GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Transcription

1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks Panama City, Bay County, Florida PREPARED FOR: CPH, Inc West 23 rd Street Suite C Panama City, Florida NOVA Project Number: CPH, Inc. Project Number: P16802 June 13, 2016

2 June 13, 2016 CPH, INC West 23 rd Street Suite C Panama City, Florida Attention: Subject: Mr. Jason Toole, P.E., LEED AP Vice President Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 9 TH STREET AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE SIDEWALKS Panama City, Bay County, Florida NOVA Project Number Dear Mr. Toole, NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC (NOVA) has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks project in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. The work was performed in general accordance with the CPH, Inc. Panama City DTN CRA Sidewalks Subconsultant Agreement dated May 18, This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the geotechnical consulting services provided by NOVA, and presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations. We appreciate your selection of NOVA and the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, NOVA ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LLC Bailey Webster, BSCE. Staff Professional Christopher J. Conway, P.E. Branch Manager Florida Registration No Copies Submitted: Addressee (electronic) P R O F E S S I O N A L P R A C T I C A L P R O V E N A sh l e y D r i v e, P a n a m a C i t y B e a c h, F l o r i d a t / f / u s a n o v a. c o m

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK SITE DESCRIPTION GENERAL GEOLOGY / HYDROLOGY FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY TESTING SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SOIL CONDITIONS GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL SIDEWALK SUBGRADE SUPPORT GRAVITY WALL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS EMBANKMENT/CROSS DRAIN STRUCTURES SETTLEMENT GROUNDWATER CONTROL CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS SUBGRADE APPENDIX APPENDIX A FIGURES & MAPS Project Location Map USDA NRCS Soil Survey References APPENDIX B SUBSURFACE DATA Boring Location Plan Key to Boring Logs Test Boring Records (9) APPENDIX C LABORATORY DATA Summary of Classification & Index Testing APPENDIX D SUPPORT DOCUMENTS Qualification of Recommendations GBC Information About Geotechnical Report

4 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P PROJECT INFORMATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Our understanding of the proposed development is based on recent conversations and exchanges with the client; review of aerial photography and public record data via internet-based GIS software; review of the Downtown North CRA: City of Panama City Conceptual Sidewalk Location Plan provided by The City of Panama City; and our past experience providing geotechnical consulting services for similar projects in the near vicinity to this project location. NOVA understands the project will consist of the addition of sidewalks and gravity retaining walls along the north side of 9 th Street from Magnolia Avenue to State Road 77 along the east side of Magnolia Avenue from 9 th Street to 11 th Street, and a culvert west of the intersection of 9 th Street and McKenzie Avenue in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. We understand that the proposed sidewalk alignments will have finished grade elevations that will closely match the existing roadway grades; however, due to the presence of drainage ditches that extend adjacent to the existing roadway alignments, gravity retaining walls are planned along the proposed sidewalk alignments as well. The retaining wall features will be on the order of 2 feet to 3 feet in total height above current grade elevations along the existing ditch alignment elevations. If these assumptions are not accurate please advise us so that we may adjust our conclusions and recommendations as appropriate. Please note, this exploration is limited to a subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation of the near-surface materials present along the alignments of the proposed sidewalks and retaining walls within the above noted 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue alignments, and evaluation of one cross drain/culvert extension within the 9 th Street alignment; hence, additional information regarding overall site development is not relevant. 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK GEOTECHNICAL CPH, Inc., engaged NOVA to provide geotechnical engineering consulting services for the 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks project in Bay County, Florida. This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project, describes our exploratory procedures and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Page 1

5 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P16802 The primary objective of this study was to provide a geotechnical exploration of the near surface soils within the areas of the proposed construction and to assess these findings as they relate to geotechnical aspects of the planned improvements. The authorized geotechnical engineering services included a site reconnaissance, nine (9) Standard Penetration Test borings (SPTBs), engineering evaluation of the field data, limited laboratory testing, and the preparation of this report. The boring locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan. All drilling, sampling and testing on this project has been conducted in general accordance with various procedures or other applicable standards and practices. Page 2

6 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P GENERAL 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed sidewalk alignments of study include the north side of 9 th street extending from Magnolia Avenue to State Road 77, and the east side of Magnolia Avenue extending from 9 th Street to 11 th Street in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. At the time of our field exploration, the localized terrain along the proposed sidewalk alignments was relatively level with a slight downward gradient away from the crown of the existing roadway, with overall site topography generally sloping from the eastern portion of the alignment (near S.R. 77) downward towards the west. Neighboring properties were observed to be primarily a mix of commercial and residential developments. 2.2 GEOLOGY / HYDROLOGY SITE AND AREA GEOLOGY According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the subject site is located in Bay County within the Gulf Coastal Plain, separated from the Florida Platform by geologic structures known as the Gulf Trough and Apalachicola Embayment. These structures formed a bathymetric and environmental barrier from the earliest Eocene or earliest Oligocene periods into the Miocene. According to the Text to Accompany the Geologic Map of Florida by Scott, 2001, the site is generally underlain by undifferentiated sediments deposited during the Quaternary period. These sediments typically consist of siliciclastics (sand), organics and freshwater carbonates. These soils are highly permeable and form the Sand and Gravel Aquifer of the surficial aquifer system. Surficial soils in the region are primarily siliciclastic sediments deposited in response to the renewed uplift and erosion in the Appalachian highlands to the north and sealevel fluctuations. The extent and type of deposit is influenced by numerous factors, including mineral composition of the parent rock and meteorological events GROUNDWATER Groundwater in the Gulf Coastal Plain typically occurs as an unconfined aquifer condition. Recharge is provided by the infiltration of rainfall and surface water through the soil overburden. More permeable zones in the soil matrix can affect groundwater conditions. The groundwater table is expected to be a subdued replica of the original surface topography. Based on a review of topographic maps and our visual site observations, we anticipate the localized groundwater flow at the site to be generally to the south-southwest. Page 3

7 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P FIELD EXPLORATION 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES Boring locations were established in the field using the provided site plan and by estimating distances and angles from existing site landmarks. Consequently, referenced boring locations and elevations should be considered approximate. If the client desires increased accuracy, NOVA recommends that the boring locations and elevations be surveyed. Our field exploration along the sidewalk alignments of study included two (2) Standard Penetration Test Borings (SPTBs) drilled to a depth of about 15 feet below existing grade (BEG), and seven (7) SPTBs drilled to a depth of roughly 10 feet BEG. Drilling, testing and sampling operations were performed in general accordance with ASTM designations and other industry standards. The soil test borings were performed using the guidelines of ASTM Designation D-1586, "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils". Mud rotary drilling process was used to advance the borings. At regular intervals, soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split-tube sampler. The sampler was first seated six inches and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final foot is designated the "Penetration Resistance". The penetration resistance, when properly interpreted, is an index to the soil strength and density. Representative portions of the soil samples, obtained from the sampler, were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and laboratory testing. Test Boring Records in Appendix B show the standard penetration test (SPT) resistances, or N-values, and present the soil conditions encountered in the borings. These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field exploration data, visual examination of the split-barrel samples, laboratory test data, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. The stratification lines and depth designations represent approximate boundaries between various subsurface strata. Actual transitions between materials may be gradual. Also, subsurface conditions spanning the sidewalk alignments of study may vary relative to those present at the boring locations. The groundwater levels reported on the Test Boring Records represent measurements made after the completion of the borings. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings for safety concerns following the groundwater readings. The approximate locations of the borings are depicted on the Boring Location Plan in the Appendix. Please refer to the Test Boring Records included in the Appendix for the subsurface conditions encountered at the specific boring locations. Page 4

8 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P LABORATORY TESTING Split barrel soil samples were obtained and returned to our testing laboratory, where they were classified using visual/manual methods in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM designations. The descriptions presented in the Test Boring Records should be considered approximate. To aid in classifying the soils and determining their engineering properties, laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples obtained from the soil test borings. Laboratory tests results are presented in the Appendix. All laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with current ASTM standards and included: Five (5) Natural Moisture Content Determination Tests (ASTM D-2216) Five (5) Percent Passing #200 Sieve Tests (ASTM D-1140) Two (2) Organic Content Tests (ASTM D-2974) Further laboratory testing was beyond the scope of this exploration. Page 5

9 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P SOIL CONDITIONS 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The following paragraph provides a generalized description of the subsurface profiles and soil conditions encountered by the borings conducted during this exploration. The Test Boring Records in the Appendix should be reviewed to provide detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered at the boring locations. Conditions may vary at other locations and times. The subsurface soils encountered in the soil test borings generally consisted of very loose to medium dense, light grey to dark grey/brown fine-grained sands to slightly clayey silty fine-grained sands (USCS classifications of SP, SP-SM, SM, SC-SM) with occasional traces to many organics (roots, organic silt and/or peaty sand) from the existing ground surface elevation to the maximum depth explored of about 15 feet BEG. As an exception, loose grey/brown clayey fine sand (SC) and soft green/grey clay (CL) with trace organics (organic silt) were encountered at the location of Boring B-5 at depth intervals ranging from about 6 feet to 8 feet and 8 feet to 13½ feet, respectively. Subsurface conditions are described in greater detail on the attached Test Boring Records. 4.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was encountered at depths varying between approximately 5 feet and 6 feet BEG at the time of our subsurface exploration, which occurred during a period of relatively normal to slightly above normal seasonal rainfall, and within a pattern of frequent afternoon showers. The groundwater table is anticipated to be a subdued replica of the surface topography. Groundwater levels measured at the specific test boring locations are shown in the attached Test Boring Records. Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction activity, surface water runoff and other site-specific factors. Groundwater levels in the Bay County area are typically lowest in the late spring and the late fall and highest in the midsummer with annual groundwater fluctuations by seasonal rainfall; consequently, the water table may vary at times. Page 6

10 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P GENERAL 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based on our understanding of the proposed construction, our site observations, our evaluation and interpretation of the field data, our previous experience with the subsurface conditions on this site, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations or at other times may vary from those encountered at specific boring locations. If such variations are noted during construction, or if project development plans are changed, we request the opportunity to review the changes and amend our recommendations, if necessary. As previously noted, boring locations were established in the field using the provided site plan and by estimating distances and angles from existing site landmarks. If increased accuracy is desired by the client, we recommend that the boring locations and elevations be surveyed. 5.2 SIDEWALK SUBGRADE SUPPORT Based on the results of our field exploration and limited laboratory soil testing, it is our opinion that the near surface subgrade conditions encountered in the test borings are adaptable for providing support of the proposed sidewalks. The near surface soil conditions encountered in the upper approximately 4 feet to 5 feet of the soil horizon at the test boring locations throughout the majority of the proposed sidewalk alignments generally consists of very loose to medium dense light grey to dark grey/brown fine-grained sands to silty fine-grained sands (USCS classifications of SP, SP- SM and SM) with occasional traces of organics (roots, organic silt). In general, the soils encountered within this upper zone of the soil horizon at the test boring locations are considered suitable for subgrade support and for use as fill materials. We note, however, that silty fine-grained sands (SM) are inherently moisture sensitive and could prove difficult to properly compact when overly wet or dry. The soils exposed at the stripped grade elevation, and all lifts of fill soils, should be compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Lifts of elevating fill required to achieve the desired finished grade elevations along proposed sidewalk alignments should be limited to 6 inches (loose thickness). Materials that contain organic debris and organic content (i.e. peat, muck, organic debris, and organic silt) greater than 4 percent by mass and the clayey fine sand (SC) and clay (CL) soils encountered at the Boring B-5 location are not suitable for re-use as backfill materials and should not be utilized in sidewalk support applications, or behind Page 7

11 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P16802 retaining walls. If these materials are encountered within 3 feet below proposed sidewalk areas, they should be removed and replaced with suitable fill placed and compacted in accordance with applicable project specifications. Prior to construction, bulk samples of all proposed fill materials should be laboratory tested to confirm their suitability. 5.3 GRAVITY WALL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS GENERAL We understand that portions of the sidewalk to be constructed along 9 th Street will include gravity retaining walls along the north side of the proposed sidewalk alignment. These retaining walls are required due to the presence of abutting drainage ditches that are present adjacent to the existing roadway alignment. These low-lying retaining walls will be on the order of 2 feet to 3 feet in total height, above current grade elevations along the ditch alignments. Based on the results of our field exploration, it is our opinion that the near surface subsoil conditions encountered in the test borings are adaptable for support of the proposed retaining wall features GRAVITY WALL FOUNDAITON SUPPORT Provided the subgrade is prepared as recommended above, shallow foundations for retaining walls bearing on densified existing soils and/or compacted structural fill, as recommended in this report, may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). We note that this recommended soil bearing pressure has been rendered assuming that the exposed subgrade soils in the retaining wall foundation excavations are compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) GRAVITY WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS The magnitude and distribution of earth pressures against below grade walls depends on the deformation condition (rotation) of the wall, soil properties and water conditions. When the soil behind the wall is prevented from lateral strain, the resulting force is known as the at-rest earth pressure (KO). If the retaining structure moves away from the soil mass, the earth pressure decreases with the increasing lateral expansion until a minimum pressure, known as the active earth pressure (KA), is reached. If the wall is forced into the soil mass, the earth pressure increases until a maximum pressure, known as the passive earth pressure (KP), is obtained. Laboratory analysis to determine actual soil shear strength properties was beyond the authorized scope of services. Based on our experience with similar soils and construction, we have provided the earth pressure estimates shown on the next page: Page 8

12 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P16802 Depth (feet BEG) Soil Material (USCS) ESTIMATED SOIL VALUES GRAVITY WALL FEATURES Soil Friction Angle (φ ) Effective Cohesion (psi) At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ko) Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (Kp) Unit Weight of Soil (lbs/ft³ - Moist) 0 2 SP-SM 30 degrees SM 29 degrees SP-SM 30 degrees SP-SM 30 degrees SM, SC-SM 29 degrees Passive earth pressure is frequently used in retaining wall design to resist active earth pressures. Wall movements required to develop full passive earth pressures are significantly greater than movements necessary for active earth pressures. Consequently, this passive pressure value has been reduced by approximately 50% for wall design. Our lateral earth pressure recommendations assume that: The ground surface adjacent to the wall is level, Soils similar to those analyzed during this study will be reused for wall backfill, Heavy construction equipment does not operate within 5 feet of the walls, A constantly functioning drainage system is installed between the wall and the soil backfill, Any footings or other significant surcharge loads are located outside the wall a distance at least equal to the wall height. Any retaining wall installed along the project alignment will be installed in strict accordance with applicable FDOT Standard Indices. 5.4 EMBANKMENT/CROSS DRAIN STRUCTURES SETTLEMENT Evaluations of potential settlement of the roadway embankment and cross drain structures were not performed, as the design information required to perform such analyses was not available from the Design Team at the time of issuance of this report. NOVA will be glad to perform settlement analyses at a later date when this information is made available to us, if desired by the client. We understand that the existing cross drain structure located west of McKenzie Avenue that extends beneath 9 th Street will be extended to accommodate the planned sidewalk alignment. We note that the subgrade soils exposed at the pipe invert elevation, and that are present beneath any headwall or similar structures, should be compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Page 9

13 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P16802 Based on the results of the test borings and our current understanding of the project, it is our preliminary opinion that the settlement potential from the planned cross-drain improvements should be well within tolerable limits (typically 1 inch or less). However, once design plans are available, we request the opportunity to review the plans and amend our recommendations, if necessary. 5.5 GROUNDWATER CONTROL Groundwater was encountered in the test borings at depths ranging from approximately 5 feet to 6 feet BEG at the time of our exploration, which occurred during a period of normal to slightly above normal seasonal rainfall. Groundwater may impact the planned near surface construction, most especially during cross drain installation and retaining wall footing construction. If required at the time of construction, the dewatering system should be capable of lowering the groundwater elevations to a minimum of 2 feet below the working surface, in order to maintain reasonable stability and workability of exposed subgrades. A local contractor familiar with similar site conditions common to the Bay County area should be able to determine an adequate dewatering method for the residential project. Common local dewatering methods are; dewatering by the use of temporary well points and trench drain systems. Design flexibility should be allowed for the specialty contractor to choose the most appropriate dewatering system, including the well depths and spacing. As previously noted, groundwater levels are subject to seasonal, tidal, climatic and other variations and may be different at other times and locations. The extent and nature of any dewatering required during construction will be dependent on the actual groundwater conditions prevalent at the time of construction and the effectiveness of construction drainage to prevent run-off into open excavations. Page 10

14 Geotechnical Engineering Report June 13, th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks NOVA Project No ; CPH Project No. P SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS 6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS Foundation excavations should be level and free of debris, ponded water, mud, and loose, frozen or water-softened soils. All foundation excavations should be evaluated by a NOVA geotechnical engineer prior to reinforcing steel placement to observe foundation subgrade preparation and assess bearing pressure capacity. Due to variable site subsurface and construction conditions, some adjustments in isolated foundation bearing pressures, depth of foundations or undercutting and replacement with controlled structural fill may be necessary. 6.2 SUBGRADE Once site grading is completed, the subgrade may be exposed to adverse construction activities and weather conditions. The subgrade should be well-drained to prevent the accumulation of water. If the exposed subgrade becomes saturated or frozen, the NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted. Page 11

15 APPENDIX

16 APPENDIX A Figures and Maps

17 Base map provided by Google Maps Scale: Not To Scale PROJECT LOCATION MAP Date Drawn: June 9, Ashley Drive 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks Panama City Beach, Florida Drawn By: B. Webster Panama City, Bay County, Florida Checked By: C. Conway NOVA Project Number

18 85 39' 53'' W Soil Map Bay County, Florida ( th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks) 85 38' 43'' W 30 10' 10'' N ' 10'' N ' 30'' N ' 30'' N 85 39' 53'' W N Map Scale: 1:8,610 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Meters Feet Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS ' 43'' W Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/9/2016 Page 1 of 3

19 Soil Map Bay County, Florida ( th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Bay County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 15, Nov 18, 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 18, 2015 Mar 7, 2015 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/9/2016 Page 2 of 3

20 Soil Map Bay County, Florida th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks Map Unit Legend Bay County, Florida (FL005) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Albany sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 3 Blanton fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 9 Lakeland sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 11 Lakeland sand, 8 to 12 percent slopes 13 Leon sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 20 Foxworth sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes % % % % % % 22 Pamlico-Dorovan complex % 23 Chipley sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 24 Chipley sand, 5 to 8 percent slopes % % 31 Osier fine sand % 39 Pantego sandy loam % 43 Urban land % 45 Kureb sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes % Totals for Area of Interest % Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/9/2016 Page 3 of 3

21 APPENDIX B Subsurface Data

22 LEGEND SPT Boring (B-1, B-2, and B-3) Locations Base map provided by The City of Panama City Scale: Not To Scale Date Drawn: June 9, 2016 Drawn By: B.Webster Checked By: C. Conway Ashley Drive Panama City Beach, Florida BORING LOCATION PLAN 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks Panama City, Bay County, Florida NOVA Project Number

23 LEGEND SPT Boring (B-4, B-5, and B-6) Locations Base map provided by The City of Panama City Scale: Not To Scale BORING LOCATION PLAN Date Drawn: June 9, Ashley Drive 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks Panama City Beach, Florida Drawn By: B. Webster NOVA(6682) Panama City, Bay County, Florida Checked By: C. Conway NOVA Project Number

24 LEGEND SPT Boring (B-7, B-8, and B-9) Locations Base map provided by The City of Panama City Scale: Not To Scale BORING LOCATION PLAN Date Drawn: June 9, Ashley Drive 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks Panama City Beach, Florida Drawn By: B. Webster NOVA(6682) Panama City, Bay County, Florida Checked By: C. Conway NOVA Project Number

25 KEY TO BORING LOGS FINE-GRAINED SOILS 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve* COARSE-GRAINED SOILS More than 50% retained on the the No. 200 sieve* Medium Stiff

26 Depth (feet) 0 TEST BORING RECORD B-1 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.5 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Loose dark grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value 4 ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Very loose dark grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND 2 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site Very loose dark brown silty fine-grained SAND with some organics - organic silt and wood Very loose grey/brown silty fine-grained SAND with some organics - organic silt and roots Medium dense grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND with trace organics - organic silt Boring Terminated at 10 ft Page 1 of 1

27 Depth (feet) 0 TEST BORING RECORD B-2 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.0 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Medium dense grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value 11 ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site Medium dense light grey fine-grained SAND Medium dense light grey slightly clayey silty fine-grained SAND Boring Terminated at 10 ft Page 1 of 1

28 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site. Depth (feet) TEST BORING RECORD B-3 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.5 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Medium dense grey/brown slightly silt fine-grained SAND with trace orange/brown clayey fine-grained sand Loose grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND with trace orange/brown slightly clayey fine-grained sand Loose grey clayey fine-grained SAND with some orange/ brown mottling Loose light yellow/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Loose light brown slightly clayey silty fine-grained SAND Boring Terminated at 10 ft. Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Page 1 of 1

29 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site. Depth (feet) TEST BORING RECORD B-4 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.5 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Loose grey/brown and yellow/brown fine grained SAND with trace organics - roots Loose grey/brown silty fine-grained SAND Loose light grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Loose light grey/brown fine-grained SAND Loose dark brown silty fine-grained SAND with many organics - organic silt, roots, and peaty sand Medium dense grey/brown fine-grained SAND Boring Terminated at 15 ft. Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Page 1 of 1

30 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site. Depth (feet) TEST BORING RECORD B-5 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.5 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Loose grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND with trace organics - organic silt and roots Loose light grey fine-grained SAND Loose grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Loose brown/grey clayey fine-grained SAND Soft green/grey clay with trace organics - organic silt Medium dense grey/brown fine-grained SAND Boring Terminated at 15 ft. Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Page 1 of 1

31 Depth (feet) 0 TEST BORING RECORD B-6 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.0 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Medium dense grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value 15 ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Medium dense light brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND 15 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site Loose light brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Loose light brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND with some orange/brown mottling Loose light brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Boring Terminated at 10 ft Page 1 of 1

32 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site. Depth (feet) TEST BORING RECORD B-7 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.5 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Medium dense dark brown and light brown slightly silty finegrained SAND Medium dense grey/brown fine-grained SAND Loose dark grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND with trace roots Loose dark grey slightly silty fine-grained SAND Medium dense grey fine-grained SAND with trace organics - roots Boring Terminated at 10 ft. Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Page 1 of 1

33 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site. Depth (feet) TEST BORING RECORD B-8 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 6.0 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Medium dense dark grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Dense yellow/brown slightly silty fine grained SAND Medium dense light orange/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Medium dense light yellow/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND Loose light grey fine-grained SAND Boring Terminated at 10 ft. Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Page 1 of 1

34 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicative of the site. Depth (feet) TEST BORING RECORD B-9 Elevation (feet) PROJECT: 9th Street and Magnolia Avenue PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: CPH, Inc. PROJECT LOCATION: Panama City, Bay County, Florida LOCATION: See Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade DRILLER: Griffin Drilling LOGGED BY: B. Webster DRILLING METHOD: Mud Rotary DATE: May 26, 2016 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 5.0 AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> Description Medium dense grey/brown slightly silty fine-grained SAND with trace gravel Medium dense dark grey/brown silty fine- grained SAND with trace organics - organic silt Medium dense light grey fine-grained SAND Loose grey silty fine-grained SAND Boring Terminated at 10 ft. Graphic Groundwater Sample Type N-Value ORGANIC CONTENT -200 (%) BLOW COUNT MC (%) PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT Page 1 of 1

35 APPENDIX C Laboratory Data

36 SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION & INDEX TESTING 9 th Street and Magnolia Avenue Sidewalks Panama City Beach, Bay County, Florida NOVA Project Number SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TESTING Boring No. Sample No. Sample Depth (ft) Natural Moisture (%) Percent (%) Passing #200 Sieve Organic Content (%) USCS Soil Classification B SM B SM B SC-SM B SP-SM B SM Lab Summary Page 1 of 1

37 APPENDIX D Support Documents

38 QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report represent our professional opinions concerning subsurface conditions at the site. The opinions presented are relative to the dates of our site work and should not be relied on to represent conditions at later dates or at locations not explored. The opinions included herein are based on information provided to us, the data obtained at specific locations during the study, and our previous experience. If additional information becomes available which might impact our geotechnical opinions, it will be necessary for NOVA to review the information, re-assess the potential concerns, and re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations. Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is the possibility that conditions between borings may differ from those encountered at specific boring locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers and/or the contractors, or that either natural events or the construction process has altered the subsurface conditions. These variations are an inherent risk associated with subsurface conditions in this region and the approximate methods used to obtain the data. These variations may not be apparent until construction. The professional opinions presented in this report are not final. Field observations and foundation installation monitoring by the geotechnical engineer, as well as soil density testing and other quality assurance functions associated with site earthwork and foundation construction, are an extension of this report. Therefore, NOVA should be retained by the owner to observe all earthwork and foundation construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated in this study actually exist, and to finalize or amend our conclusions and recommendations. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report if NOVA does not perform these observation and testing services. This report is intended for the sole use of CPH, Inc. only. The scope of work performed during this study was developed for purposes specifically intended by CPH, Inc. only, and may not satisfy other users requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations or opinions. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, our conclusions derived and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the State of Florida. This warranty is in lieu of all other statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.

39 Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one not even you should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was: not prepared for you; not prepared for your project; not prepared for the specific site explored; or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure, as when it s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a lightindustrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; the composition of the design team; or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes even minor ones and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ sometimes significantly from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmationdependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations applicability. A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

40 problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled limitations, many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnicalengineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD Telephone: 301/ Facsimile: 301/ info@geoprofessional.org Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.