REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Transcription

1 REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES E. Ocean View Ave. Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 PREPARED FOR: 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Phone: (77)

2 April 2, 2017 TO: Work Program Architects 208 E. Plume Street Monticello Arcade, Suite 2 Norfolk, VA 2310 Attn: Ms. Mel Price, AIA, LEED AP RE: Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G Dear Ms. Price: In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this study, together with our recommendations, are presented in this report. Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the information contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully Submitted, G E T Solutions, Inc. Ioanna Kladou Project Engineer D. Mark Scholefield, P.E. Principal Project Engineer VA Reg. # Copies: (1) Client 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Phone: (77) Fax: (77) info@getsolutionsinc.com

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Project Authorization Project Site Location and Description Project Construction Description Purpose and Scope of Services FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES Field Exploration Laboratory Testing SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site Geology Subsurface Soil Conditions Groundwater Discussion EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Clearing and Grading Subgrade Preparation Structural Fill and Placement Suitability of On-site Soils Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations Settlements Foundation Excavations Floor Slab Design Pavement Design Soil Permeability Seismic Evaluation CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Anticipated Excavation Characteristics Excavation Stability Drainage and Groundwater Concerns Site Utility Installation Additional Geotechnical Investigation Excavations REPORT LIMITATIONS...14 APPENDICES APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLAN APPENDIX II SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION APPENDIX III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS APPENDIX IV CBR TEST RESULTS APPENDIX V BORING LOGS APPENDIX VI GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE APPENDIX VII HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G

4 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project site is located along Shore Drive and 22nd Bay Street in the City of Norfolk, Virginia. Our field exploration program included fifteen (1) 1- to 60-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings and three (3) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests. Descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the soil test boring locations are tabulated below: AVERAGE DEPTH (Feet) 0 to 0.2 STRATUM DESCRIPTION RANGES OF SPT (1) N- VALUES Surficial 0 to 3 Topsoil to 2-4 FILL SAND (SC, SP-SM, SP, SM) with varying amounts of Clay, Silt, Gravel, demolition debris and fibrous organics. This Stratum was not recovered at boring location D to 60 I SAND (SC, SM, SP-SM, SP) with varying amounts of Silt and Clay Deposits of very soft to medium stiff Clay (CL) were recovered at boring locations D-2, D-3 and B-2 at various depths Notes: (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, Uncorrected N-Values in Blows-per-foot. The initial groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below existing grades, corresponding to elevations ranging from 0 to 0. feet MSL. Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of ± 2 feet are common in the project s area; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. The following preliminary evaluations and recommendations were developed based on our field exploration and laboratory-testing program: A field testing program during construction is recommended, which should include compaction testing, test pits, subgrade inspections and foundation excavation observations for bearing capacity verification. Estimated post-construction total and differential settlements may range up to 1 inch and ½-inch, respectively. i

5 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 The floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members. The pavements should be designed using a CBR value of Typical pavement sections are provided in the report. Based on our experience within the vicinity of the project site and the recovered soils at this location, it is our opinion that this site may be classified as a Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 as referenced by the 2012 International Building Code. A 100-foot deep CPT probe with soil shear wave velocity measurements will be necessary to substantiate the site classification. This summary briefly discusses some of the major topics mentioned in the attached report. Accordingly, this report should be read in its entirety to thoroughly evaluate the contents. ii

6 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, PROJECT INFORMATION 1.1 Project Authorization G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our preliminary subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services for E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study project located in Norfolk Virginia. The geotechnical engineering services were conducted in general accordance with G E T Proposal No. PVB17-243G, dated March 17, Authorization to proceed with our services was received from Ms. Mel Price, AIA, LEED AP., in the form of an electronic mail, dated March 21, Project Site Location and Description The project site is located along Shore Drive and 22nd Bay Street in Norfolk, Virginia. The project site includes four parcels southwest of Shore Drive and 22 nd Bay Street. At the time of our site reconnaissance, the site generally consisted of open grass-covered areas with isolated trees. Portions of the parcel located southeast of Pretty Lake Ave and 21 st Bay Street are currently used as a fenced-in construction laydown area. The parcels were previously developed with commercial buildings and infrastructure. The buildings have been demolished with the exception of the slabs. It is expected that the utilities have been abandoned and the foundations remain in place. Current site grades ranged approximately between 3.3 to 6.8 feet MSL (surface elevations identified from the site survey provided by the client). A site vicinity aerial map is presented below in Figure 1. Figure 1: Site Vicinity Plan (Google Earth) 1

7 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, Project Construction Description Not Applicable If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions, Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate. 1.4 Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose of this feasibility study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at the project site as related to the preliminary design for the structures foundations as well the pavements. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering assessments for the following items were formulated: 1. General assessment of the soils and groundwater table elevations revealed by the borings performed at the proposed development. 2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material encountered in the borings that may interfere with construction progress or structure performance, including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics. 3. Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fill material. 4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, and foundation excavations.. Evaluation of the on-site soils re-use as structural fill. 6. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the proposed structures. Design parameters required for the foundation system, including foundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels, and expected total and differential settlements. 7. Preliminary pavement design recommendations for the parking areas based on the field exploration activities and our experience with similar soil conditions. 8. Seismic site class determination in accordance with the 2012 International Building Code. 2

8 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 A comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the final design and the structural loads are determined to better ascertain the soil conditions within the vicinity of the proposed structure(s). The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to development of this site, an environmental assessment is advisable. 2.1 Field Exploration 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated foundation, pavement and stormwater design parameters, the following subsurface exploration program was performed: Three (3) 60-foot deep SPT borings (designed as D-1, D-2 and D-3) were drilled within the proposed 4-story buildings footprints. Six (6) 20-foot deep SPT borings (designated as B-1 through B-6) were drilled within the proposed structures footprints. Three (3) 1-foot deep SPT borings (designated as BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3) were drilled within the proposed BMP areas. Three (3) 1-foot deep SPT borings (designated as CBR-1, CBR-2 and CBR-3) were drilled within the proposed pavement areas. Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 186. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to depths of 10 to 12 feet, and at 3- and -foot intervals thereafter. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4 I.D., 2 O.D., 30 long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches, using an automatic hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer and overburden pressure). A representative portion of each disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review. A temporary groundwater monitoring well was installed at boring locations BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3. The monitoring wells were installed using.2 I.D. hollow stem auger and constructed of 2-inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC materials. A section of inch slotted screen was placed in each borehole with casing threaded to the top. An appropriately graded sand/gravel pack was placed around each screen and extended one to two feet above the top of the screen. A one to two foot bentonite seal was then placed above each sand/gravel pack and hydrated with potable water. The remainder of each borehole annular space was pumped full of a neat cement grout. Groundwater level readings were collected at 24 hours after installation. 3

9 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 One (1) infiltration test was performed at boring location BMP-2 and BMP-3. The tests were performed at 2 and 4 feet respectively, below the existing site grades, within the vadose zone utilizing a Johnson Permeameter (as coordinated with the civil engineer). A support stand was assembled and placed adjacent to the borehole. This stand holds a calibrated reservoir (3200 ml) and a cable used to raise and lower the water control unit (WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole during testing by use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to the flow reservoir with a 2-meter (6.6 foot) braided PVC hose and then lowered by cable into the borehole to the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover solution, the WCU was suspended above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of approximately times the borehole diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing water to pass through the WCU to fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation. The absorption rate slowed as the soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as a wetting bulb developed around the borehole. Water was continuously added until the flow rate stabilized. The reservoir was then re-filled in order to begin testing. During testing, as the water drained into the borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within the calibrated reservoir was recorded as well as the elapsed time during each interval. The test was continued until relatively consistent flow rates were documented. During testing the quick release connections and shutoff valve were monitored to ensure that no leakage occurred. The flow rate (Q), height of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter (D) were used to calculate Ks utilizing the Glover Solution. Three (3) bulk soil samples, designated as CBR-1, CBR-2 and CBR-3, were collected from the proposed pavement areas at their respective boring locations. The bulk subgrade soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 0.4 to 3 feet below existing site grades. The bulk soil samples were returned to our laboratory and subjected to CBR testing in accordance with VTM & ASTM standards. The boring locations were established and staked in the field by a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. by measuring from identifiable features. These approximate locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (Appendix I), which was reproduced based on a site plan provided by the client. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass jars, labeled, and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. A Project Engineer performed the soil classification in general accordance with ASTM Specification D A summary of the soil classification system is provided in Appendix II. Representative split-spoon soil samples were selected and subjected to laboratory classification testing, which included natural moisture, -#200 sieve wash, and Atterberg Limit testing and analysis in order to corroborate the visual classification. These classification test results are provided in Appendix III. The bulk subgrade soil samples were subjected to natural moisture content, -#200 sieve, Atterberg Limits, Standard Proctor, and CBR testing in accordance with ASTM and VTM standards. A summary of the CBR test results and the moisture density relationship curves (Proctor Curves) are presented in Appendix IV. 4

10 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Geology The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine, lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays. Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy encountered in our subsurface explorations generally consisted of marine deposited Sands, Silts and Clays. In order to obtain more information regarding historical land use of the project site and its vicinity, we reviewed USGS geologic maps and google earth views. From this review, it appears that the project site was previously developed with numerous 1 to 2-story structures which were demolished between 2000 and Subsurface Soil Conditions Underlying the surficial materials and extending to the boring termination depths ranging from 1 to 60 feet below the existing site grades, the subsurface soils were generally consistent throughout the site. The results of our soil test borings are summarized in Table I. AVERAGE DEPTH (Feet) 0 to 0.2 STRATUM Table I Summary of Soil Test Borings DESCRIPTION RANGES OF SPT (1) N- VALUES Surficial 0 to 3 Topsoil to 2-4 FILL SAND (SC, SP-SM, SP, SM) with varying amounts of Clay, Silt, Gravel, demolition debris and fibrous organics. This Stratum was not recovered at boring location D to 60 I SAND (SC, SM, SP-SM, SP) with varying amounts of Silt and Clay Deposits of very soft to medium stiff Clay (CL) were recovered at boring locations D-2, D-3 and B-2 at various depths Notes: (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, Uncorrected N-Values in Blows-per-foot. The subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix V (Boring Logs) and in Appendix VI (Generalized Soil Profile), which should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual.

11 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 It is noted that the Topsoil designation references the presence of surficial organic laden soil, and does not represent any particular quality specification. It is recommended that this material be tested for approval prior to use as topsoil. 3.3 Groundwater Discussion The initial groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below the existing site grades at the boring locations (corresponding to elevations of 0 to 0. feet, MSL). The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety considerations. As such, the reported groundwater levels may not be indicative of the static groundwater level. In order to further corroborate the anticipated groundwater levels at the site, three (3) temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed at boring locations BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3. These monitoring wells were installed to a depth of 1 feet below site grades. The initial and 24- hour groundwater table readings are presented in Table II. Table II Groundwater Table Readings Boring No. Initial Groundwater Reading-ft.* 24-hour Groundwater Reading-ft.* 24-hour Groundwater Elevation, MSL (ft) BMP BMP BMP * feet below existing grade Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, sidewalks, etc.). Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of ± 2 feet are common in the project s area; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures. These readings were obtained in March which is typically considered a higher groundwater month, generally within one foot of the seasonal high. Furthermore, this area is expected to be tidally influenced and water levels may be at the ground surface during extreme weather events. 6

12 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our preliminary recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our interpretation of our soil test borings and laboratory data and our observations during our site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes. The results of our subsurface exploration revealed that the FILL materials recovered at the boring locations extended to a maximum depth of 4 feet below existing site grades. The FILL materials were generally comprised of SAND with marine shell fragments, demolition related debris such as gravel, brick, glass, and other organic material such as partially decayed roots. These FILL soils were found to be in a stable condition at the time of our investigation; however, they are considered to be uncontrolled with variations in the quality and consistency of debris. Accordingly, it is recommended that the FILL materials be removed completely from under the structures foundations. The FILL materials may potentially remain beneath slabs and the pavement areas provided successful proofrolling operations are accomplished during the subgrade preparation (see Section 4.2 for more detailed information) and additional test pits during construction are performed to verify the quality of the FILL material. Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be provided in the field following the testing procedures. However, in cases in which the FILL is left in place, there is an increased risk for slab cracking and more frequent pavement maintenance. As previously mentioned, a comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the final design and the structural loads are determined to better ascertain the soil conditions within the vicinity of the proposed structures. 4.1 Clearing and Grading The proposed construction areas should be cleared by means of removing the topsoil material and any other unsuitable FILL and organic laden materials. All old slabs, foundations and abandoned utilities should be removed from within the structures footprint. It is expected that a cut depth averaging 6 inches will be required to remove unsuitable surficial soils. This cut is expected to extend deeper in previous developed areas (existing concrete slabs, footings, utilities) to remove deeper deposits of unsuitable soils which become evident during the clearing. Removing any trees will also consist of stump and large root ball removal. These events will likely leave holes that may extend several feet in depth throughout the project site. Surface water may accumulate in these holes leading to subgrade deterioration if not properly addressed. These holes should be backfilled as recommended in Section 4.3. It is recommended that the clearing operations extend laterally at least feet beyond the lateral limits of the proposed construction areas. The excavation and backfill should be performed under the observation of a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils and perform compaction testing at all backfill. Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be provided in the field following the testing procedures. 7

13 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, Subgrade Preparation Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil. Several passes should be made by a large rubber-tired roller or loaded dump truck over the construction areas. The number of passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer. As previously mentioned in Section 3.2 of this report, uncontrolled FILL materials were encountered at the boring locations. These uncontrolled FILL materials could potentially contain deleterious construction debris that was not observed in the recovered soil samples. Therefore, in addition to the proofroll, a series of test pits should be excavated within the proposed construction areas following the subgrade proofroll. The test pits are considered necessary to determine the thickness and composition of the uncontrolled FILL materials, and thus the possible suitability for them to remain in-place beneath slab-on-grade members and pavements. The test pits should be performed under the observation of G E T Solutions, Inc, who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils and provide recommendations for further improvements (as required). The clearing operations necessary to remove unsuitable FILL materials, (existing concrete slabs, footings, utilities) will require cut depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet. As such, it is likely that proofrolling within a portion of the cut areas may not be appropriate. The suitability of evaluating the subgrade soils within the base of the deeper excavations should be determined in the field by G E T Solutions, Inc. For those areas that are not proofrolled, the base of the excavations should be observed by a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. The project s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements (potential undercut of uncontrolled FILL and backfill with structural fill). 4.3 Structural Fill and Placement Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, the placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 20% by weight of fines (SP, SM, SW, GP, GW), having a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material. All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 98 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). In general, the compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure that adequate compaction is achieved. 8

14 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural fill (as previously above), and should be compacted to at least 98 percent of ASTM D 698. This fill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is used. Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 2 feet away from existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand-operated compaction equipment. 4.4 Suitability of On-site Soils The surficial and shallow subsurface FILL soils encountered at the boring locations do not appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill. However; the granular soils (SP, SP-SM) recovered at the boring locations could be used as structural fill material. Since these soils are near or below the current groundwater level, some means of drying the soils will be required prior to their use. The drying can be accomplished by stockpiling or spreading in thin lifts and letting the material air-dry, which could prove time consuming and will be dependent on the weather conditions. Further classification testing (natural moisture content, gradation analysis, and Proctor testing) should be performed in the field during construction to evaluate the suitability of any excavated soils for reuse as fill within buildings and pavement areas. 4. Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations Provided that the previously recommended construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structures can be supported by shallow foundations bearing upon firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill material. Foundation undercut will be required to penetrate unsuitable FILL soils (see Section 4.7 for further information concerning the foundation undercut). The footings or turn down edges can be designed using a net allowable soil pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for dimensioning the footings. In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), the base of the footings should have an embedment of at least 18 inches beneath finished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches (20 inches in the case of a monolithic slab with turn down edges). The recommended 18-inch footing embedment is considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils. 4.6 Settlements It is estimated that, with proper site preparation (removal of all uncontrolled FILL materials beneath the foundations), the maximum resulting total settlement of the proposed structures foundations should be less than 1.2 inch with about half of the elastic settlement occurring during construction. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than ½-inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of widely varying loading conditions). The settlements were estimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration and laboratory tests. 9

15 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 Careful field control will contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements. GET Solutions Inc. should be notified if the foundations loads or fill heights exceed those noted in this report. 4.7 Foundation Excavations In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill. Some foundation undercut should be expected to penetrate uncontrolled fill soils. The foundation bearing capacities should be verified in the field during construction by means of performing a footing inspection for each structure. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer should advance hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in the bases of the foundation excavations to verify that the bearing soils are consistent with those noted in this report. The necessary depth of penetration will be established during the subgrade observations. If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations, the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with flowable fill or a suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698), prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) as tested to a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately recompacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the Geotechnical Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing inspections. Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain or frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately protected. 4.8 Floor Slab Design The floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members provided the previously recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is recommended that the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than % passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab. It is recommended that all ground floor slabs be "floating" (not applicable if using a turn down system). That is, generally ground supported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize the possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differential movements between the slab and the foundation. 10

16 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the Architect based on project requirements. 4.9 Pavement Design Based on the results of the laboratory test program, the natural subgrade soils indicated an average soaked CBR value of In accordance with VDOT standards the average soaked CBR value should be multiplied by a factor of two-thirds to determine a pavement design CBR value. The two-thirds factor provides the necessary safety margins to compensate for some non-uniformity of the soil. Therefore, the pavement design CBR value is Section Table III - Typical Pavement Sections Hot Mix Asphalt Surface (SM-12.A) Base (BM-2.0) Aggregate Base* Subgrade** Flexible Heavy Duty Stable Standard Duty Asphalt (Parking Bays) 2 8 Stable * VDOT Type 21-A or 21-B, compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). ** Compacted to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. All pavement material and construction procedures should conform to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements Soil Permeability Based on the field testing, the hydraulic conductivity of the soils is tabulated below (Table IV) and is presented on the Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheets (Appendix VII), included with this report. Table IV - Infiltration Test Results Boring Boring Depth (ft) (1) K sat Value (in/hr) K sat Class USCS Classification BMP Very High SP BMP High SP (1) Depth below existing site grades. 11

17 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 The infiltration tests result provided in this report is the result of infiltration testing at the location and depth indicated in Table IV. Varying site conditions, including soil composition, soil density, stratum depth, and stratum thickness should be expected throughout the site. As such, the infiltration test results indicated in Table IV should not be assumed for all locations and depths across the project site. Considering the heterogeneous nature of the uncontrolled FILL soils, it was not feasible to perform in-situ soil permeability testing at boring location BMP-1. As such, an estimated permeability provided herein is based on published values and our experience with similar sites. Thus the hydraulic conductivity of shallow SAND (SP) soils is anticipated to be as follows: SAND (SP): to 1.0 in/hr Seismic Evaluation Based on our experience within the vicinity of the project site and the recovered soils at this location, it is our opinion that this site may be classified as a Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 as referenced by the 2012 International Building Code. A 100-foot deep CPT probe with soil shear wave velocity measurements will be necessary to substantiate the site classification..0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.1 Anticipated Excavation Characteristics Based on the results of this exploration, varying soil conditions and compositions are expected to be encountered throughout the project limits. Open-cut excavations will extend through granular uncontrolled FILL soils that contain debris (i.e. soil that may hinder excavation or installation). Debris typically considered unsuitable consist of wood, glass, organics, plastics, coal, brick or any other material larger than 2 inches in diameter. Based on these characteristics it is anticipated that the majority of the shallow subsurface materials encountered within the upper 2 to 4 feet throughout the project site cannot be reused as backfill. Soils containing appreciable amounts and/or deleterious debris should be discarded; however, an effort should be made during excavation to segregate potentially suitable in-situ fill soils for reuse. Information pertaining to backfill criteria was provided previously in Section Excavation Stability The shallow subsurface within the project limits is generally comprised of granular soils; with potential for caving. Additionally, water seepage at varying elevations should be expected within the side walls of the open cut areas, increasing the potential for caving. Based on these mentioned characteristics, it is recommended that all subsurface soils be considered Type C in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria. Temporary Slopes The Contractor should be aware that temporary slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths should in no case exceed those specified in local, state and/or federal safety regulations (e.g. OSHA Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations). 12

18 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 Where temporary slopes are not feasible, shoring by means of sheeting and/or trench shields may be appropriate. Where the stability of adjoining structures, pavements, or other improvements is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability. Shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for this project (if required) should be designed by a professional engineer. Shoring Shoring design and installation should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Shoring systems required for this project should be designed by a professional engineer. Shoring systems should be designed to provide positive restraint of trench walls in an effort to protect against lateral deformation that may result in ground cracks, settlement, and/or other ground movements that may affect adjacent underground utilities and pavements as well as surface improvements. The Contractor should be made aware of this potential condition in order that preventative measurers can be implemented or repair measures provided for. Depending on the shoring system used, the removal process may create voids along the walls of the excavations. If these voids are left in place and are significant, backfill and/or the retained soil may shift laterally resulting in settlement of overlying structures/pavements. As such, care should be taken to remove the shoring systems and backfill the trenches in a manner as to not create these voids. In all cases, the Contractor should select an excavation and/or shoring scheme that will protect adjacent and overlying improvements, including below grade utilities..3 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level will require well pointing. It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction. Again, we recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction to determine groundwater impact on this project..4 Site Utility Installation Based on the visual classification and the relative density (as determined by the Standard Penetration Test) of the soils encountered at the boring locations, it is our opinion that the proposed utility alignments can be supported by a suitable bedding surface bearing in native subgrade soils. The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the pipe and structure placement to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. Based on the results of our field exploration program it is expected that the utilities and structures will, in some instances, bear in the wet cohesive and/or granular soils. In these instances the bearing soils may require some stabilization to provide suitable bedding. 13

19 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 This stabilization is commonly accomplished by adding 12 inches or more of bedding stone VDOT No. 7. It is expected that excavations penetrating the SAND soils of Strata I and II will experience varying degrees of cave-in. A combination of dewatering and shoring should be implemented to reduce the potential cave-ins. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of this report. Imported structural fill material will be required to facilitate the utility installation.. Additional Geotechnical Investigation A comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the project design is complete. The subsurface data documented during this subsurface investigation can be incorporated within the final geotechnical investigation. Specifically, it is recommended to perform additional SPT borings and dilatometer tests within the limits of the proposed structures and to perform a more refined laboratory testing program to further evaluate the underlying compressible soils and associated settlements..6 Excavations In Federal Register, Volume 4, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P. This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA) guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. 6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client and their consultants for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project. 14

20 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-1G April 2, 2017 The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed. After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents, in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and their designated agents for the specific application to the proposed E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study, in Norfolk, Virginia. 1

21 APPENDICES APPENDIX I APPENDIX II APPENDIX III APPENDIX IV APPENDIX V APPENDIX VI APPENDIX VII BORING LOCATION PLAN SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS CBR TEST RESULTS BORING LOGS GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS

22 APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLAN

23

24 APPENDIX II SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

25 Virginia Beach Williamsburg 204 Grayson Road 192 Penniman Rd. Suite E Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg, Virginia 2318 (77) (77) Elizabeth City 04 East Elizabeth St. Suite 2 Elizabeth City, NC (22) Relative Density Consistency Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less Very Soft 2 blows/ft. or less Loose to 10 blows/ft. Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft. Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Stiff to 8 blows/ft. Dense 31 to 0 blows/ft. Stiff 9 to 1 blows/ft. Very Dense 1 blows/ft. or more Very Stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft. Hard 31 blows/ft. or more Particle Size Identification Boulders 8 inch diameter or more Cobbles 3 to 8 inch diameter Gravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter Medium 1 / 2 to 1 inch diameter Fine 1 / 4 to 1 / 2 inch diameter Sand Coarse 2.00 mm to 1 / 4 inch (diameter of pencil lead) Silt GW - Well-graded Gravel Medium Fine Coarse Grained Soils GP - Poorly graded Gravel GW-GM - Well-graded Gravel w/silt 0.42 to 2.00 mm (diameter of broom straw) to 0.42 mm (diameter of human hair) to mm (cannot see particles) CL - Lean Clay CL-ML - Silty Clay ML - Silt GW-GC - Well-graded Gravel w/clay OL - Organic Clay/Silt GP-GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/silt Liquid Limit 0% or greater Less than percent GW, GP, SW,SP GP-GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/clay CH - Fat Clay More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC GM - Silty Gravel MH - Elastic Silt to 12 percent GC - Clayey Gravel OH - Organic Clay/Silt GC-GM - Silty, Clayey Gravel SW - Well-graded Sand SP - Poorly graded Sand SW-SM - Well-graded Sand w/silt SW-SC - Well-graded Sand w/clay SP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/silt SP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/clay SM - Silty Sand SC - Clayey Sand SC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION NON COHESIVE SOILS (SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations) Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 186. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4 I.D., 2 O.D., 30 long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value. CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488) More than 0% retained on No. 200 sieve Fine-Grained Soils 0% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Highly Organic Soils PT - Peat COHESIVE SOILS (CLAY, SILT and Combinations) Relative Proportions Descriptive Term Percent Trace 0- Few -10 Little 1-2 Some 30-4 Mostly Strata Changes In the column Description on the boring log, the horizontal lines represent approximate strata changes. Groundwater Readings Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, side walks, etc.). Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows: Borderline cases requiring dual symbols Plasticity Chart Page 1 of 1 GET Revision 9/2/2008

26 APPENDIX III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

27 GET Solutions, Inc. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS PAGE 1 OF 1 CLIENT Work Program Architects PROJECT NAME E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study PROJECT NUMBER VB17-1G PROJECT LOCATION Norfolk, Virginia Borehole Depth Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Maximum Size (mm) %<#200 Sieve Classification Water Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Void Ratio (1) GET - LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY - GET_STANDARD_DATATEMPLATE( ).GDT - 4/12/17 11:14 - G:\GINT\PROJECTS\VB17\VB17-1G E Ocean View Ave Parcel FEASIBILITY STUDY.GPJ B CL 43.7 B NP NP NP SP 14.9 CBR SC.2 CBR NP NP NP SP 3.9 CBR NP NP NP SP 2.9 D-01.0 NP NP NP SP 22.0 D NP NP NP SM 21.7 D SC 29.8 D NP NP NP SP 4.9 D CL 33.2 D CL 31.8

28 APPENDIX IV CBR TEST RESULTS

29 SUMMARY OF CBR TEST RESULTS Project: Client: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Work Program Architects Project Location: Norfolk, Virginia Project Number: VB17-1G Sample Number Sample Location Sample Depth (ft) USCS Symbol Natural Moisture Content (%) Atterberg Limits (LL/PL/PI) Passing #200 Sieve (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) Soaked CBR Value Resiliency Factor Swell (%) CBR-1 CBR SC 21/13/ CBR-2 CBR SP 4 Non Plastic CBR-3 CBR SP 3 Non Plastic Grayson Road Virginia Beach, Virginia Tel: Fax: page 1 of 1

30 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE) %, pcf Dry density, pcf ZAV for Sp.G. = Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D Method A Standard Elev/ Classification Nat. % > % < Sp.G. LL PI Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No in. SC A-2-4(0) Maximum dry density = pcf Optimum moisture = 9.0 % TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown, Clayey SAND Project No. VB17-1G Client: Work Program Architects Remarks: Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Sample Obtained 3/30/17 CBR-1 Location: CBR-1 Sample Number: CBR-1 GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Figure 1

31 Particle Size Distribution Report in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 # PERCENT FINER % +3" GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium 1 Fine 0.1 Silt 0.01 % Fines Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO).7.37 #4 #10 #40 #80 #100 # Material Description Brown, Clayey SAND Atterberg Limits PL= 13 LL= 21 PI= 8 Coefficients D 90 = D 8 = D 60 = D 0 = D 30 = D 1 = D 10 = C u = C c = USCS= SC Classification AASHTO= Remarks Sample Obtained 3/30/17 CBR-1 A-2-4(0) * (no specification provided) Location: CBR-1 Sample Number: CBR-1 Depth: 1-18 in. Date: GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Client: Work Program Architects Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Project No: VB17-1G Figure 3/30/17 1A

32 BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT VTM-008 (200) Penetration Resistance (psi) Density (pcf) Molded Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) Density (pcf) Soaked Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) CBR (%) 0.10 in in. Linearity Correction (in.) Surcharge (lbs.) Penetration Depth (in.) Max. Swell (%) 3 Brown, Clayey SAND Material Description USCS SC Max. Dens. (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) LL PI Project No: VB17-1G Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Location: CBR-1 Sample Number: CBR-1 Date: 3/30/17 Depth: 1-18 in. BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Test Description/Remarks: CBR-1 Resiliency Factor = 3.0 Figure 1B

33 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE) 101 ZAV for Sp.G. = %, 99.3 pcf Dry density, pcf Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D Method A Standard Elev/ Classification Nat. % > % < Sp.G. LL PI Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No in. SP A-3 4 NP NP Maximum dry density = 99.3 pcf Optimum moisture = 1.8 % TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Gray, Poorly Graded SAND Project No. VB17-1G Client: Work Program Architects Remarks: Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Sample Obtained 3/30/17 CBR-2 Location: CBR-2 Sample Number: CBR-2 GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Figure 2

34 Particle Size Distribution Report in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 # PERCENT FINER % +3" GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 0.1 Silt 0.01 % Fines Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO).37 #4 #10 #40 #80 #100 # Material Description Gray, Poorly Graded SAND Atterberg Limits PL= NP LL= NP PI= NP Coefficients D 90 = D 8 = D 60 = D 0 = D 30 = D 1 = D 10 = C u = 1.86 C c = 0.94 USCS= Classification SP AASHTO= A-3 Remarks Sample Obtained 3/30/17 CBR-2 * (no specification provided) Location: CBR-2 Sample Number: CBR-2 Depth: 1-24 in. Date: GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Client: Work Program Architects Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Project No: VB17-1G Figure 3/30/17 2A

35 BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT VTM-008 (200) Penetration Resistance (psi) Density (pcf) Molded Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) Density (pcf) Soaked Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) CBR (%) 0.10 in in. Linearity Correction (in.) Surcharge (lbs.) Penetration Depth (in.) Max. Swell (%) 3 Gray, Poorly Graded SAND Material Description USCS SP Max. Dens. (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) LL PI NP NP Project No: VB17-1G Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Location: CBR-2 Sample Number: CBR-2 Date: 3/30/17 Depth: 1-24 in. BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Test Description/Remarks: CBR-2 Resiliency Factor = 3.0 Figure 2B

36 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE) %, pcf ZAV for Sp.G. = 2.70 Dry density, pcf Water content, % Test specification: ASTM D Method A Standard Elev/ Classification Nat. % > % < Sp.G. LL PI Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No in. SP A-3 3 NP NP Maximum dry density = pcf Optimum moisture = 1.4 % TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Tan, Poorly Graded SAND Project No. VB17-1G Client: Work Program Architects Remarks: Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Sample Obtained 3/29/17 CBR-3 Location: CBR-3 Sample Number: CBR-3 GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Figure 3

37 Particle Size Distribution Report in. 3 in. 2 in. 1½ in. 1 in. ¾ in. ½ in. 3/8 in. #4 #10 #20 #30 #40 #60 #100 #140 # PERCENT FINER % +3" GRAIN SIZE - mm. % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 0.1 Silt 0.01 % Fines Clay SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS? SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO).7.37 #4 #10 #40 #80 #100 # Material Description Tan, Poorly Graded SAND Atterberg Limits PL= NP LL= NP PI= NP Coefficients D 90 = D 8 = D 60 = D 0 = D 30 = D 1 = D 10 = C u = 2.09 C c = 0.92 USCS= Classification SP AASHTO= A-3 Remarks Sample Obtained 3/29/17 CBR-3 * (no specification provided) Location: CBR-3 Sample Number: CBR-3 Depth: 1-24 in. Date: GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Client: Work Program Architects Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Project No: VB17-1G Figure 3/29/17 3A

38 BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT VTM-008 (200) Penetration Resistance (psi) Density (pcf) Molded Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) Density (pcf) Soaked Percent of Max. Dens. Moisture (%) CBR (%) 0.10 in in. Linearity Correction (in.) Surcharge (lbs.) Penetration Depth (in.) Max. Swell (%) 3 Tan, Poorly Graded SAND Material Description USCS SP Max. Dens. (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) LL PI NP NP Project No: VB17-1G Project: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Location: CBR-3 Sample Number: CBR-3 Date: 3/29/17 Depth: 1-24 in. BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT GET SOLUTIONS, INC. Test Description/Remarks: CBR-3 Resiliency Factor = 3.0 Figure 3B

39 APPENDIX V BORING LOGS

40 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID D-01 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () 0 Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1'' Topsoil Tan mottled brown, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose -FILL Light tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace fibrous organics, medium dense Light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (9) (12) (12) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) ():.2 LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/29/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 1 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/29/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration () (3) Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose to medium dense (16) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Sample Type(s): SS - Split Spoon Notes: See attached boring location plan (1) (13) (9) 18 PAGE 1 OF 2

41 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID D-01 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION Tan to gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose to medium dense (layer continued from previous page) Strata Legend Sample ID Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) ():.2 LOGGED BY: DATE STARTED: 3/29/2017 DATE COMPLETED: 3/29/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (7) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site. 1. Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose Boring terminated at 60 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (7) PAGE 2 OF 2

42 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID D-02 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () 0.1 E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1" Topsoil Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (8) (1) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/29/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 1 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/29/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (3) Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, very loose to medium dense (2) (3) Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense (22) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Gray, wet, Sandy lean CLAY (CL), soft Gray-tan, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), loose Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (21) (19) (8) 6 PAGE 1 OF 2

43 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID D-02 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION Gray-tan, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), loose 36. (layer continued from previous page) Tan mottled gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, loose Strata Legend Sample ID Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/29/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/29/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (9) Light gray, wet, Sandy lean CLAY (CL), stiff (7) 46. Gray-tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with little Clay, very loose to loose () This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site change to reddish tan at 8. feet below grades 60.0 Boring terminated at 60 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (3) (7) PAGE 2 OF 2

44 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID D-03 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 6 AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () 0 Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1'' Topsoil Gray-tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, Clay lenses and trace glass fragments, loose -FILL Light gray to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) 2--- (10) () PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 6.1 LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/29/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/29/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (3) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Gray, wet, Sandy lean CLAY (CL) with trace Gravel, very soft to hard 34.0 Tan, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM), medium dense to dense 3 Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (18) (14) (0) (41) PAGE 1 OF 2

45 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID D-03 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 6 AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () -30 Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION Tan, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM), medium dense to dense (layer continued from previous page) Strata Legend Sample ID Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 6.1 LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/29/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/29/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration Tan to gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose to medium dense (24) (24) (19) -4 This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site. 4.0 Gray-tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose Boring terminated at 60 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (8) () PAGE 2 OF 2

46 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID B-01 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4 AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () 0 Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1'' Topsoil Brown mottled light tan, moist, Poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM) with Silt and trace fibrous organics, loose -FILL Light tan, moist, Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), medium dense Light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt and some organics, loose Strata Legend Sample ID Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (8) (17) (9) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4 LOGGED BY: DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt and trace organics, loose to dense (7) (17) (13) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), dense Boring terminated at 20 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (24) (46) PAGE 1 OF 1

47 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID B-02 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4 AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 3'' Topsoil Gray mottled tan, moist, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with little Clay and trace Gravel, loose to medium dense -FILL Light tan, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (10) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4.4 LOGGED BY: DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (10) (9) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Gray, wet, Lean CLAY (CL) with little Sand, very soft Boring terminated at 20 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (2) 77 PAGE 1 OF 1

48 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID B-03 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4. AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 3'' Topsoil Light gray mottled tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace fibrous organics and trace Gravel, loose -FILL Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (9) (12) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4. LOGGED BY: DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 1 I. Kladou VB17-1G GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (10) (14) (7) (10) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Tan, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with trace Gravel, dense Boring terminated at 20 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (32) PAGE 1 OF 1

49 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID B-04 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4 AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () 2.0 E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION Light gray mottled gray, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace glass fragments, loose -FILL Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (6) (10) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4. LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (9) (10) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site SS - Split Spoon Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, medium dense Sample Type(s): Boring terminated at 20 feet below existing grade. Notes: See attached boring location plan (16) (1) PAGE 1 OF 1

50 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID B-0 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1'' Topsoil Tan mottled brown, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace fibrous organics, loose -FILL Light gray to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (6) (12) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (12) Gray, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with trace marine shell fragments, very loose to loose (3) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site SS - Split Spoon Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose to medium dense Sample Type(s): Boring terminated at 20 feet below existing grade. Notes: See attached boring location plan () (17) PAGE 1 OF 1

51 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID B-06 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 3'' Topsoil Light tan mottled brown, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace Gravel, loose -FILL Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (10) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (10) (10) (2) Gray, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with trace marine shell fragments, very loose to medium dense This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site SS - Split Spoon Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP) with trace gravel and trace marine shell fragments, medium dense Boring terminated at 20 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan (24) (13) PAGE 1 OF 1

52 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID BMP-1 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4. AFTER HOURS () : 3.2 CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () 0.2 E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 2'' Topsoil Light gray, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace marine shell fragments and trace wood fragments, medium dense -FILL Strata Legend Sample ID 1 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4. LOGGED BY: DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (14) Light gray to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose to medium dense (10) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Boring terminated at 1 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon () (8) (9) PAGE 1 OF 1

53 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID BMP-2 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1'' Topsoil Tan mottled brown, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace glass fragments, loose -FILL Light tan to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (6) 4--- (10) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) ():. LOGGED BY: DATE STARTED: 3/30/2017 DATE COMPLETED: 3/30/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (8) (10) (8) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site Boring terminated at 1 feet below existing grade. Sample Type(s): Notes: See attached boring location plan SS - Split Spoon (9) (8) PAGE 1 OF 1

54 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID BMP-3 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4. AFTER HOURS () : 2.9 CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1.'' Topsoil Gray mottled tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt and trace glass fragments, very loose -FILL Light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 2 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (6) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4.2 LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/31/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/31/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (7) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site SS - Split Spoon Light gray mottled gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Silt and trace fibrous organics, medium dense Sample Type(s): Boring terminated at 1 feet below existing grade. Notes: See attached boring location plan (14) (17) PAGE 1 OF 1

55 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID CBR-1 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4. AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () 1. E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION Brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) with trace Gravel and trace fibrous organics, medium dense -FILL Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense Strata Legend Sample ID 1 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (2) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4. LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/31/2017 DRILLER: %<# I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/31/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration (17) (8) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site SS - Split Spoon Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, very loose to loose Sample Type(s): Boring terminated at 1 feet below existing grade. Notes: See attached boring location plan (6) (9) PAGE 1 OF 1

56 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID CBR-2 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : 4 AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () 0.1 E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION 1'' Topsoil Gray, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace marine shell fragments, trace brick fragments and trace fibrous organics, loose Strata Legend Sample ID 1 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) () PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 4.3 LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/31/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 1 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/31/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense (9) (10) (3) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site SS - Split Spoon Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, medium dense Sample Type(s): Boring terminated at 1 feet below existing grade. Notes: See attached boring location plan (14) (27) PAGE 1 OF 1

57 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Virginia Beach 204 Grayson Road Virginia Beach, VA Williamsburg 192-E Penniman Road Williamsburg, VA Elizabeth City 106 Capital Trace Unit E Elizabeth City, NC Jacksonville 41-A Western Blvd Jacksonville, NC BORING ID CBR-3 PROJECT NAME: Feasibility Study CLIENT: GROUNDWATER*: INITIAL () : AFTER HOURS () : CAVE-IN () : The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level. Elevation () Depth () E Ocean View Ave Parcel Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Virginia BORING LOCATION: DRILLING METHOD(S): Work Program Norfolk, Rotary wash "mud" STRATA DESCRIPTION Tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with trace Gravel and trace fibrous organics, loose Strata Legend Sample ID 1 Sample Type Sample Recovery (in.) Blow Counts (N-Values) (8) PROJECT NUMBER: SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) ():. LOGGED BY: DATE COMPLETED: 3/31/2017 DRILLER: %<#200 2 I. Kladou VB17-1G DATE STARTED: 3/31/2017 GET Solutions, Inc. TEST RESULTS Plastic Limit x x Liquid Limit Water Content - Penetration Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP), very loose to medium dense (14) This information pertains only to this boring and should not be interpreted as being indicitive of the site SS - Split Spoon Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, very loose to medium dense Sample Type(s): Boring terminated at 1 feet below existing grade. Notes: See attached boring location plan (2) (21) PAGE 1 OF 1

58 APPENDIX VI GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

59 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE PROJECT NAME: E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study PROJECT LOCATION: Norfolk, Virginia 10 PROJECT NUMBER: VB17-1G CLIENT: Work Program Architects D-01 B-06 CBR-1 BMP-1 D-02 (9) (12) (12) () (3) (16) (10) (10) (10) (2) (24) (2) (17) (8) (6) (9) (14) (10) () (8) (9) (8) (1) (3) (2) (3) (22) CBR-3 (8) (14) (2) (21) CBR-2 () (9) (10) (3) (14) (27) B-0 (6) (12) (12) (3) () B-04 (6) (10) (9) (10) (16) D-03 (10) () (3) B-03 (9) (12) (10) (14) (7) (10) B-02 (10) (10) (9) BMP-3 (6) (7) (14) (17) BMP-2 (6) (10) (8) (10) (8) (9) (8) B-01 (8) (17) (9) (7) (17) (13) (24) LEGEND Topsoil Fill (made ground) USCS Poorly-graded Sand USCS Poorly-graded Sand with Silt Elevation (ft) (1) (13) (13) (21) (19) (17) (1) (18) (14) (0) (32) (2) (46) USCS Low Plasticity Clay USCS Silty Sand USCS Clayey Sand -30 (9) (8) (41) (9) (24) (7) (24) (7) () (19) -4-0 (7) (3) (8) -0 - (Numerical Value) = Sample N-Value (7) () -

60 APPENDIX VI HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS