.0 1,394.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHELL PERCENT IN SQ FEET MULTIPLIED BY

10% 11,707.9 5,891.2 701.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SHELL PERCENTAGE BY MASS

5% 8,238.5 10,215.4 20,769.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MULTIPLIED BY SLICE THICKNESS (1 FOOT)

1% 2,831.2 6,117.3 11,795.7 11,028.2 7,099.3 765.8 3,349.8

0.5% 1,200.7 2,127.8 1,033.4 515.6 3,004.1 2,681.7 4,778.9

0.3% 1,953.2 556.9 123.4 621.6 648.4 1,623.8 941.1

0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL VOLUME

SHELLS BY LAYER ‐ CU FEET

20% 151.1 TOTAL VOLUME OF SHELL EQUALS SUM OF

15% 6,490.2 CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE FROM ALL SLICES

10% 18,300.4 PERCENTAGE OF SHELL IS THE TOTAL VOLUME OF

5% 39,223.4 SHELL DIVIDED BY TOTAL EXPLORED

1% 42,987.4 VOLUME (SURFER)

0.5% 15,342.1

0.3% 6,468.5

0.0% 0.0

SUM SHELLS 128,963.1 CUBIC FEET PERCENT SHELLS 1.0%

NOTE: SHELL PERCENTAGE MAY BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER DUE TO SMALL AREA OF THE SITE WITH HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS OF SAND THAT WERE NOT SAMPLED.

SHELL

PERCENT

BY MASS

SHELL

PERCENT

BY MASS

ENCLOSURE 3, SHEET 3

SQUARE FEET

SQUARE FEET

CUBIC FEET

SHELL

PERCENT

BY MASS

SHELL

PERCENT

BY MASS

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

RETRIEVAL, CLASSIFICATION, AND TESTING OF SOIL SAMPLES

RETRIEVED FOR LPV MITIGATION NEW ZYDECO RIDGE MITIGATION PROJECT

ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA

CONTRACT NO. W912P8‐16‐D‐0008, TASK ORDER NO. W912P818F0150