Loading...
1073 ATLANTIC BLVD CIV24-0002 - Drainage Report-R2_REV 4-18-24for DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Ash Properties Jacksonville, Florida Project No: 23107 3/28/2024 Alex R. Acree, P.E.THE NAMED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING SHEETS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 61G15-23.004, F. A. C. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITALL SIGNED AND SEALED BY ALEX R. ACREE, P.E. ON THE DATE ADJACENT TO THE SEAL. PRINTED COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNED AND SEALED AND THE SIGNATURE MUST BE VERIFIED ON ANY ELECTRONIC COPIES. PE # 73155 CA # 26535 A. B. C. D. E. F. A. B. C. D. E. F. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Site Location Methodology Pre-Development Summary Peak Rate Factor Drainage Patterns Soil Data Basin Characteristics Time of Concentration Tailwater Conditions Peak Rate Factor Post-Development (Proposed) Evaluation Drainage Patterns Basin Characteristics Time of Concentration Pre/Post-Development Comparison TABLE OF CONTENTS ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Project No: 23107 Executive Summary Project Summary Treatment Volume Requirements 4.Attachments Section Description 1. Post-Development Summary 2.Pre-Development (Existing) Evaluation 3. Permanent Pool Volume Requirements ICPR Analysis Results Geotechnical Report Pre/Post-Development Map Location Map Normal Water Level Determination Recovery Time Calculations SWMF Mean Depth Check ICPR Analysis Results Aerial Map USGS Quad Map Flood Insurance Rate Map Soils Map Time of Concentration Calculations SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Date: A. B. C. Attachment B, Attachment C, Aerial Map USGS Quad Map Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Site Location This analysis is for the development of a 3-story mini storage building, paved parking lot, and associated infrastructure to an existing single story mini storage lot. This report supports an application to permit a proposed wet detention pond for treatment of the associated stormwater requirements of the proposed improvements. The stormwater runoff from the improved portions of the site will be conveyed with onsite storm pipe system and ultimately receiving treatment through the proposed stormwater treatment facility (SWMF). Once treated, the runoff will discharge through a control structure weir to the existing stormwater system at the front of the site. Section 1 - Executive Summary Project Summary Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Attachment D, The project is situated in Section 38, Township 2 South, Range 29 East, Atlantic Beach, Duval County, Florida. More particularly, the property is located on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard. Refer to Attachment A, Location Map. As required by the SJRWMD, the following items are also included as reference material: This drainage report has been prepared in accordance with current requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the City of Atlantic Beach. In addition, storm events (frequencies), run off calculations, discharge criteria, pipe hydraulics, and evaluation methods (including computer software applications), etc., have been based on the guidelines/requirements of these permitting entities. Stormwater design for this site will incorporate a proposed wet detention pond. ICPR was used to route the various storms through the Storm Water Management Facility (SWMF). The SCS Unit Hydrograph Method hydrographs were utilized to create the pre- and post-development runoff hydrographs. Peak flow and max stage considerations were given to the Mean Annual-24hr (MA-24hr), 5yr-24hr, 10yr-24hr and 25yr-24hr storms. The 100yr-24hr storm was also modeled for SWMF capacity only. Methodology Date: D. Area CN Tc (ac)(min) 1.29 98 10 E. Area CN C Tc (ac)(min) 1.29 93 0.75 10 (ft)(ft)(ft) -1.00 9.90 7.00 0.18 Provided Treatment Volume 1 SWMF BOT Elev Required Treatment Volume (ac-ft)(ac-ft) 0.27 Drainage Basin Drainage Basin Pre Basin A TOB Weir Elev Wet Detention Pond Calculation Summary: Post Basin 1 Post-Development Summary The post-development project area is made up of one drainage basin. The SWMF will discharge into the existing stormwater network along Atlantic Blvd, which is considered to be “POST-BNDY” within the analysis. Refer to Attachment I, Post- Development Map, for a graphical representation of the proposed drainage characteristics of the project area. A summary of the post-development drainage basin area is as follows: Impervious Area (ac) 0.86 Pre-Development Summary The pre-development basin area conveys stormwater via existing grate inlets and pipes to the boundary (an existing curb inlet along Atlantic Boulevard on the south side of the property). Refer to Attachment I, Pre-Development Map, for graphical representations of the existing drainage characteristics of the project area. A summary of the pre-development drainage basin areas are as follows: Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Date: F. Please note that the values provided in the table above come from the ICPR model for pre- and post- development conditions. The stage and discharge rates are found in Attachment G. MA-24hr 5yr-24hr 5.9 3.58 Pre-Development Post-Development PRE-BNDY POST-BNDY (cfs) 8.99 7.78 4.71 1.64 7.09 5.4910yr-24hr 25yr-24hr Storm (cfs) The Pre-Development vs. Post-Development peak inflow are as follows: (ft) 7.93 25yr-24hr5yr-24hr 10yr-24hr Design High Water (DHW) Results from ICPR Model: Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA 100yr-24hr (SJRWMD) Location: Duval County, Florida Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH SWMF 1 7.46 7.62 7.78 (ft)(ft)(ft) MA-24hrSWMF(ft) 7.27 Pre/Post-Development Comparison SECTION 2 PRE-DEVELOPMENT (EXISTING) EVALUATION Date: A. B. C. Pre Basin A Area (ac)Curve Number 1.26 98 98 Hydrologic Soil Group Impervious Area Pervious HSG D - Good Condition Open Space Sum Composite CN Soil Name Lynn Haven fine sand, 0 to 2 percent Urban Land-Leon-Boulogne complex, 0 Soils Map Symbol 35 71 Hydrologic Soil Group A/D A/D Basin Characteristics The runoff curve number used in the pre-development analysis was based on TR55 methodology. The soils present on the site are of hydrologic soil group A/D. Hydrologic soil group D was selected to represent the site, as the area is not located within the depressional wetlands. 0.02 80 1.29 Section 2 - Pre-Development (Existing) Evaluation The site currently containts a 1-story self storage building with existing utilities and drainage structures. The south of the property slopes toward Atlantic Boulevard. The drainage basin was further separated into the hydrologic soil group as depicted on the SCS Soil Survey. Based on the SCS Soil Survey of the City of Atlantic Beach, there are two soils present on the site. See Attachment E, Soils Map. In summary, the soils types are listed as follows: Drainage Patterns Soil Data Location: Duval County, Florida Checked By: ARA Project No:23107 Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Date: D. E. F. Tailwater Conditions The receiving front lot curb inlet was estimated to have a maximum stage of 8.57’ due to the existing rim elevation of the structure. The conservative estimate stage (8.57’) was utilized for the SWMF’s tailwater condition throughout the stormwater modeling in ICPR. Due to the presence of existing drainage features & mild slopes, the Peak Rate Factor (K) = 484 was used for the onsite basin. Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Time of Concentration Stormwater runoff for Pre-Basin A was estimated to travel as shallow concentrated flow and was calculated using methodology set forth in TR-55 as demonstrated in Attachment F, Time of Concentration Calculations. The Tc used for Pre-Basin A is 10 minutes. Peak Rate Factor Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH SECTION 3 POST-DEVELOPMENT (PROPOSED) EVALUATION Date: A. B. 37,410 0.86 0.95 3,725 0.09 1.00 14,908 0.34 0.2 56,043 1.29 0.75 C. D. Area (ac)C 98 100 80 Curve Number The limits of proposed improvements consist of approximately 1.29 acres of which 0.86 acres are to be considered impervious. The runoff from the improvements are to be routed through a proposed wet detention stormwater management facility and discharged into an existing stormwater network at the front of the site. Please see Attachment I, for graphical representations of the proposed drainage characteristics of the project area. The drainage basin curve number is calculated as the composite of the impervious areas and pervious areas. The following is a breakdown of the site surface coverage, runoff coefficient and curve number calculations: 93 Area (sf) Pervious HSG D - Good Condition Open Space Sum Composite CN Post Basin 1 Hydrologic Soil Group Impervious Area Normal Water Level Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Section 3 - Post-Development (Proposed) Evaluation Drainage Patterns Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Basin Characteristics Time of Concentration Peak Rate Factor Time of concentration was estimated from the most remote part of the catchment area to the design node. The minimum time of concentration of 10 minutes was conservatively assumed in the post-development analysis for the basin area. Following engineering convention, a Peak Rate Factor (K) = 484 was used in the analysis of the post- development basin. Date: E. F. A. 1in x 56,043 sf B. 2.5in x 37,410 sf (cf) 7,794 7,794 cf 0.18 ac ft 6.90 11,844 cf 0.27 ac ft 7.00 2.5-inches of rainfall over the impervious area from section 3B Vt = PAimpervious= =7,794 cf = 0.18 ac-ft12 in/ft The greater of the two SJRWMD treatment volume criteria determine the treatment volume required for the SWMF. The treatment volume required and provided are summarized below: (cf) 4,670 Required TV (SJRWMD) = Provided TV = (ac-ft) Required Treatment Volume At Stage: At Stage: Wet Detention Treatment Volume TV (a) (sf)(sf) 56,043 37,410 Total Drainage Area Total Impervious Area TV(b)Required TV Greater of (a) or (b) (cf) 7,794 0.18 23107 Matthews | DCCM SWMF 1: Vr = PA = =4,670 cf = 0.11 ac-ft 1-inch of rainfall over the improved drainage area from section 3B 12 in/ft Normal Water Level Determination Treatment Volume Requirements The normal water level was estimated to be 5.0 due to the seasonal high water level being between 4.0' and 5.0' below ground surface . Refer to Attachment G, Geotechnical Report, provided by Universal Engineering Sciences Project No. 0930.2300154.0000, for boring logs with groundwater elevations and estimated seasonal high. The stormwater management facility was designed in accordance with St. Johns River Water Management District criteria Chapter 62-330 of the SJRWMD Applicants Handbook and the City of Atlantic Beach. The treatment volume is to be detained by the discharge weir, which is set at or above the stage required to provide the required treatment volume. Methodology and calculations demonstrating acceptability are below: Location: Duval County, Florida Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA Project No: Date: Stage Area Area (ft)(ft^2)(ac.) -1.00 1,317 0.03 2.00 2,373 0.05 5.00 3,725 0.09 9.90 8,813 0.20 G. DA = C = R = RT = WS = CF = LRZ = 1.29 0.75 0.33 ac-ft therefore adequate storage is provided to satisfy the permanent pool criteria. Littoral Zone Factor (if littoral zone provided, LZF = 1.0, otherwise, LZF = 1.5) PPV SWMF 1=x 1.0 =0.33 ac-ft The total stormwater facility’s volume below the NWL elevation is: 23107 0.13 0.33 1.00 GB NWL TOB (WS x CF) Where: x 30in x 21daysac x 153 days x 12in/ft minimum residence time = 21 days the length of the wet season = 153 days Conversion Factor = 12 SWMF 1: PPV = x LZF The permanent pool volume is calculated using equation 29-4 of the SJRWMD handbook which is: (DA x C x R x RT) Project No: Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Vol Sum (ac.-ft) 0.00 BOT Level Description Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Matthews | DCCM The permanent pool volume (PPV) has been designed to provide a residence time of 21 days during the wet season in each SWMF. The permanent pool is that portion of the pond which is designed to always hold water. This provides the wet detention SWMF the additional capacity to remove pollutants through uptake of nutrients by algae, absorption of nutrients and heavy metals onto the bottom, biological oxidation of organic materials and sedimentation. Calculations for SWMF 1 PPV are summarized below: Drainage area to pond (ac) the runoff coefficient wet seasonal rainfall depth = 30 inches SWMF Stage vs. Storage Volume Permanent Pool Volume Requirements Date: H. h1 = h2 = h = Q = A = D = h = TVS = NWL = Q = V = T = A = C = D = g = TVS - OrificeInvert (NWL) Half Treatment Level - NWL (h1 + h2) / 2 Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 SWMF 1: Checked By: Recovery Time Calculations ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM A bleed-down orifice will allow a slow, controlled rate for the facility’s recovery. The following calculations were utilized to size the diameter of the circular bleed-down orifice to achieve a desired recovery time. SJRWMD requires the facility to recover one-half of the required treatment volume in a 24-30 hour time constraint. Calculations for SWMF 1 Recovery time are summarized below: depth of water above the flow line (center) of the orifice Required Treatment Volume Stage Normal Water Level Rate discharge Vhalf Treatment / T Q / C √2gh √(4𝐴/π) Where: The calculated required diameter to provide a recovery time of 24 hours is as follows: Volume Recovery Time Orifice area Orifice coefficient = 0.60 Orifice diameter Gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/sec2 Date: 1.22 in Using:1.20 inches, the recovery time is calculated as follows: h1 = h2 = h = Q = T = 1.20 in 24.84 hours H average CA √2gh 0.66 1.33 24.84T (hr) 1.20 0.0079 0.04 D (in) A (sf) Q (cfs) 0.60C H2 Vhalf Treatment / Q The recovery time for half the treatment volume using the design SWMF 1Calculated Orifice Sizing H1 (ft) 1/2 TV Req (cf) 1/2 TV Stage (ft) results in a time of : 1.22 TVS - OrificeInvert (NWL) Half Treatment Level - NWL (h1 + h2) / 2 D (in) 2.00 3,897 5.66 Location: Duval County, Florida Project No:23107 Checked By: ARA The calculated required diameter to provide a recovery time of 24hr is: 0.05 0.60 0.0081 Q (cfs) C A (sf) 5.66 0.66 24.00 1/2 TV Stage (ft) H2 T (hr) Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 1/2 TV Req (cf) SWMF 1 2.00 3,897 Calculated Orifice Sizing H1 (ft) Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Matthews | DCCM Date: I. PPV 14,555 cf A 3,725 sf J. Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM The mean depth of a wet detention pond is required to be between 2-ft and 8-ft in accordance with SJRWMD rules. The mean depth equation is the permanent pool volume divided by the pond surface area at the normal water level (NWL). The mean depth is calculated using the equation as follows: Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida SWMF Mean Depth Check Storm Pre-Development Post-Development PRE-BNDY POST-BNDY (cfs)(cfs) 10yr-24hr 7.09 5.49 25yr-24hr 8.99 7.78 MA-24hr 4.71 1.64 5yr-24hr 5.9 3.58 MA-24hr 7.27 9.90 5yr-24hr 7.46 10yr-24hr 7.62 25yr-24hr 7.78 100yr-24hr 7.93 ICPR Analysis Results The post development analysis results for peak stage in the proposed wet detention SJRWMD Storm Event SWMF 1 Peak Stage (ft)TOB (ft) The results for mean depth of each pond is as follows: MD ===3.91 ft Mean Depth (ft) 3.91 Provided PPV (cf) 14,555 NWL Area (sf) 3,725 SWMF 1 SECTION 4 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP Date: Project No: ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH LGM 23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name: Created By:3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida LOCATION MAP SITE N ATTACHMENT B AERIAL MAP Date: Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida AERIAL MAP SITE N USGS QUAD MAP ATTACHMENT C Date: Project No:23107 Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida USGS QUAD MAP Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 SITE N ATTACHMENT D FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP Date: PANNEL NUMBER: 12031C0408J FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Project No:23107 SITE N ATTACHMENT E SOILS MAP Date: Project No:23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH Created By:LGM 3/28/2024 Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida SOILS MAP N SITE ATTACHMENT F TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS Date: 100 ft n:0.012 9.8 ft Slope:0.005 ft/ft 9.3 ft P2:5.2 in 2yr/24hr T1:1.77 min Length:66.41 ft Slope:0.007 ft/ft High Pt:9.3 ft Velocity:1.73 ft/sec Low Pt:8.82 ft Surface:T2:0.64 min Length:0 ft Depth:0 ft High Pt:0 ft Bottom:0 ft Low Pt:0 ft Side Slope:0 ft/ft Slope:0.00 ft/ft Type: Surface:RH:0.00 ft n:0.022 Velocity:0.00 ft/sec T3:0.00 min Length:0 ft Depth:0 ft High Pt:0 ft Bottom:0 ft Low Pt:0 ft Side Slope:0 ft/ft Slope:0.00 ft/ft Type: Surface:RH:0.00 ft n:0.022 Velocity:0.00 ft/sec T3:0.00 min TC:2.41 min USE TC:10 min Rectangular Clean Time of concentration for Rect./Vee/Trap.channel from Manning's Equation. Clean Rectangular LGM 3/28/2024 Time of concentration for shallow concentrated flow from SCS TR-55 velocity method. Time of concentration for Rect./Vee/Trap.channel from Manning's Equation. High Pt: Low Pt: Project No: TC = 0.007 * (n*L)0.8* / (P2 0.5 * S0.4) AsphaltSurface: Paved Length: 23107 Matthews | DCCM Project Name:ASH PROPERTIES - ATLANTIC BEACH ATTACHMENT F Checked By: ARA Location: Duval County, Florida Created By: TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS Stormwater Basin: Pre Basin A Time of concentration for sheet flow from Manning-Kinematic wave equation (1976) ATTACHMENT G ICPR ANALYSIS RESULTS ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 1 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Background Image: NODAL NETWORK Simple Basin: U: PRE BASIN A Scenario:SJRWMD ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 2 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Node:T: PRE BNDY Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:10.0000 min Max Allowable Q:9999.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:1.2900 ac Curve Number:98.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [SJRWMD] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA U: PRE BASIN A 100yr-24hr 11.36 12.0167 12.00 11.78 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00 U: PRE BASIN A 10yr-24hr 7.09 12.0167 7.50 7.28 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00 U: PRE BASIN A 25yr-24hr 8.99 12.0167 9.50 9.28 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00 U: PRE BASIN A 5yr-24hr 5.90 12.0167 6.25 6.02 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00 U: PRE BASIN A MA-24hr 4.71 12.0167 5.00 4.77 1.2900 98.0 0.00 0.00 Node: T: PRE BNDY Scenario:SJRWMD Type:Time/Stage Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:4.54 ft Warning Stage:8.57 ft Boundary Stage: Year Month Day Hour Stage [ft] 0 0 0 0.0000 4.54 0 0 0 12.0000 4.54 0 0 0 24.0000 4.54 Comment: Node Max Conditions [SJRWMD] ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 3 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft]Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] T: PRE BNDY 100yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 11.36 0.00 0 T: PRE BNDY 10yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 7.09 0.00 0 T: PRE BNDY 25yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 8.99 0.00 0 T: PRE BNDY 5yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 5.90 0.00 0 T: PRE BNDY MA-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 4.71 0.00 0 Simple Basin: U: POST BASIN 1 Scenario:SJRWMD Node:A: SWMF 1 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:10.0000 min Max Allowable Q:9999.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:1.2900 ac Curve Number:93.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [SJRWMD] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA U: POST BASIN 1 100yr-24hr 11.23 12.0167 12.00 11.16 1.2900 93.0 0.00 0.00 U: POST BASIN 1 10yr-24hr 6.90 12.0167 7.50 6.68 1.2900 93.0 0.00 0.00 U: POST BASIN 1 25yr-24hr 8.83 12.0167 9.50 8.67 1.2900 93.0 0.00 0.00 U: POST BASIN 1 5yr-24hr 5.69 12.0167 6.25 5.44 1.2900 93.0 0.00 0.00 U: POST BASIN 1 MA-24hr 4.47 12.0167 5.00 4.21 1.2900 93.0 0.00 0.00 Node: A: SWMF 1 Scenario:SJRWMD Type:Stage/Area Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:5.00 ft Warning Stage:9.90 ft ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 4 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 5.00 0.0860 3746 6.00 0.1030 4487 7.00 0.1220 5314 8.00 0.1420 6186 9.90 0.2020 8799 Comment: Node Max Conditions [SJRWMD] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft]Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] A: SWMF 1 100yr-24hr 9.90 7.93 0.0010 11.23 10.12 6126 A: SWMF 1 10yr-24hr 9.90 7.62 0.0010 6.90 5.49 5853 A: SWMF 1 25yr-24hr 9.90 7.78 0.0010 8.83 7.78 5995 A: SWMF 1 5yr-24hr 9.90 7.46 0.0010 5.69 3.58 5718 A: SWMF 1 MA-24hr 9.90 7.27 0.0010 4.47 1.64 5552 Drop Structure Link: D: CS-1 Scenario:SJRWMD From Node:A: SWMF 1 To Node:T: POST BNDY 1 Link Count:1 Flow Direction:Both Solution:Combine Increments:0 Pipe Count:1 Damping:0.0000 ft Length:90.00 ft FHWA Code:1 Entr Loss Coef:0.50 Exit Loss Coef:0.10 Bend Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Location:0.00 dec Energy Switch:Energy Upstream Pipe Downstream Pipe Invert:4.75 ft Invert:4.50 ft Manning's N:0.0120 Manning's N:0.0120 Geometry: Circular Geometry: Circular Max Depth:2.00 ft Max Depth:2.00 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Pipe Comment: Weir Component Weir:1 Weir Count:1 Weir Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Weir Type:Horizontal Geometry Type:Rectangular Invert:9.57 ft Control Elevation:9.57 ft Max Depth:4.50 ft Max Width:3.50 ft Fillet:0.00 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Op Table: Ref Node: Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Op Table: Ref Node: Discharge Coefficients Weir Default:3.200 Weir Table: Orifice Default:0.600 ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 5 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Orifice Table: Weir Comment: TOP OF BOX (OFFLINE CONTROL STRUCTURE) Weir Component Weir:2 Weir Count:1 Weir Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Weir Type:Sharp Crested Vertical Geometry Type:Rectangular Invert:7.00 ft Control Elevation:7.00 ft Max Depth:2.57 ft Max Width:3.50 ft Fillet:0.00 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Op Table: Ref Node: Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Op Table: Ref Node: Discharge Coefficients Weir Default:3.200 Weir Table: Orifice Default:0.600 Orifice Table: Weir Comment: WEIR 1 Weir Component Weir:3 Weir Count:1 Weir Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Weir Type:Horizontal Geometry Type:Circular Invert:5.00 ft Control Elevation:5.00 ft Max Depth:0.10 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Op Table: Ref Node: Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Op Table: Ref Node: Discharge Coefficients Weir Default:3.200 Weir Table: Orifice Default:0.600 Orifice Table: Weir Comment: ORIFICE Drop Structure Comment: Link Min/Max Conditions [SJRWMD] Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs]Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] D: CS-1 - Pipe 100yr-24hr 10.12 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 1 100yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 2 100yr-24hr 10.07 0.00 -0.02 3.09 3.09 3.09 D: CS-1 - Weir: 3 100yr-24hr 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Pipe 10yr-24hr 5.49 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 1 10yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 2 10yr-24hr 5.45 0.00 -0.01 2.52 2.52 2.52 D: CS-1 - Weir:10yr-24hr 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 6 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs]Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] 3 D: CS-1 - Pipe 25yr-24hr 7.78 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 1 25yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 2 25yr-24hr 7.73 0.00 -0.01 2.83 2.83 2.83 D: CS-1 - Weir: 3 25yr-24hr 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Pipe 5yr-24hr 3.58 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 1 5yr-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 2 5yr-24hr 3.53 0.00 -0.01 2.18 2.18 2.18 D: CS-1 - Weir: 3 5yr-24hr 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Pipe MA-24hr 1.64 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 1 MA-24hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D: CS-1 - Weir: 2 MA-24hr 1.59 0.00 -0.01 1.67 1.67 1.67 D: CS-1 - Weir: 3 MA-24hr 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Node: T: POST BNDY 1 Scenario:SJRWMD Type:Time/Stage Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:4.54 ft Warning Stage:8.57 ft Boundary Stage: Year Month Day Hour Stage [ft] 0 0 0 0.0000 4.54 0 0 0 12.0000 4.54 0 0 0 24.0000 4.54 Comment: Node Max Conditions [SJRWMD] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft]Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] T: POST BNDY 1 100yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 10.12 0.00 0 T: POST BNDY 1 10yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 5.49 0.00 0 T: POST BNDY 1 25yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 7.78 0.00 0 T: POST BNDY 1 5yr-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 3.58 0.00 0 T: POST BNDY 1 MA-24hr 8.57 4.54 0.0000 1.64 0.00 0 ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 7 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Simulation: 100yr-24hr Scenario:SJRWMD Run Date/Time:3/1/2024 9:30:03 AM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 30.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD Rainfall Amount:12.00 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2 Energy Switch (1D):Energy ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 8 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Comment: Simulation: 10yr-24hr Scenario:SJRWMD Run Date/Time:3/1/2024 9:30:29 AM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 30.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD Rainfall Amount:7.50 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 9 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2 Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: Simulation: 25yr-24hr Scenario:SJRWMD Run Date/Time:3/1/2024 9:30:50 AM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 30.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 10 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD Rainfall Amount:9.50 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2 Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: Simulation: 5yr-24hr Scenario:SJRWMD Run Date/Time:3/1/2024 9:31:11 AM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 30.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 11 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Max Iterations:6 Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD Rainfall Amount:6.25 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2 Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: Simulation: MA-24hr Scenario:SJRWMD Run Date/Time:3/1/2024 9:31:32 AM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.08 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 30.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Min Calculation Time:30.0000 0.0500 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 5.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder:Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH 12 OF 12 C:\Users\lmudd\OneDrive - DCCM\Desktop\ICPR Files\23107 - Storm Design\3/1/2024 Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 Over-Relax Weight Fact:0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt:Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~FLMOD Rainfall Amount:5.00 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (1D):100 ft2 Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: ATTACHMENT H GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REPORT OF A GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION Atlantic Self Storage – 1073 Atlantic Boulevard Atlantic Beach, Florida August 7, 2023 PROJECT NO. 0930.2300154.0000 REPORT NO. 2031580 Prepared for: Ash Properties, Inc. 7880 Gate Parkway - Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Prepared by: UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES 5561 Florida Mining Boulevard South Jacksonville, Florida 32257-3648 (904) 296-0757 Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection August 7, 2023 Ash Properties, Inc. 7880 Gate Parkway - Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Attention: Mr. Gabe Boeman Reference: REPORT OF A GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION Atlantic Self Storage – 1073 Atlantic Boulevard Atlantic Beach, Florida UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 and Report No. 2031580 Dear Mr. Boeman: Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC has completed a subsurface exploration at the site of the proposed development located in Atlantic Beach, Florida. These services were provided in general accordance with our Proposal No. 2019517, dated May 16, 2023. This report contains the results of our exploration, an engineering evaluation with respect to the project characteristics described to us, and recommendations for groundwater considerations, foundation design, pavement design, fill suitability, and site preparation. A summary of our findings is as follows:  Beneath 1 to 3-1/2 inches of asphalt and 4 to 7 inches of limerock, the borings generally encountered loose fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) in the upper 2 to 4 feet underlain by medium dense to dense fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) to a depth range of 12 to 17. This is underlain by loose to medium dense fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) to the deepest boring termination depths of 30 feet. As an exception, boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet.  We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations between 5.0 to 6.4 feet below the existing grade. The seasonal high groundwater level is estimated to be approximately 4.0 to 5.0 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration.  Boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet. We recommend that we observe the overexcavation of this material during construction to better identify the material encountered by the boring, determine the need for overexcavation, and better delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of this material, if warranted. As an alternative, we can perform additional auger borings in this area to better identify the material and delineate the vertical and horizontal extent prior to construction.  Assuming the building area will be constructed in accordance with our Site Preparation Recommendations, we have recommended the proposed structure be supported on conventional, shallow spread foundations with an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot.  A rigid or flexible pavement section could be used on this project. Flexible pavement combines the strength and durability of several layer components to produce an appropriate and cost-effective combination of available construction materials. Concrete pavement has the advantage of the ability to “bridge” over isolated soft areas, and it typically has a longer service life than asphalt pavement. Disadvantages of rigid pavement include an initial higher cost and more difficult patching of distressed areas than occurs with flexible pavement.  Based on the boring performed in the stormwater management area (LA-1), the soils described as fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM), as encountered throughout the 25-foot boring depth, as indicated on the attached Boring Logs and Soil Boring Profiles in Appendix A, are considered suitable for use as structural fill. It should be understood that all soils excavated from below the water table may be excessively wet and may require stockpiling or spreading to dry prior to placement and compaction. It should also be noted that soils described as fine sand with silt (SP-SM) may take longer to dry and be more difficult to work with than those described as fine sand (SP) due to higher fines and organic contents. The suitability of these soils for use as structural fill will be highly dependent on the contractor’s ability to adequately dry and work these materials.  We recommend only normal, good practice site preparation techniques to prepare the existing subgrade to support the proposed structure. These techniques include clearing the construction areas, stripping topsoils and vegetation, overexcavation of organic soils, as warranted, removing any existing structures and foundations, pavements, and utilities, dewatering as warranted, compacting the subgrade and placing engineered fill to the desired grades. We trust this report meets yours needs and addresses the geotechnical issues associated with the proposed construction. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, LLC Certificate of Authorization No. 549 Stephen R. Weaver, P.E. Jacob Fuller Geotechnical Services Manager Geotechnical Project Manager FL P.E. Number 37389 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... 1 2.2 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 SPT Borings ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3.2 Auger Borings ................................................................................................................ 2 2.4 LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................. 3 3.0 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 SOIL SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 4 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 4 4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 4 4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 5 4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS .............................................................................................. 5 4.3.1 Bearing Pressure ............................................................................................................ 5 4.3.2 Foundation Size ............................................................................................................. 6 4.3.3 Bearing Depth ................................................................................................................ 6 4.3.4 Bearing Material ............................................................................................................ 6 4.3.5 Settlement Estimates ...................................................................................................... 6 4.3.6 Floor Slab ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 PAVEMENTS....................................................................................................................... 7 4.4.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 7 4.4.2 Asphalt (Flexible) Pavements ........................................................................................ 7 4.4.3 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements .......................................................................................... 9 4.4.4 Effects of Groundwater ................................................................................................ 11 4.4.5 Curbing ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.4.6 Construction Traffic ..................................................................................................... 11 4.5 SITE PREPARATION........................................................................................................ 11 4.6 RETENTION POND CONSIDERATION ......................................................................... 13 4.6.1 Fill Suitability .............................................................................................................. 13 4.6.2 Seasonal High Groundwater ........................................................................................ 14 4.6.3 Pond Parameters ........................................................................................................... 14 5.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 14 UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In this report, we present the results of the subsurface exploration of the site for the proposed development located in Atlantic Beach, Florida. We have divided this report into the following sections:  SCOPE OF SERVICES - Defines what we did  FINDINGS - Describes what we encountered  RECOMMENDATIONS - Describes what we encourage you to do  LIMITATIONS - Describes the restrictions inherent in this report  APPENDICES - Presents support materials referenced in this report 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project information was provided to us in recent correspondence with you. We were provided with a copy a Proposed Site Plan for the project dated October 10, 2021 and with a Map Showing Survey of the site prepared by Boatwright Land Surveyors. Inc. dated April 14, 1998. These plans show the boundary limits for the property, the roadways located adjacent to the site, the requested boring locations, and the layout of the existing and proposed construction. We understand that the project consists of a new approximately three-story self storage facility with adjacent pavement areas and a stormwater management area. Detailed structural loads have not been provided, therefore we assume maximum column and wall loads will not exceed 150 kips and 6 klf, respectively. Detailed grading information has not been provided, therefore we assume maximum elevating fill heights will not exceed 2 feet above existing grades. We note that since the applicability of geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon project characteristics, most specifically: improvement locations, grade alterations, and actual structural loads applied, UES must review the preliminary and final site and grading plans, and structural design loads to validate all recommendations rendered herein. Without such review our recommendations should not be relied upon for final design or construction of any site improvements. 2.2 PURPOSE The purposes of this exploration were:  to explore the general subsurface conditions at the site for future development;  to interpret and evaluate the subsurface conditions with respect to the proposed construction; and UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 2  to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for groundwater considerations, foundation design, pavement design, fill suitability, and site preparation. This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of traditional geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. Universal Engineering Sciences would be pleased to perform these services, if you desire. Our exploration was confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed construction. Our work did not address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than performed in this study. We will be pleased to conduct an investigation to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you desire. 2.3 FIELD EXPLORATION A field exploration was performed on July 19 and 20, 2023. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan in Appendix A. The approximate boring locations were determined in the field by our personnel using a hand-held GPS unit and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used. Samples of the soils encountered will be held in our laboratory for your inspection for 60 days unless we are notified otherwise. 2.3.1 SPT Borings To explore the subsurface conditions within the building and stormwater retention areas, we located and drilled seven (7) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths of 25 to 30 feet below the existing ground surface in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1586. A summary of this field procedure is included in Appendix A. Split-spoon soil samples recovered during performance of the borings were visually classified in the field and representative portions of the samples were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation. 2.3.2 Auger Borings To explore the subsurface conditions within the proposed pavement areas, we located and drilled one (1) auger boring to a depth of approximately 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The auger boring was drilled in general accordance with the methodology outlined in ASTM D 1452. A summary of this field procedure is included in the Field Procedures section of Appendix A. Representative soil samples recovered from the auger borings were returned to our laboratory for further evaluation. UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 3 2.4 LABORATORY TESTING Representative soil samples obtained during our field exploration were returned to our office and classified by a geotechnical engineer. The samples were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System). Eleven (11) fines content tests, eleven (11) moisture content tests, and one (1) organic content test were conducted in the laboratory on representative soil samples obtained from the borings. These tests were performed to aid in classifying the soils and to help quantify and correlate engineering properties. The results of these tests are presented on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. A brief description of the laboratory procedures used is also provided in Appendix A. 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 SOIL SURVEY Based on the Soil Survey for Duval County, Florida, as prepared by the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the predominant predevelopment soil types at the site are identified as Lynn Haven (35) and Urban Land-Leon- Boulogne complex (71). A summary of characteristics of these soil series were obtained from the Soil Survey and are included in Table 1. TABLE 1 Summary of Soil Survey Information Soil Type Constituents Hydrologic Group Natural Drainage Soil Permeability (Inches/Hr) Seasonal High Water Table Lynn Haven (35) 0-13” 13-21” 21-62” 62-80” Fine sand Fine sand Fine sand, loamy fine sand Fine sand B/D Very Poorly Drained 0-13” 13-21” 21-62” 62-80” 6.0 – 20 6.0 – 20 0.6 – 6.0 2.0 – 20 0 – 0.5 Urban Land (71) - - - - - - - Leon (71) 0-18” 18-37” 37-80” Fine sand Fine sand, loamy fine sand Fine sand A/D Poorly Drained 0-18” 18-37” 37-45” 45-80” 6.0 – 20 0.6 – 6.0 2.0 – 20 0.2 – 2.0 0.5 – 1.5 Boulogne (71) 0-31” 31-39” 39-80” Fine sand Fine sand, loamy fine sand Fine sand C/D Poorly Drained 0-6” 6-16” 16-31” 31-39” 39-80” 6.0 – 20 2.0 – 6.0 6.0 – 20 0.6 – 2.0 0.06 – 0.2 0.5 – 1.5 3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS The site of the proposed construction is located at the existing Atlantic Self Storage facility at 1073 Atlantic Boulevard in Atlantic Beach, Florida. The site consists of existing one-story UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 4 storage buildings which visually appear to be in relatively good condition. Most of the site consists of asphalt surface which has moderate block cracking and some isolated potholes throughout. The site visually appears to slope down to Atlantic Boulevard at the south of the site. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The boring locations and detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated in Appendix A: Boring Location Plan and Boring Logs. It should be noted that soil conditions will vary away from and between boring locations. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples and a limited number of laboratory tests. Also, see Appendix A: Key to Boring Logs, for further explanation of the symbols and placement of data on the Boring Logs. The following table summarizes the soil conditions encountered. TABLE 2 General Soil Profile Typical depth (ft) Soil Descriptions From To 0 0.1 to 0.3 Asphalt (1 to 3-1/2”) 0.1 to 0.3 0.4 to 0.7 Limerock (4 to 7”) 0.4 to 0.7 2 to 4 Loose fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) 2 to 4 12 to 17 Medium dense to dense fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) 12 to 17 30* Loose to medium dense fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM) * Termination Depth of Deepest Boring ( ) Indicates Unified Soil Classification As an exception, boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet. We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations at a depth range of 5.0 to 6.4 feet below the existing grade. It should be anticipated the groundwater level will fluctuate due to topography, seasonal climatic variations, surface water runoff patterns, construction operations, and other interrelated factors. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL Our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site and subsurface conditions at the property with respect to the anticipated construction are based upon (1) our site observations, (2) the limited field data obtained, and (3) our understanding of the project information and anticipated construction as presented in this report. It should be noted that soil conditions will vary away UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 5 from and between boring locations and therefore, other site preparation techniques could be warranted. Boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet. We recommend that we observe the overexcavation of this material during construction to better identify the material encountered by the boring, determine the need for overexcavation, and better delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of this material, if warranted. As an alternative, we can perform additional auger borings in this area to better identify the material and delineate the vertical and horizontal extent prior to construction. 4.2 GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall. The rainy season in Northeast Florida is normally between June and September. Based upon our review of U.S.G.S. data, St. Johns County Soil Survey, and regional hydrogeology, it is our opinion the seasonal high groundwater is estimated to be approximately 4 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our evaluation. Note: it is possible the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels will temporarily exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimates. We recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site during construction. We further recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. 4.3 BUILDING FOUNDATIONS Based on the results of our exploration, we consider the subsurface conditions at the site adaptable for support of the proposed structure when constructed on a properly designed conventional shallow foundation system. Provided the site preparation and earthwork construction recommendations outlined in Section 4.5 of this report are performed, the following parameters may be used for foundation design. 4.3.1 Bearing Pressure The maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure for use in shallow foundation design should not exceed 2,500 psf. Net bearing pressure is defined as the soil bearing pressure at the foundation bearing level in excess of the natural overburden pressure at that level. The foundations should be designed based on the maximum load which could be imposed by all loading conditions. UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 6 4.3.2 Foundation Size The minimum widths recommended for any isolated column footings and continuous wall footings are 24 inches and 18 inches, respectively. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the minimum size of the foundations. 4.3.3 Bearing Depth The exterior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 18 inches below the finished exterior grades and the interior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 12 inches below the finish floor elevation to provide confinement to the bearing level soils. It is recommended that stormwater be diverted away from the building exteriors to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings. 4.3.4 Bearing Material The foundations may bear in either the compacted suitable natural soils or compacted structural fill. The bearing level soils, after compaction, should exhibit densities equivalent to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least one foot below the foundation bearing level. 4.3.5 Settlement Estimates Post-construction settlements of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundations; and (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor. Our settlement estimates for the structure are based on the use of site preparation/earthwork construction techniques as recommended in Section 4.5 of this report. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlements of the structure. Due to the sandy nature of the near-surface soils, we expect the majority of settlement to occur in an elastic manner and fairly rapidly during construction. Using the recommended maximum bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads and the field data which we have correlated to geotechnical strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate that total settlements of the structure could be on the order of one inch or less. Differential settlements result from differences in applied bearing pressures and variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Because of the general uniformity of the subsurface conditions and the recommended site preparation and earthwork construction techniques outlined in Section 4.5, we anticipate that differential settlements of the structure should be within tolerable magnitudes (½ inch or less). UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 7 4.3.6 Floor Slab The floor slab can be constructed as a slab-on-grade member using a modulus of subgrade reaction (K) of 100 pci provided the subgrade materials are compacted as outlined in Section 4.5. It is recommended the floor slab bearing soils be covered with an impervious membrane to reduce moisture entry and floor dampness in accordance with the most recent version of the Florida Building Code requirements. A 10-mil thick plastic membrane is commonly used for this purpose. Care should be exercised not to tear the membrane during placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. 4.4 PAVEMENTS 4.4.1 General A rigid or flexible pavement section could be used on this project. Flexible pavement combines the strength and durability of several layer components to produce an appropriate and cost- effective combination of available construction materials. Concrete pavement has the advantage of the ability to “bridge” over isolated soft areas, it requires less security lighting, and it typically has a longer service life than asphalt pavement. Disadvantages of rigid pavement include an initial higher cost and more difficult patching of distressed areas than occurs with flexible pavement. 4.4.2 Asphalt (Flexible) Pavements We have recommended a flexible pavement section with a 20-year design life for use on this project. Because traffic loadings are commonly unavailable, we have generalized our pavement design into two groups. The group descriptions and the recommended component thicknesses are presented in Table 3: Summary of Pavement Component Recommendations. The structural numbers in Table 3 are based on a structural number analysis with the stated estimated daily traffic volume for a 20-year replacement design life. TABLE 3 Summary of Pavement Component Recommendations Traffic Group Maximum Traffic Loading Component Thickness (inches) Stabilized Subgrade Base Course Surface Course Standard Duty Up to 300,000 E18SAL 12 6 1.5 Heavy Duty Up to 800,000 E18SAL 12 8 2.0 UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 8 4.4.2.1 Stabilized Subgrade We recommend that subgrade materials be compacted in place according to the requirements in the “Site Preparation” section of this report. Further, beneath limerock base course, stabilize the subgrade materials to a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40, as specified by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requirements for Type B Stabilized Subgrade. The subgrade material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557, AASHTO T-180) value. The stabilized subgrade can be a blend of existing soil and imported material such as limerock. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions. The primary function of stabilized subgrade beneath the base course is to provide a stable and firm subgrade so that the limerock can be properly and uniformly placed and compacted. Depending upon the soil type, the subgrade material may have sufficient stability to provide the needed support without additional stabilizing material. Generally, sands with silt or clay should have sufficient stability and may not require additional stabilizing material. Conversely, relatively “clean” sand will not provide sufficient stability to adequately construct the limerock base course. Universal Engineering Sciences should observe the soils exposed on the finish grades to evaluate whether or not additional stabilization will be required beneath the base course. 4.4.2.2 Base Course We recommend the base course consist of locally available limerock complying with the requirements of the most recent version of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (SSRBC), Section 200 and Section 911. The limerock should be mined or supplied from an FDOT approved source. Place the limerock in maximum 6 inch thick loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557/AASHTO T-180) and exhibit a minimum LBR of 100. Alternatively, we believe locally available crushed concrete base of equal thickness could be substituted for the limerock. Crushed concrete should be supplied by an FDOT approved plant with quality control procedures. Crushed concrete should meet the requirements for Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) of the most recent FDOT SSRBC Sections 200 and 911 for recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) and exhibit an LBR of 150. The LBR value of material produced at a particular source shall be determined in accordance with an approved quality control procedure. Testing shall be performed at the following frequencies: UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 9  Perform in-place density on the base at a frequency of 1 test per 300 linear foot of roadway or 5,000 square feet of pavement.  Perform Limerock Bearing Ratio tests at a frequency of 1 test per visual change in material and a minimum of 1 test per 15,000 square feet of pavement.  Engineer should perform a final visual base inspection prior to placement of prime or tack coat and paving. 4.4.2.3 Wearing Surface For the roadways, we recommend that the surfacing consist of FDOT SuperPave (SP) asphaltic concrete. The surface course should consist of FDOT SP-9.5 fine mix for the proposed light-duty area. The heavy duty area can consist of a single 2-inch lift of SP-12.5 or 2 layers of SP-9.5 placed in 1-inch lifts. The asphalt concrete should be placed within the allowable lift thicknesses for fine Type SP mixes per the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 334-1.4 Thickness. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to an average field density of 93 percent of the laboratory maximum density determined from specific gravity (Gmm) methods, with an individual test tolerance of +2 percent and -1.2% of the design Gmm. Specific requirements for the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 334. Please note, if the Designer (or Contract Documents) limits compaction to the static mode only or lifts are placed one-inch thick, then the average field density should be 92 percent, with an individual test tolerance of + 3 percent, and -1.2% of the design Gmm. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one (1) core per 5,000 square feet of placed pavement, every 250 feet of lineal roadway, or a minimum of two (2) cores per day’s production. 4.4.3 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel loads to the subgrade soils than a flexible asphalt pavement. For a concrete pavement subgrade, we recommend using the existing surficial sands or recommend clean fine sand fill (SP), densified to at least 98 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) without additional stabilization, with the following stipulations: 1. Subgrade soils must be densified to at least 98 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least 2 feet prior to placement of concrete. UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 10 2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting corrected prior to placement of concrete. 3. The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete. 4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to thickened edges (curb or footing). 5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated typical wet season groundwater level by at least 18 inches. Our recommendations for slab thickness for standard duty and heavy duty concrete pavements are based on a) subgrade soils densified to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), b) modulus of subgrade reaction (k) equal to 200 pounds per cubic inch, c) a 20 year design life, and 3) the previously stated traffic conditions in Section 4.4.2, we recommend using the design shown in Table 4 for standard duty concrete pavements. TABLE 4 Standard Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement Minimum Pavement Thickness Maximum Control Joint Spacing Recommended Sawcut Depth 5 Inches 10 Feet x 10 Feet 1¼ Inches Our recommended design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown in Table 5 below. TABLE 5 Heavy Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement Minimum Pavement Thickness Maximum Control Joint Spacing Recommended Sawcut Depth 6 Inches 12 Feet x 12 Feet 1½ Inches We recommend using concrete with minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a minimum 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture) of at least 600 pounds per square inch, based on 3rd point loading of concrete beam test samples. Layout of the sawcut control joints should form square panels, and the depth of sawcut joint should be at least ¼ of the concrete slab thickness. The joints should be sawed within six hours of concrete placement or as soon as the concrete has developed sufficient strength to support workers and equipment. We recommend allowing Universal to review and comment on the final concrete pavement design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of construction. For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the “Guide to Jointing on Non-Reinforced Concrete Pavements” published by the Florida Concrete and Products Associates, Inc., and “Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas”, published by the Portland Cement Association. UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 11 4.4.4 Effects of Groundwater One of the most critical factors influencing pavement performance in Northeast Florida is the relationship between the pavement subgrade and the seasonal high groundwater level. Many roadways and parking areas have been damaged as a result of deterioration of the base conditions and/or the base/surface course bond. We recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the flexible pavement limerock base course be separated by at least 24 inches. We recommend a separation of at least 18 inches below the bottom of a rigid concrete pavement or below a flexible pavement with a crushed concrete base. If this separation cannot be established and maintained by grading and surface drainage improvements, permanent groundwater control measures (underdrains) will be required. 4.4.5 Curbing We recommend that curbing around the landscaped sections adjacent to the parking areas and driveways be constructed with full-depth curb sections. Using extruded curb sections which lie directly on top of the final asphalt level, or eliminating the curbing entirely, can allow migration of irrigation water from the landscape areas to the interface between the asphalt and the base. This migration often causes separation of the wearing surface from the base and subsequent rippling and pavement deterioration. Topsoil placed behind curbing in landscaped areas should be limited to 6 inches vertical thickness within five feet of flexible pavement. 4.4.6 Construction Traffic Light duty roadways and incomplete pavement sections will not perform satisfactorily under construction traffic loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (construction equipment, concrete trucks, sod trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, etc.) be re-routed away from these roadways or that the pavement section be designed for these loadings. 4.5 SITE PREPARATION We recommend normal, good practice site preparation procedures. These procedures include: stripping the site of any vegetation and topsoil, implementing temporary ground water control, as warranted, overexcavation of organic soils, as warranted, removing any existing structures and associated foundations, pavements, and utilities, compacting the subgrade, and placing necessary fill or backfill to grade with engineered fill. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows: 1. Prior to construction, the location of any existing underground utility lines within the construction area should be established. Provisions should then be made to relocate interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It should be noted that if underground pipes are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve as conduits for subsurface erosion which may subsequently lead to excessive settlement of overlying structure(s). 2. We measured the groundwater level at the boring locations between depths of 5.0 to 6.4 feet below the existing grade. The seasonal high groundwater level is estimated to be UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 12 approximately 0.5 to 1.0 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. The groundwater level should be maintained at least 1 foot below any excavations and 2 feet below the surface of any vibratory compaction procedures. 3. Strip the proposed construction limits of any topsoils, vegetation, existing structures and associated foundations, pavements, associated utilities, and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building areas and within and 3 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed paved areas. Expect typical stripping at this site to a depth of 12 inches more or less. Some isolated areas may require more than a foot of stripping or undercutting to remove the root systems of large trees. 4. Boring B-5 encountered medium dense fine sand with silt and many organics (Pt) at a depth range of 2 to 3.2 feet. We recommend that we observe the overexcavation of this material during construction to better identify the material encountered by the boring, determine the need for overexcavation, and better delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of this material, if warranted. As an alternative, we can perform additional auger borings in this area to better identify the material and delineate the vertical and horizontal extent prior to construction. 5. Compact the subgrade from the surface with a vibratory roller (a 4- to 5-ton roller, static weight and 4- to 5-foot drum diameter) operating until you obtain a minimum density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557), to a depth of 2 feet below the compacted surface. Typically the soils should exhibit a moisture content of ±2.0 % of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557) during compaction. A minimum of eight (8) complete coverages (in perpendicular directions) should be made in the building construction area with the roller to improve the uniformity and increase the density of the underlying sandy soils. Should the bearing level soils experience pumping and soil strength loss during the compaction operations, compaction work should be immediately terminated and (1) the disturbed soils removed and backfilled with dry structural fill soils which are then compacted, or (2) the excess pore pressures within the disturbed soils allowed to dissipate before recompaction. 6. Care should be exercised to avoid damaging any nearby structures while the compaction operation is underway. Prior to commencing compaction, occupants of adjacent structures should be notified and the existing conditions of the structures be documented with photographs and survey (if deemed necessary). Compaction should cease if deemed detrimental to adjacent structures. Universal Engineering Sciences can provide vibration monitoring services to help document and evaluate the effects of the surface compaction operation on existing structures. In the absence of vibration monitoring it is recommended the vibratory roller remain a minimum of 50 feet from existing structures. Within this zone, use of a bulldozer or a vibratory roller operating in the static mode is recommended. UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 13 7. Place fill material, as required. The fill should consist of "clean," fine sand with less than 5 percent soil fines. You may use fill materials with soil fines between 5 and 12 percent, but strict moisture control may be required. Typically, the soils should exhibit moisture contents within ± 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content during compaction. Place fill in uniform 10- to 12-inch loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. The top 12 inches of fill beneath flexible pavement or the top 24 inches of fill beneath rigid pavement areas should be compacted to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. For flexible pavement areas, stabilize this zone as necessary as recommended in Section 4.4.2, to obtain a minimum LBR of 40. 8. Perform compliance tests within the fill/backfill at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building area, or at a minimum of three tests, whichever is greater. In paved areas, perform compliance tests at a frequency of not less than one test per 10,000 square feet per lift, or at a minimum of three test locations, whichever is greater. 9. Test all footing cuts for compaction to a depth of 2 feet. We recommend you conduct density testing in every column footing, and every 100 linear feet in wall footings. Recompaction of the foundation excavation bearing level soils, if loosened by the excavation process, can probably be achieved by making several coverages with a light weight walk-behind vibratory sled or roller. 4.6 RETENTION POND CONSIDERATION 4.6.1 Fill Suitability Based on the boring performed in the stormwater management area (LA-1), the soils described as fine sand (SP) and fine sand with silt (SP-SM), as encountered throughout the 25-foot boring depth, as indicated on the attached Boring Logs and Soil Boring Profiles in Appendix A, are considered suitable for use as structural fill. It should be understood that all soils excavated from below the water table may be excessively wet and may require stockpiling or spreading to dry prior to placement and compaction. It should also be noted that soils described as fine sand with silt (SP-SM) may take longer to dry and be more difficult to work with than those described as fine sand (SP) due to higher fines and organic contents. The suitability of these soils for use as structural fill will be highly dependent on the contractor’s ability to adequately dry and work these materials. If soil conditions deviate from our exploration, please notify us immediately for observation, evaluation and further recommendations. UES Project No. 0930.2300154.0000 UES Report No. 2031580 August 7, 2023 14 4.6.2 Seasonal High Groundwater We measured the groundwater level in the vicinity of the proposed pond (LA-1) at a depth of 6.0 feet. We estimate the seasonal high ground water level will occur at a depth of 5.0 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. 4.6.3 Pond Parameters We estimate a fillable porosity of 25 percent for the soils encountered in the upper 25 feet at boring location LA-1. We did not encounter a confining layer in the upper 25 feet at this boring location. 5.0 LIMITATIONS During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible problems. Geotechnical Business Council (GBC) publication, "Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in Appendix B, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues. Further, we present documents in Appendix B: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report and the General Conditions under which our services were provided. APPENDIX A BORING LOCATION PLAN SOIL BORING PROFILES BORING LOGS KEY TO BORING LOGS FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES ASPHALT (1") LIMEROCK (5") Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Gray fine SAND (SP) Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) A-1 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/20/23 7/20/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 5.8 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1452 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-1 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 - 8 5 9 13 16 16 11 6 10 19 -2 5-5-3 3-2-3 3-4-5 4-5-8 7-8-8 5-8-8 2-5-6 2-3-3 2-4-6 3-7-12 20.15.4 ASPHALT (4") Loose dark gray fine SAND with Silt with fewConcrete fragments (SP-SM) Loose light gray fine SAND (SP) Loose to medium dense dark brown to brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM) B-1 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/20/23 7/20/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 6.4 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-2 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 - 6 12 26 26 29 26 12 7 9 11 -2 2-3-3 4-4-8 12-14-12 10-12-14 9-13-16 3-11-15 4-5-7 1-3-4 3-3-6 3-4-7 23.15.0 ASPHALT (1") LIMEROCK (5") Loose light gray fine SAND (SP) Medium dense to dense brown to dark brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM) Loose to medium dense brown to gray-brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM) B-2 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/20/23 7/20/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 5.8 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-3 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 - 6 12 10 17 25 16 13 8 10 16 -2 3-3-3 4-5-7 7-5-5 7-7-10 5-13-12 1-7-9 3-5-8 3-4-4 3-5-5 6-6-10 24.4 27.8 2.2 3.1 ASPHALT (1") LIMEROCK (7") Light brown fine SAND (SP) Loose to medium dense dark brown to brown togray fine SAND (SP) B-3 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/19/23 7/19/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 6.0 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-4 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 8 14 17 17 16 16 12 6 10 11 1-3-5 4-7-7 5-7-10 10-9-8 4-6-10 2-6-10 2-6-6 1-3-3 2-4-6 4-5-6 26.02.2 ASPHALT (1") LIMEROCK (4") Light gray fine SAND (SP) Loose to medium dense dark brown to brown togray fine SAND (SP) B-4 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/20/23 7/20/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 6.0 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-5 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 12.3 - 9 14 11 10 15 14 12 7 12 12 -8 7-6-3 4-7-7 4-5-6 5-5-5 4-6-9 3-6-8 4-6-6 2-3-4 3-5-7 4-4-8 36.38.9 ASPHALT (1") LIMEROCK (7") Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Medium dense dark brown fine SAND with Siltand many Organics (Pt) Loose to medium dense brown to light brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Medium dense gray fine SAND (SP) B-5 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/19/23 7/19/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 5.0 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-6 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 - 6 8 11 15 19 26 10 6 10 15 2 2-2-4 2-3-5 5-5-6 5-6-9 5-7-12 5-13-13 2-4-6 3-3-3 3-4-6 5-7-8 4.4 29.9 1.4 0.9 ASPHALT (1") LIMEROCK (6") Loose light gray fine SAND (SP) Medium dense to dense dark brown to brown fineSAND with Silt (SP-SM) Loose to medium dense light brown to gray fine SAND (SP) B-6 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/20/23 7/20/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 5.4 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-7 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 7 4 10 10 16 18 7 7 6 5-4-3 2-1-3 4-5-5 5-5-5 5-7-9 7-9-9 2-3-4 2-3-4 2-3-3 5.6 25.2 27.6 1.6 0.9 1.8 ASPHALT (3.5") Dark brown fine SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Loose to medium dense gray to dark brown tobrown fine SAND (SP) LA-1 DATE STARTED: DATE FINISHED:WATER TABLE (ft): 7/19/23 7/19/23 BORING DESIGNATION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: LL PI DRILLED BY: TYPE OF SAMPLING: SHEET: SECTION: 1 of 1 G.S. ELEVATION (ft): 6.0 7/20/23 LOCATION: REMARKS: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA ASH PROPERTIES SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0 5 10 15 20 25 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES K(FT./ DAY) ORG.CONT. (%) ATTERBERGLIMITS EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):ASTM D 1586 CLIENT: -200(%)MC(%) BORING LOG DATE OF READING: DEPTH(FT.) BLOWSPER 6" INCREMENT N(BLOWS/ FT.) SAMPLE SYMBOL W.T. DESCRIPTION DK/MIKE PROJECT NO.: REPORT NO.: PAGE: 0930.2300154.0000 A-8 PROJECT:BORING_LOG 0930.2300154.0000-ATLANTIC SELF STORAGE - 1073 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD.GPJ UNIENGSC.GDT 7/27/23 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Standard Penetration Test Borings The penetration boring was made in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1586, “Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils”. The boring was advanced by rotary drilling techniques using a circulating bentonite fluid for borehole flushing and stability. At 2 ½ to 5 foot intervals, the drilling tools were removed from the borehole and a split-barrel sampler inserted to the borehole bottom and driven 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer falling on the average 30 inches per hammer blow. The number of blows for the final 12 inches of penetration is termed the “penetration resistance, blow count, or N-value”. This value is an index to several in-place geotechnical properties of the material tested, such as relative density and Young’s Modulus. After driving the sampler 18 inches (or less if in hard rock-like material), the sampler was retrieved from the borehole and representative samples of the material within the split-barrel were placed in glass jars and sealed. After completing the drilling operations, the samples for each boring were transported to our laboratory where they were examined by our engineer in order to verify the driller’s field classification. Auger Borings – Manual The auger borings were performed manually by the use of a post-hole auger and in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1452, “Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings”. Representative samples of the soils brought to the ground surface by the augering process were placed in glass jars, sealed and transported to our laboratory where they were examined by our engineer to verify the driller’s field classification. LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Natural Moisture Content The water content of the sample tested was determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 2216. The water content is defined as the ratio of “pore” or “free” water in a given mass of material to the mass of solid material particles. Percent Fines Content The percent fines or material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve of the sample tested was determined in general accordance with the latest revision of ASTM D 1140. The percent fines are the soil particles in the silt and clay size range. Organic Loss on Ignition (Percent Organics) The organic loss on ignition or percent organic material in the sample tested was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2974. The percent organics is the material, expressed as a percentage, which is burned off in a muffle furnace at 550o Celsius. APPENDIX B IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTIONS Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This 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. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this ReportGeotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific TimesGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project or purpose; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop specifications; • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations. Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include 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. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, 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 or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org WARRANTY Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report. UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these borings. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and noting the characteristics of any variations. CHANGED CONDITIONS We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those present in this report. No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions. Further, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences to monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report. MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and opinions contained within this report based upon the data relating only to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences. CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this project. If any changes in the design or location of the structure as outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions modified or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences. USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction operations. Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test caissons or other investigations to determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations. STRATA CHANGES Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available information and may not be shown at the exact depth. OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however, lack of mention does not preclude their presence. WATER LEVELS Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during drilling and they indicate normally occurring conditions. Water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has been reviewed and interpretations made in this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations. LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering Sciences to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no attempt was made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried objects. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. TIME This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of exploration. If the report is not used in a reasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required. CONSTRAINTS & RESTRICTIONS The intent of this document is to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report. ATTACHMENT I PRE/POST-DEVELOPMENT MAP SHEET FLOW100 LF @ 0.50%SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW66.41 LF @ 0.72%AREA = CN =Tc =K (SCS) =PRE BASIN A1.29 Ac. ±9810 Min.484HP: 9.80NG: 9.3LP: 8.82TOP INLET EL= 8.717135PRE BNDYP.O. BOX 3126, 7 WALDO STREET ST. AUGUSTINE, FL 32084 PHONE: 904.826.1334 FAX: 904.826.4547 INFO@MDGINC.COM REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO. S:\PROJECTS\23000\23107 - ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH\ENG\STORM CALCS\DWG\23107 - PRE DEV MAP.DWG_PRE MAP, 3/1/2024 9:43 AM, Logan Mudd, MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, INC. DATE: JOB No.: DSGN BY: DWG BY: CHK BY: PREPARED FOR 1 23107 01-23-24 ARA LGM LGM ASH PROPERTIES CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH PRE DEVELOPMENT MAP NMAJOR CONTOURMINOR CONTOUREXISTING LEGENDXX.XX66PROPERTY / RIGHT OF WAY LINEROADWAY CENTERLINESPOT ELEVATIONSOIL DIVIDESOIL UNIT NUMBERTIME OF CONCENTRATIONXXMAJOR BASIN DIVIDEMINOR BASIN DIVIDESOILS DATAUNITSYMBOLSOILS TYPETYPE35LYNN HAVEN FINE SANDA/D71URBAN LAND-LEON BOULOGNE COMPLEXA/D0GRAPHIC SCALE90120601" = 60' XXXXwAREA = CN =Tc =K (SCS) =POST BASIN 11.29 Ac. ±9310 Min.484POST BNDYSWMF 1100yr DHW = 7.9325yr DHW = 7.78TOB = 9.90 (0.20 Ac)NWL = 5.00 (0.09 Ac)POND BOTTOM = -1.00 (0.03 Ac)P.O. BOX 3126, 7 WALDO STREET ST. AUGUSTINE, FL 32084 PHONE: 904.826.1334 FAX: 904.826.4547 INFO@MDGINC.COM REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO. S:\PROJECTS\23000\23107 - ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH\ENG\STORM CALCS\DWG\23107 - POST DEV MAP.DWG_POST MAP, 2/28/2024 4:54 PM, Logan Mudd, MATTHEWS DESIGN GROUP, INC. DATE: JOB No.: DSGN BY: DWG BY: CHK BY: PREPARED FOR 2 23107 01-23-24 ARA LGM LGM ASH PROPERTIES CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH ASH - ATLANTIC BEACH POST DEVELOPMENT MAP SPOT ELEVATIONSTORM PIPEXX.XXROADWAY CENTERLINEPAVEMENT EDGEBUILDING SETBACK LINEDRAINAGE MAJOR DIVIDEDRAINAGE MINOR DIVIDENPROPOSED LEGENDPROPERTY / RIGHT OF WAY LINE0GRAPHIC SCALE90120601" = 60'