Download - Appendix G FEMA Flood Map
Appendix G
FEMA Flood Map
Appendix H
Geotechnical Reports
P R O F E S S I O N A L | P R A C T I C A L | P R O V E N 1 4 0 - A L u r t o n S t r e e t , P e n s a c o l a , F l o r i d a 3 2 5 0 5
t . 8 5 0 . 6 0 7 . 7 7 8 2 / f . 8 5 0 . 2 4 9 . 6 6 8 3 / u s a n o v a . c o m
November 6, 2019 Ms. Mary Rosenheim – Director of Development The Jay Odom Group 4652 Gulfstarr Drive Destin, Florida 32541 Subject: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services
FREEDOM BEACON PARK SMS Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
NOVA Project Number 10116-2019161 Dear Ms. Rosenheim: This letter forwards the results of our exploration for the stormwater management system portion of the Freedom Beacon Park development to be located at 1900 Lewis Turner Boulevard in Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida. The primary objective of this study was to provide a geotechnical exploration of the near surface soils present within the areas of the retention basins and to provide geotechnical parameters to aid in the SMS design. The work was performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal Number 016-20192690, dated October 16, 2019. This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the geotechnical consulting services provided by NOVA, and presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Subsurface Conditions Our field exploration at the subject site included performing five (5) auger borings and three (3) double-ring infiltration tests at the locations specified by the design team. Drilling, testing and sampling operations were performed in general accordance with ASTM designations and other industry standards. The test borings generally encountered fine-grained slightly silty sands (USCS classification of SP-SM) from the existing ground surface elevation to depths of about 11 feet to 12½ feet below existing grade (BEG), where the boreholes collapsed due to the presence of groundwater. We note that Test Borings SB-1 and SB-4 also encountered strata of low-permeability fine-grained silty to clayey sands (SM, SC) from about 4½ feet to 7 feet BEG (SB-1) and from the ground surface to a depth of about 5 feet BEG (SB-4). Groundwater was encountered in the test borings at depths varying between about 9½ feet to 11½ feet BEG at the time of our field exploration, which occurred during a period of below normal seasonal rainfall but shortly following several significant rain events. We therefore
Freedom Beacon Park SMS NOVA Project Number 10116-2019161 Geotechnical Engineering Report November 6, 2019
2
estimate that the normal permanent seasonal high groundwater (SHGW) table for this project site will occur within 1 foot above the measured depths to groundwater encountered at each boring during our field exploration, during the wet season. The Test Boring Records as well as a summary of laboratory soil testing results are provided in the attached Appendix. Hydraulic Conductivity NOVA understands that the infrastructure of the proposed development will possibly include a combination of a shallow retention basin and a shallow perimeter swale to treat and dispose of stormwater runoff associated with the planned site improvements. We recommend that you consider the soil parameters presented below in Table 1 and Table 2 below for the design of the SMS.
Table 1 –Retention Basin Soil Design Parameters Corresponding Soil Boring Test Location SB-1 through SB-4
Approximate Depth to Confining Layer, below existing grade (BEG) ** Below 12 feet
Measured Average Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Kv), feet per day 7 ft/day Calculated Average Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (Kh), feet per day 10 ft/day Measured Infiltration Rate (DRI) 44 in/hr.* Estimated Fillable Porosity of Soil, percentage 25% Estimated Depth to Normal Permanent SHGW table, BEG 9 feet
*Note that this rate is unfactored. ** Assuming the SM and SC materials encountered in Borings SB-1 and SB-4 are removed as part of the pond excavation.
Table 2 –Shallow Swale Soil Design Parameters
Corresponding Soil Boring Test Location SB-5
Approximate Depth to Confining Layer, below existing grade (BEG) Below 13 feet
Measured Average Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity (Kv), feet per day 7 ft/day
Calculated Average Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (Kh), feet per day 10 ft/day
Measured Infiltration Rate (DRI) 103 in/hr.*
Estimated Fillable Porosity of Soil, percentage 25%
Estimated Depth to Normal Permanent SHGW table, BEG 10 feet
*Note that this rate is unfactored.
Freedom Beacon Park SMS NOVA Project Number 10116-2019161 Geotechnical Engineering Report November 6, 2019
3
The estimated normal permanent seasonal high groundwater levels provided in Table 1 and Table 2 above are based on our experience with projects in this locale; the soil strata encountered in the test borings; the groundwater levels measured at the site; and the published information by the “Web Soil Survey” National database, NRCS division of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The actual exfiltration rates from the basins may be influenced by basin geometry, natural soil variability, in-situ depositional characteristics and soil density, retention volume, and groundwater mounding effects. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design process. We note that NOVA performs remolded laboratory permeability testing using generally accepted practices of the local engineering community. These types of tests are the quickest and most economical for stormwater retention basin design. However, the user of this information is cautioned that the potential variability of results of these types of tests can be significant and the reproducibility of results can vary by factors of up to 100 percent. Also, the permeability measured by such tests may not be representative of the total effective aquifer thickness. Factors of safety can compensate for part of the inherent test limitations, but the designer must exercise judgment regarding final selection and applicability of provided soil design input parameters. Should the modeling analysis indicate marginally acceptable compliance with Water Management District design criteria, it may be advisable to perform more extensive and representative in-situ permeability testing by collecting “undisturbed” horizontal and vertical soil samples and/or installing grouted piezometers or wells for slug testing. NOVA can perform these field tests if desired. We appreciate your selection of NOVA and the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC Jesse A. James, E.I. Assistant Branch Manager Florida Certificate No. 1100019359 Attachments – Appendix
APPENDIX A Figures and Maps
Sca
le: N
ot T
o S
ca
le
P
RO
JEC
T L
OC
ATIO
N M
AP
Da
te D
raw
n: N
ove
mb
er 1
, 20
19
F
ree
do
m B
ea
co
n P
ark
SM
S
Dra
wn
By: S
. Sa
n F
ilipp
o
Fo
rt Wa
lton
Be
ach
, Oka
loo
sa C
ou
nty, F
lorid
a
Ch
ecke
d B
y: W. L
aw
ren
ce
N
OV
A P
roje
ct N
um
be
r 10
11
6-2
01
91
61
14
0-A
Lu
rton
Stre
et
Pe
nsa
cola
, Flo
rida
32
50
5
85
0.6
07
.77
82
♦ 8
50
.24
9.6
68
3
Ba
se m
ap
pro
vide
d b
y Go
ogle
Ea
rth
AP
PR
OX
IMA
TE
SIT
E L
OC
ATIO
N
Soil Map— 10116-2019161 Freedom Beacon Park SMS
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
11/1/2019Page 1 of 3
3370
100
3370
200
3370
300
3370
400
3370
500
3370
600
3370
700
3370
800
3370
100
3370
200
3370
300
3370
400
3370
500
3370
600
3370
700
3370
800
535900 536000 536100 536200 536300 536400
535900 536000 536100 536200 536300 536400
30° 28' 10'' N86
° 3
7' 3
5'' W
30° 28' 10'' N
86° 3
7' 1
2'' W
30° 27' 43'' N
86° 3
7' 3
5'' W
30° 27' 43'' N
86° 3
7' 1
2'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS840 150 300 600 900
Feet0 50 100 200 300
MetersMap Scale: 1:4,000 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MA
P LEGEN
DM
AP IN
FOR
MATIO
N
Area of Interest (A
OI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
SoilsSoil M
ap Unit Polygons
Soil Map U
nit Lines
Soil Map U
nit Points
Special Point FeaturesBlow
out
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed D
epression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or sw
amp
Mine or Q
uarry
Miscellaneous W
ater
Perennial Water
Rock O
utcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and C
anals
TransportationRails
Interstate Highw
ays
US R
outes
Major R
oads
Local Roads
BackgroundAerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AO
I were m
apped at 1:20,000.
Warning: Soil M
ap may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of m
aps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of m
apping and accuracy of soil line placem
ent. The maps do not show
the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a m
ore detailed scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for m
ap m
easurements.
Source of Map:
Natural R
esources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey U
RL:
Coordinate System
: W
eb Mercator (EPSG
:3857)
Maps from
the Web Soil Survey are based on the W
eb Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if m
ore accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the U
SDA-N
RC
S certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: O
kaloosa County, Florida
Survey Area Data:
Version 18, Sep 17, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allow
s) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial im
ages were photographed:
Dec 31, 2009—
Nov
2, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on w
hich the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from
the background im
agery displayed on these maps. As a result, som
e minor
shifting of map unit boundaries m
ay be evident.
Natural R
esourcesC
onservation ServiceW
eb Soil SurveyN
ational Cooperative Soil Survey
11/1/2019Page 2 of 3
Soil Map—
10116-2019161 Freedom Beacon Park SM
S
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
8 Foxworth sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
0.2 0.4%
12 Lakeland sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
51.2 99.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 51.4 100.0%
Natural ResourcesConservation Service
Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey
11/1/2019Page 3 of 3
Soil Map— 10116-2019161 Freedom Beacon Park SMS
APPENDIX B Subsurface Data
5D4N-1RN8
Sca
le: N
ot T
o S
ca
le
B
OR
ING
LO
CA
TIO
N P
LA
N
Da
te D
raw
n: N
ove
mb
er 1
, 20
19
F
ree
do
m B
ea
co
n P
ark
SM
S
Dra
wn
By: S
. Sa
n F
ilipp
o
Fo
rt Wa
lton
Be
ach
, Oka
loo
sa C
ou
nty, F
lorid
a
Ch
ecke
d B
y: W. L
aw
ren
ce
N
OV
A P
roje
ct N
um
be
r 10
11
6-2
01
91
61
14
0-A
Lu
rton
Stre
et
Pe
nsa
cola
, Flo
rida
32
50
5
85
0.6
07
.77
82
♦ 8
50
.24
9.6
68
3
LE
GE
ND
SB
-x = S
MS
Ha
nd
Au
ge
r Bo
ring
SB
-2 SB
-5
SB
-4
SB
-3
SB
-1
KEY TO BORING LOGS
Medium Stiff
FINE-GRAINEDSOILS
50%ormorepassestheNo.200sieve*
COARSE-GRAINEDSOILS
Morethan50%retainedonthetheNo.200sieve*
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
TOPSOIL (Approx 3 inches)Grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Light brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Light brown fine-grained silty SAND (SM)
Dark brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Boring Terminated at 11 ft.
PROJECT: Freedom Beacon Park SMS PROJECT NO.: 10116-2019161
CLIENT: Freedom Beacon, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
TEST BORINGRECORD
SB-1
LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade
DRILLER: S. San Filippo LOGGED BY: S. San Filippo
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: October 28, 2019DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 10 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> 11
30.466450 N -86.623350 W
De
pth
(fe
et)
Ele
vati
on
(ft-
MS
L)
Description
Gra
ph
ic
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Sa
mp
leTy
pe
N-V
alu
e
10 20 30 40 50 70 90PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NATURAL MOISTURE
BLOW COUNT
%<#200
Th
is i
nfo
rma
tio
n p
ert
ain
s o
nly
to
th
is b
ori
ng
an
d s
ho
uld
no
t b
e i
nte
rpre
ted
as
be
ing
in
dic
ati
ve
of
the
sit
e.
Page 1 of 1
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
TOPSOIL (Approx 3 inches)Grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Light brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Dark brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Dark grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Boring Terminated at 12 ft.
PROJECT: Freedom Beacon Park SMS PROJECT NO.: 10116-2019161
CLIENT: Freedom Beacon, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
TEST BORINGRECORD
SB-2
LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade
DRILLER: S. San Filippo LOGGED BY: S. San Filippo
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: October 28, 2019DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 10 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> 12
30.466007 N -86.623328 W
De
pth
(fe
et)
Ele
vati
on
(ft-
MS
L)
Description
Gra
ph
ic
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Sa
mp
leTy
pe
N-V
alu
e
10 20 30 40 50 70 90PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NATURAL MOISTURE
BLOW COUNT
%<#200
Th
is i
nfo
rma
tio
n p
ert
ain
s o
nly
to
th
is b
ori
ng
an
d s
ho
uld
no
t b
e i
nte
rpre
ted
as
be
ing
in
dic
ati
ve
of
the
sit
e.
Page 1 of 1
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
TOPSOIL (Approx 3 inches)Grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Light brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Dark brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Boring Terminated at 11 ft.
PROJECT: Freedom Beacon Park SMS PROJECT NO.: 10116-2019161
CLIENT: Freedom Beacon, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
TEST BORINGRECORD
SB-3
LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade
DRILLER: S. San Filippo LOGGED BY: S. San Filippo
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: October 28, 2019DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 10 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> 11
30.465515 N -86.623314 W
De
pth
(fe
et)
Ele
vati
on
(ft-
MS
L)
Description
Gra
ph
ic
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Sa
mp
leTy
pe
N-V
alu
e
10 20 30 40 50 70 90PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NATURAL MOISTURE
BLOW COUNT
%<#200
Th
is i
nfo
rma
tio
n p
ert
ain
s o
nly
to
th
is b
ori
ng
an
d s
ho
uld
no
t b
e i
nte
rpre
ted
as
be
ing
in
dic
ati
ve
of
the
sit
e.
Page 1 of 1
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
TOPSOIL (Approx 3 inches)Grey fine-grained clayey SAND (SC)
Dark brown/brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Dark brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Boring Terminated at 11.5 ft.
PROJECT: Freedom Beacon Park SMS PROJECT NO.: 10116-2019161
CLIENT: Freedom Beacon, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
TEST BORINGRECORD
SB-4
LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade
DRILLER: S. San Filippo LOGGED BY: S. San Filippo
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: October 28, 2019DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 9.5 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> 11.5
30.465029 N -86.623314 W
De
pth
(fe
et)
Ele
vati
on
(ft-
MS
L)
Description
Gra
ph
ic
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Sa
mp
leTy
pe
N-V
alu
e
10 20 30 40 50 70 90PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NATURAL MOISTURE
BLOW COUNT
%<#200
Th
is i
nfo
rma
tio
n p
ert
ain
s o
nly
to
th
is b
ori
ng
an
d s
ho
uld
no
t b
e i
nte
rpre
ted
as
be
ing
in
dic
ati
ve
of
the
sit
e.
Page 1 of 1
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
TOPSOIL (Approx 3 inches)Grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Light brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Light brown fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Dark grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)
Boring Terminated at 12.5 ft.
PROJECT: Freedom Beacon Park SMS PROJECT NO.: 10116-2019161
CLIENT: Freedom Beacon, LLC
PROJECT LOCATION: Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
TEST BORINGRECORD
SB-5
LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade
DRILLER: S. San Filippo LOGGED BY: S. San Filippo
DRILLING METHOD: Hand Auger Boring DATE: October 28, 2019DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 11.5 feet AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING> 12.5
30.464106 N -86.623057 W
De
pth
(fe
et)
Ele
vati
on
(ft-
MS
L)
Description
Gra
ph
ic
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Sa
mp
leTy
pe
N-V
alu
e
10 20 30 40 50 70 90PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NATURAL MOISTURE
BLOW COUNT
%<#200
Th
is i
nfo
rma
tio
n p
ert
ain
s o
nly
to
th
is b
ori
ng
an
d s
ho
uld
no
t b
e i
nte
rpre
ted
as
be
ing
in
dic
ati
ve
of
the
sit
e.
Page 1 of 1
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:
Date(s) of Test September 17, 2019 Logged by S. San Filippo Checked by W. Lawrence
Test Method ASTM D 3385 Weather Clear Type of liquid tap water
Area Inner Ring 110.75 sq. in. Technician(s) S. San Filippo Liquid Temperature 80⁰F
Area Outer Ring 447.69 sq. in. See Auger Boring Record for Soil Profile Soil Temperature
Area Annular Space 334.59 sq. in. Approx. Elev. / Location 12' BEG / SB-1
Time Elapsed Volume Infiltration Volume Infiltration Comments
Time Rate Rate
(minutes) (gal) (In/hr) (gal) (In/hr)
15:03 3 3.0 126.3 6.9 95.5
15:08 8 5.7 87.6 17.7 91.2
15:10 11 6.7 78.3 22.8 89.6
15:12 12 7.4 76.1 25.6 88.7
15:12 13 7.6 74.8 26.4 87.9
INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE vs. TOTAL ELAPSED TIME
Report of DRI
Figure DRI-1
Test began after a 30-
minute saturation period.
Inner Ring Outer Ring
Freedom Beacon Park SMS
Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
10116-2019161
INFILTRATION RATE = 75 in/hr
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
15:00 15:05 15:10 15:15
Infi
ltra
tio
n R
ate
(in
/hr)
Time
Infiltration Rate
Inner Ring
Outer Ring
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:
Date(s) of Test September 17, 2019 Logged by S. San Filippo Checked by W. Lawrence
Test Method ASTM D 3385 Weather Clear Type of liquid tap water
Area Inner Ring 110.75 sq. in. Technician(s) S. San Filippo Liquid Temperature 80⁰F
Area Outer Ring 447.69 sq. in. See Auger Boring Record for Soil Profile Soil Temperature
Area Annular Space 334.59 sq. in. Approx. Elev. / Location 12' BEG / SB-3
Time Elapsed Volume Infiltration Volume Infiltration Comments
Time Rate Rate
(minutes) (gal) (In/hr) (gal) (In/hr)
17:02 2 0.9 56.1 2.0 42.3
17:04 4 1.3 46.8 4.8 47.0
17:06 6 2.1 45.6 7.3 48.5
17:08 8 3.0 46.3 9.5 48.8
17:10 10 3.5 45.4 11.7 48.7
17:12 12 4.0 44.4 13.8 48.4
17:14 14 4.5 43.4 16.0 48.1
17:16 16 5.5 43.3 18.0 47.8
17:18 18 6.4 43.5 20.9 47.8
INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE vs. TOTAL ELAPSED TIME
Report of DRI
Figure DRI-2
Test began after a 30-
minute saturation period.
Inner Ring Outer Ring
Freedom Beacon Park SMS
Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
10116-2019161
INFILTRATION RATE = 44 in/hr
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
17:00 17:05 17:10 17:15 17:20
Infi
ltra
tio
n R
ate
(in
/hr)
Time
Infiltration Rate
Inner Ring
Outer Ring
Project:
Project Location:
Project Number:
Date(s) of Test September 17, 2019 Logged by S. San Filippo Checked by W. Lawrence
Test Method ASTM D 3385 Weather Clear Type of liquid tap water
Area Inner Ring 110.75 sq. in. Technician(s) S. San Filippo Liquid Temperature 80⁰F
Area Outer Ring 447.69 sq. in. See Auger Boring Record for Soil Profile Soil Temperature
Area Annular Space 334.59 sq. in. Approx. Elev. / Location 12' BEG / SB-5
Time Elapsed Volume Infiltration Volume Infiltration Comments
Time Rate Rate
(minutes) (gal) (In/hr) (gal) (In/hr)
15:02 2 1.8 112.3 7.8 160.9
15:04 4 3.4 107.6 15.1 157.8
15:06 6 4.9 105.2 21.2 152.0
15:07 7 5.7 104.1 24.3 149.0
15:08 8 6.5 103.4 28.3 148.2
15:09 9 7.6 103.2 31.2 145.8
INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE vs. TOTAL ELAPSED TIME
Report of DRI
Figure DRI-3
Test began after a 30-
minute saturation period.
Inner Ring Outer Ring
Freedom Beacon Park SMS
Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
10116-2019161
INFILTRATION RATE = 103 in/hr
100.0
110.0
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
15:00 15:05 15:10
Infi
ltra
tio
n R
ate
(in
/hr)
Time
Infiltration Rate
Inner Ring
Outer Ring
APPENDIX C Laboratory Data
Lab Summary – Page 1 of 1
SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION & INDEX TESTING
Freedom Beacon Park SMS Fort Walton Beach, Okaloosa County, Florida
NOVA Project Number 10116-2019161
SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TESTING
Boring
No.
Sample Depth
(ft. BEG)
Natural
Moisture (%)
Percent Fines
(- #200)
Hydraulic Conductivity
USCS Soil
Classification
Kvs
(ft/day)
Unit Weight of Sample
(pcf)
SB-1 4.5-7 2 14 2 110 SM
SB-3 1-6 3 12 7 107 SP-SM
SB-4 0.25-5 7 24 0.3 121 SC
SB-4 8-11.5 7 5 4 108 SP-SM
SB-5 5.5-8.5 3 12 7 108 SP-SM
PR
OJE
CT:
DA
TE
:TE
STE
D B
Y:
→ft/d
ay
→ft/d
ay
→lb
s/ft
3
→%
34
.51
→%
15
8.2
5
HE
IGH
T (F
T)
TR
IAL #
2 (S
EC
)
7A
AA
A
62
62
.02
59
.8
52
59
.82
44
.3
41
49
.61
49
.6
32
.21
10
.2
21
10
.21
5.5
12
.09
4.7
cm
/se
c1
4.1
0.0
00
INC
HE
S
0.2
3
Wt. o
f Dry S
oil (g
)
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (%
)
Wt. o
f -20
0 M
ate
rial (g
)
214
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (A
STM
D 2
21
6)
Wt. o
f Orig
ina
l Dry S
am
ple
(g)
Wt. o
f Wa
sh
ed
Dry S
am
ple
(g)
(Inclu
de
s 3
/8"ID
tub
ing
)
(ZE
RO
INC
HE
S IS
DE
FA
UL
T)
Sa
mp
le L
OC
ATIO
N / B
OR
ING
NO
.
Sa
mp
le N
UM
BE
R / D
EP
TH
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
/SO
IL (lb
s):
FA
LL
ING
HE
AD
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(AS
TM
D 5
08
4)
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
STIN
G S
UM
MA
RY2
11
0
10
11
6-2
01
91
61
Fre
ed
om
Be
aco
n P
ark
SM
S
10
/29
/20
19
Wt. o
f Wa
ter (g
)
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
CO
NS
TA
NT U
SE
D W
AS
→
7
.2E
-04
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT (%
)
NU
MB
ER
OF
INC
HE
S M
OLD
WA
S S
HO
RT?
RE
MO
LD
ED
LA
BO
RA
TO
RY
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
ST D
ATA
SH
EE
T
JAJ
SR
SA
SS
IGN
ED
BY
:
NO
VA
PR
OJE
CT #
:
6.9
1E
-04
No
. of L
AY
ER
S:
BLO
WS
/LA
YE
R:
TR
IAL #
1 (S
EC
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
(lbs):
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f WE
T S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
-20
0 S
IEV
E W
AS
H (A
STM
D 1
14
0)
7.6
4E
-04
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
7.4
9E
-04
6.8
8E
-04
Wt. o
f WA
SH
SO
IL &
PA
N (g
)
SB
-1
4.5
-7
7.1
4E
-04
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
3
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(KV )
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT
Co
rresp
on
din
g K
h
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
25
9.5
0.0
16
.6
45
.3
78
.3
11
9.1
17
6.1
PR
OJE
CT:
DA
TE
:TE
STE
D B
Y:
→ft/d
ay
→ft/d
ay
→lb
s/ft
3
→%
34
.51
→%
15
8.1
6
HE
IGH
T (F
T)
TR
IAL #
2 (S
EC
)
7B
BB
B
62
14
.22
12
.5
52
12
.52
04
.7
41
47
.91
47
.9
31
.76
4.6
26
4.6
7.8
12
.65
6.8
cm
/se
c1
2.1
0.0
00
INC
HE
S
0.2
3
Wt. o
f Dry S
oil (g
)
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (%
)
Wt. o
f -20
0 M
ate
rial (g
)
312
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (A
STM
D 2
21
6)
Wt. o
f Orig
ina
l Dry S
am
ple
(g)
Wt. o
f Wa
sh
ed
Dry S
am
ple
(g)
(Inclu
de
s 3
/8"ID
tub
ing
)
(ZE
RO
INC
HE
S IS
DE
FA
UL
T)
Sa
mp
le L
OC
ATIO
N / B
OR
ING
NO
.
Sa
mp
le N
UM
BE
R / D
EP
TH
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
/SO
IL (lb
s):
FA
LL
ING
HE
AD
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(AS
TM
D 5
08
4)
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
STIN
G S
UM
MA
RY7
10
7
10
11
6-2
01
91
61
Fre
ed
om
Be
aco
n P
ark
SM
S
10
/29
/20
19
Wt. o
f Wa
ter (g
)
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
CO
NS
TA
NT U
SE
D W
AS
→
2.4
E-0
3-2
00
FIN
ES
CO
NTE
NT (%
)
NU
MB
ER
OF
INC
HE
S M
OLD
WA
S S
HO
RT?
RE
MO
LD
ED
LA
BO
RA
TO
RY
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
ST D
ATA
SH
EE
T
JAJ
SR
SA
SS
IGN
ED
BY
:
NO
VA
PR
OJE
CT #
:
2.3
9E
-03
No
. of L
AY
ER
S:
BLO
WS
/LA
YE
R:
TR
IAL #
1 (S
EC
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
(lbs):
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f WE
T S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
-20
0 S
IEV
E W
AS
H (A
STM
D 1
14
0)
2.4
8E
-03
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
2.4
7E
-03
2.4
2E
-03
Wt. o
f WA
SH
SO
IL &
PA
N (g
)
SB
-3
1-6
2.4
5E
-03
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
10
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(KV )
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT
Co
rresp
on
din
g K
h
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
78
.6
0.0
5.8
13
.2
22
.8
34
.6
51
.2
PR
OJE
CT:
DA
TE
:TE
STE
D B
Y:
→ft/d
ay
→ft/d
ay
→lb
s/ft
3
→%
34
.51
→%
15
8.8
2
HE
IGH
T (F
T)
TR
IAL #
2 (S
EC
)
7C
CC
C
62
32
.02
26
.6
52
26
.62
08
.1
41
48
.91
48
.9
35
.47
7.7
27
7.7
18
.5
16
.95
9.2
cm
/se
c2
3.8
0.0
00
INC
HE
S
0.2
3
21
48
.8
0.0
13
0.5
29
6.9
53
6.1
84
7.5
13
86
.1
SB
-4
0.2
5-5
1.0
4E
-04
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
0.4
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(KV )
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT
Co
rresp
on
din
g K
h
Pa
n N
UM
BE
RP
an
NU
MB
ER
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f WE
T S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
-20
0 S
IEV
E W
AS
H (A
STM
D 1
14
0)
8.5
8E
-05
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
9.0
4E
-05
8.7
4E
-05
Wt. o
f WA
SH
SO
IL &
PA
N (g
)
RE
MO
LD
ED
LA
BO
RA
TO
RY
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
ST D
ATA
SH
EE
T
JAJ
SR
SA
SS
IGN
ED
BY
:
NO
VA
PR
OJE
CT #
:
9.2
6E
-05
No
. of L
AY
ER
S:
BLO
WS
/LA
YE
R:
TR
IAL #
1 (S
EC
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
(lbs):
10
11
6-2
01
91
61
Fre
ed
om
Be
aco
n P
ark
SM
S
10
/29
/20
19
Wt. o
f Wa
ter (g
)
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
CO
NS
TA
NT U
SE
D W
AS
→
9
.2E
-05
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT (%
)
NU
MB
ER
OF
INC
HE
S M
OLD
WA
S S
HO
RT?
(Inclu
de
s 3
/8"ID
tub
ing
)
(ZE
RO
INC
HE
S IS
DE
FA
UL
T)
Sa
mp
le L
OC
ATIO
N / B
OR
ING
NO
.
Sa
mp
le N
UM
BE
R / D
EP
TH
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
/SO
IL (lb
s):
FA
LL
ING
HE
AD
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(AS
TM
D 5
08
4)
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
STIN
G S
UM
MA
RY
0.3
12
1
Wt. o
f Dry S
oil (g
)
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (%
)
Wt. o
f -20
0 M
ate
rial (g
)
724
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (A
STM
D 2
21
6)
Wt. o
f Orig
ina
l Dry S
am
ple
(g)
Wt. o
f Wa
sh
ed
Dry S
am
ple
(g)
PR
OJE
CT:
DA
TE
:TE
STE
D B
Y:
→ft/d
ay
→ft/d
ay
→lb
s/ft
3
→%
34
.51
→%
15
8.3
7
HE
IGH
T (F
T)
TR
IAL #
2 (S
EC
)
7D
DD
D
62
13
.32
09
.1
52
09
.12
06
.1
41
52
.41
52
.4
34
.25
6.7
25
6.7
3.0
17
.45
3.7
cm
/se
c5
.3
0.0
00
INC
HE
S
0.2
3
Wt. o
f Dry S
oil (g
)
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (%
)
Wt. o
f -20
0 M
ate
rial (g
)
75
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (A
STM
D 2
21
6)
Wt. o
f Orig
ina
l Dry S
am
ple
(g)
Wt. o
f Wa
sh
ed
Dry S
am
ple
(g)
(Inclu
de
s 3
/8"ID
tub
ing
)
(ZE
RO
INC
HE
S IS
DE
FA
UL
T)
Sa
mp
le L
OC
ATIO
N / B
OR
ING
NO
.
Sa
mp
le N
UM
BE
R / D
EP
TH
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
/SO
IL (lb
s):
FA
LL
ING
HE
AD
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(AS
TM
D 5
08
4)
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
STIN
G S
UM
MA
RY4
10
8
10
11
6-2
01
91
61
Fre
ed
om
Be
aco
n P
ark
SM
S
10
/29
/20
19
Wt. o
f Wa
ter (g
)
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
CO
NS
TA
NT U
SE
D W
AS
→
1
.3E
-03
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT (%
)
NU
MB
ER
OF
INC
HE
S M
OLD
WA
S S
HO
RT?
RE
MO
LD
ED
LA
BO
RA
TO
RY
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
ST D
ATA
SH
EE
T
JAJ
SR
SA
SS
IGN
ED
BY
:
NO
VA
PR
OJE
CT #
:
1.0
3E
-03
No
. of L
AY
ER
S:
BLO
WS
/LA
YE
R:
TR
IAL #
1 (S
EC
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
(lbs):
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f WE
T S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
-20
0 S
IEV
E W
AS
H (A
STM
D 1
14
0)
1.4
4E
-03
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
1.3
8E
-03
1.1
5E
-03
Wt. o
f WA
SH
SO
IL &
PA
N (g
)
SB
-4
8-1
1.5
1.2
5E
-03
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
5
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(KV )
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT
Co
rresp
on
din
g K
h
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
14
0.9
0.0
7.3
17
.0
44
.7
66
.4
10
2.6
PR
OJE
CT:
DA
TE
:TE
STE
D B
Y:
→ft/d
ay
→ft/d
ay
→lb
s/ft
3
→%
34
.51
→%
15
8.2
0
HE
IGH
T (F
T)
TR
IAL #
2 (S
EC
)
7E
EE
E
62
87
.32
83
.2
52
83
.22
66
.9
41
51
.51
51
.5
34
.11
31
.7
21
31
.71
6.3
13
.11
15
.4
cm
/se
c1
2.4
0.0
00
INC
HE
S
0.2
3
Wt. o
f Dry S
oil (g
)
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (%
)
Wt. o
f -20
0 M
ate
rial (g
)
312
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT (A
STM
D 2
21
6)
Wt. o
f Orig
ina
l Dry S
am
ple
(g)
Wt. o
f Wa
sh
ed
Dry S
am
ple
(g)
(Inclu
de
s 3
/8"ID
tub
ing
)
(ZE
RO
INC
HE
S IS
DE
FA
UL
T)
Sa
mp
le L
OC
ATIO
N / B
OR
ING
NO
.
Sa
mp
le N
UM
BE
R / D
EP
TH
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
/SO
IL (lb
s):
FA
LL
ING
HE
AD
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(AS
TM
D 5
08
4)
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
STIN
G S
UM
MA
RY7
10
8
10
11
6-2
01
91
61
Fre
ed
om
Be
aco
n P
ark
SM
S
10
/29
/20
19
Wt. o
f Wa
ter (g
)
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
CO
NS
TA
NT U
SE
D W
AS
→
2
.4E
-03
-20
0 F
INE
S C
ON
TE
NT (%
)
NU
MB
ER
OF
INC
HE
S M
OLD
WA
S S
HO
RT?
RE
MO
LD
ED
LA
BO
RA
TO
RY
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
TE
ST D
ATA
SH
EE
T
JAJ
SR
SA
SS
IGN
ED
BY
:
NO
VA
PR
OJE
CT #
:
2.3
8E
-03
No
. of L
AY
ER
S:
BLO
WS
/LA
YE
R:
TR
IAL #
1 (S
EC
)
Wt. o
f MO
LD
(lbs):
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f WE
T S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
Wt. o
f DR
Y S
OIL
& P
AN
(g)
-20
0 S
IEV
E W
AS
H (A
STM
D 1
14
0)
2.4
8E
-03
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
2.4
7E
-03
2.3
8E
-03
Wt. o
f WA
SH
SO
IL &
PA
N (g
)
SB
-5
5.5
-8.5
2.4
5E
-03
Wt. o
f PA
N (g
)
10
PE
RM
EA
BIL
ITY
(KV )
DR
Y D
EN
SIT
Y
MO
ISTU
RE
CO
NTE
NT
Co
rresp
on
din
g K
h
Pa
n N
UM
BE
R
78
.7
0.0
5.6
13
.2
22
.8
34
.6
51
.6
APPENDIX D Qualifications of Recommendations
QUALIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report represent our
professional opinions concerning subsurface conditions at the site. The opinions presented are
relative to the dates of our site work and should not be relied on to represent conditions at later
dates or at locations not explored. The opinions included herein are based on information
provided to us, the data obtained at specific locations during the study, and our previous
experience. If additional information becomes available which might impact our geotechnical
opinions, it will be necessary for NOVA to review the information, re-assess the potential
concerns, and re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations.
Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is the possibility that
conditions between borings may differ from those encountered at specific boring locations, that
conditions are not as anticipated by the designers and/or the contractors, or that either natural
events or the construction process has altered the subsurface conditions. These variations are
an inherent risk associated with subsurface conditions in this region and the approximate
methods used to obtain the data. These variations may not be apparent until construction.
The professional opinions presented in this report are not final. Field observations and
foundation installation monitoring by the geotechnical engineer, as well as soil density testing
and other quality assurance functions associated with site earthwork and foundation
construction, are an extension of this report. Therefore, NOVA should be retained by the owner
to observe all earthwork and foundation construction to confirm that the conditions anticipated
in this study actually exist, and to finalize or amend our conclusions and recommendations.
NOVA is not responsible or liable for the conclusions and recommendations presented in this
report if NOVA does not perform these observations and testing services.
This report is intended for the sole use of Freedom Beacon, LLC only. The scope of work
performed during this study was developed for purposes specifically intended by Freedom
Beacon, LLC only, and may not satisfy other users’ requirements. Use of this report or the
findings, conclusions or recommendations by others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA
is not responsible or liable for the interpretation by others of the data in this report, nor their
conclusions, recommendations or opinions.
Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, our conclusions derived
and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in the State of Florida. This warranty is in lieu of all other
statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full ReportSerious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.
Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:• not prepared for you;• not prepared for your project;• not prepared for the specific site explored; or• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed
from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weightof the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can ChangeA geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional OpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Report’s Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.
A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to MisinterpretationOther design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly
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.
problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s LogsGeotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoldDiverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional AssistanceMembership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document
is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without
being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.