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




Dark grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)





TEST BORINGRECORD

SB-2




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


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








TEST BORINGRECORD

SB-3




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


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)


Boring Terminated at 11.5 ft.




TEST BORINGRECORD

SB-4



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


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




Dark grey fine-grained slightly silty SAND (SP-SM)

Boring Terminated at 12.5 ft.




TEST BORINGRECORD

SB-5



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


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:







Time Rate Rate


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


Report of DRI

Figure DRI-2






10116-2019161


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:







Time Rate Rate


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


Report of DRI

Figure DRI-3






10116-2019161


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.

appendix g fema flood map

Documents