STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TESTING REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TESTING REPORT

BED ONE Bedminster Township, Somerset County, New Jersey

September 2021

Prepared For: GLADSTONE DESIGN, INC.

265 Main Street Gladstone, New Jersey 07934 Attn: Mr. Robert Moschello, P.E.

Prepared By:

GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

14 Worlds Fair Drive, Suite A Somerset, New Jersey 08873 GTA Job No: 31211310

GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS A Practicing Geoprofessional Business Association Member Firm

14 Worlds Fair Drive, Suite A, Somerset, NJ 08873 (732) 271-9301

Abingdon, MD Baltimore, MD Laurel, MD Frederick, MD Waldorf, MD New Castle, DE Georgetown, DE Somerset, NJ NYC Metro York, PA Quakertown, PA Beaver Falls, PA Malvern, OH Sterling, VA Nashville, TN Charlotte, NC Raleigh, NC

Visit us on the web at www.gtaeng.com

September 2, 2021

Gladstone Design, Inc. 265 Main Street Gladstone, New Jersey 07934 Attn: Mr. Robert Moschello, P.E. Re: Stormwater Management Testing Report Bed One Bedminster Township, Somerset County, New Jersey Dear Rob:

In accordance with our agreement dated July 13, 2021 Geo-Technology Associates, Inc. (GTA) has performed subsurface exploration and in-situ infiltration testing for the planning and design of stormwater management (SWM) facilities at a site located in Bedminster Township, Somerset County, New Jersey. The exploration consisted of excavating 46 test pits, visually classifying the encountered soils, and performing in-situ infiltration testing. The results of the field and laboratory testing, and GTA’s recommendations regarding the design and construction of the proposed SWM facilities are included in this report. GTA appreciates the opportunity to have been of assistance to you on this project. Please contact our office at (732) 271-9301 if you have questions or require additional information.

Very truly yours, GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.

Allison Tether, P.G. Senior Project Manager

Dennis C. Loh, P.E. Vice President

AMT/DCL:amt Job No. 31211310 Attachments

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT PAGE

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 1

PROPOSED SWM BASIN CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 2

SITE GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 2

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .................................................................................................. 3

LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................................................ 4

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 5

INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................ 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 11

LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 12

ASFE—Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures (2 pages) Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Test Pit Location Plan (11x17)

Appendix B –Test Pit Logs (47 pages) Notes for Exploration Logs Logs of Test Pits (46 pages)

Appendix C – Laboratory Data (6 pages) Particle Size Distribution Reports (7 pages) Atterberg Limit Report (4 pages)

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TESTING REPORT

BED ONE BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP

SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY SEPTEMBER 2021

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of subsurface explorations and in-situ infiltration testing

performed by Geo-Technology Associates, Inc. (GTA) for the planning and design of stormwater

management (SWM) facilities at a site in Bedminster Township, Somerset County, New Jersey. The

site is located adjacent to and south of Burnt Mills Road west of U.S. Route 202/206, and is

identified as Lot 7 in Block 71 on the Bedminster Township tax map. Please refer to the Site

Location Map, which is Figure 1 in Appendix A of this report.

GTA was provided with a plan prepared by Gladstone Design, Inc. (GDI) titled Soil Testing

Locations Plan dated June 2, 2021. The plan indicates the site boundaries, existing site features and

topography, and the layout of 6 proposed SWM basins. The plan also indicated the locations of 29

requested explorations, including proposed basin bottom elevations and requested test depths.

Following our exploration, GTA presented preliminary infiltration results to GDI and was requested

to perform additional testing throughout the site to evaluate if the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG)

classification is appropriate based on the actual site conditions.

According to Chapter 12 of the NJ Stormwater BMP Manual, test pits and infiltration tests

must be performed within each SWM infiltration basin location. At least two test pits and infiltration

tests should be performed for basins with an infiltration area of up to 10,000 square feet, and one

additional test must be performed for each additional 10,000 square feet of infiltration area.

Infiltration tests are to be performed at the planned level of infiltration or deeper if hydraulically

restrictive soils are present within 8 feet of the proposed basin bottom level. Therefore, the test pits

must extend at least 8 feet below the planned level of infiltration.

SITE CONDITIONS

The site is bounded by Burnt Mills Road to the north, U.S. Route 202/206 to the east, an

off-ramp from Interstate 78 to the south, and a park and wooded areas to the west. The northwestern

Stormwater Management Testing Report Bed One September 2021 GTA Project No. 31211310

2

corner of the site is presently occupied by a bank and an existing office building is located in the

south-central portion of the site. Two large at-grade parking lots are present in the north-central and

southern portions of the site. An existing man-made pond is located adjacently west of the office

building, which connects to a stream running roughly east to west through the center of the property.

The areas adjacent to the stream are mapped as wetland areas on the plan provided to us. The open

portions of the site are predominantly landscaped lawn areas surrounding the office building and a

wooded area is present in the northern portion of the site.

Based on our visual observations and review of the ground surface topography shown on the

plan provided to us, the site generally slopes gently from about Elevation (EL) 190 feet in the

southeastern corner of the site and about EL 180 feet in the northeastern corner of the site, down to

about EL 162 feet in the west-central portion of the site surrounding the existing pond.

PROPOSED SWM BASIN CONSTRUCTION

The plan provided to us indicates the locations of 6 proposed SWM basins and a potential

basin area in the northern portion of the site. The plan indicates 29 requested explorations located

within the proposed and potential basin areas, as well as requested depths for the infiltration testing

and total depths of the explorations. Based on scaled measurements, we understand the bottom of the

proposed basins will range from about 1,000 square feet up to about 6,500 square feet in area and

will be established between EL 164 feet to EL 168 feet. Infiltration testing was requested at 16

locations within the potential SWM area in the northern portion of the site at depths of about 8 feet

below the ground surface.

SITE GEOLOGY

The subject site is situated within the Piedmont physiographic province characterized by a

low rolling plain divided by a series of higher ridges and predominantly underlain by sedimentary

rocks of Triassic and Jurassic age. According to the Bedrock Geology of the Gladstone Quadrangle,

Morris, Hunterdon, and Somerset Counties, New Jersey (GMS 89-4, 1990) published by the New

Jersey Geological Survey, the site is underlain by the Passaic Formation of the Lower Jurassic and

Upper Triassic Period of the Mesozoic Era. The formation is described as grayish-red to brownish-

red, thick- to very thick-bedded, medium- to fine-grained sandstone interbedded with brownish- to

purplish-red siltstone. The maximum thickness of the unit regionally exceeds 1,000 feet.


3

The surficial geology of the site, as shown on the Surficial Geology of the Gladstone

Quadrangle, Somerset, Hunterdon, and Morris Counties, New Jersey (OFM 84, 2011) published by

the New Jersey Geological Survey consists primarily of weathered shale, siltstone, and sandstone.

This unit is described as reddish-brown, brown, and yellowish-brown clayey silt, silty clay, and

sandy silt with some to many shale chips, and pebbles and cobbles of siltstone and sandstone. The

weathered zone can be as much as 20 feet, but is generally less than 5 feet thick. The mapping also

indicates a band of alluvium, which runs generally east to west through the central portion of the site

in the vicinity of the existing pond. The alluvium is described as dark brown, brown, reddish-brown,

yellowish-brown and gray sand, silt, clay and pebble gravel and contains variable amounts of

organic matter. The alluvium can be as much as 15 feet thick.

Please refer to the referenced publications for more detailed descriptions of the geologic

members.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

The subsurface exploration program consisted of excavating a total of 29 test pits at the

requested locations within the proposed and potential infiltration basin areas. The test pits were

performed on July 22 through July 27, 2021 by Heritage Contracting Company, Inc. using a John

Deere 410G and 710G rubber-tire backhoe and extended to depths ranging from 3 feet to 16 feet

below the existing surface grades. In-situ infiltration tests were performed adjacent to each of the test

pits at depths ranging from about 2 feet to 8½ feet below the ground surface. These exploration

locations were selected by GDI and shown on the plan provided to us. The test pits were located in

the field by GTA using a hand-held GPS unit and the existing site features as reference.

Following our exploration GTA was requested to perform additional testing throughout the

site to evaluate the HSG classification, and determine if the mapping is accurate based on the actual

site conditions. The additional exploration consisted of performing additional in-situ infiltration

testing at the previous test pit locations and excavating an additional 17 test pits with in-situ

infiltration testing on August 3 and 9, 2021. The test pits were excavated by Heritage Contracting

Company, Inc. using a John Deere 310SL rubber-tire backhoe, and extended to depths ranging from

approximately 4 feet to 10 feet below the existing surface grades. Infiltration tests were performed

adjacent to each of the additional test pits at depths ranging from about 2 feet to 5 feet below the


4

ground surface. These exploration locations were selected by GTA and located in the field using a

hand-held GPS unit and the existing site features as reference.

The approximate locations of the explorations performed for this study are shown on the Test

Pit Location Plan, which is included as Figure 2 in Appendix A. Detailed descriptions of the

encountered subsurface conditions are indicated on the Logs of Test Pits, which are presented in

Appendix B. The ground surface elevations shown on the exploration logs were obtained by

interpolating between contours shown on the plan provided to us and should be considered

approximate.

Soil samples obtained from the test pits were brought to GTA’s laboratory for visual

classification by a geotechnical engineer and limited laboratory testing. The soil descriptions shown

on the logs are therefore based on visual observation of the samples, supplemented by the laboratory

results.

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing performed for this study included grain-size distribution and Atterberg

Limits testing for classification of the soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS), and natural moisture content determinations. Detailed results of the laboratory testing

performed for this study are included in Appendix C. The results of the testing are summarized in the

following table:

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

LOCATION DEPTH (ft.) LL (%) PI (%) USCS CLASSIFICATION NMC (%)

TP-11 3 32.1 9.3 Clayey GRAVEL with sand (GC)

[FILL] 9.4

TP-16 4 NP NP Silty GRAVEL with sand (GM) [FILL] 10.7

TP-17 5 NP NP Silty GRAVEL with sand (GM) [FILL] 8.7

TP-19 3 NP NP Silty SAND with gravel (SM) [FILL] 10.7

TP-23 4½ 33.6 11.4 Lean CLAY with gravel (CL) 14.7

TP-33 2 32.7 12.4 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) 24.4

TP-42 3 33.6 13.6 Lean CLAY (CL) 23.1

*Note: NP=Non-plastic, LL=Liquid Limit, PI=Plasticity Index, NMC=Natural Moisture Content


5

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

An approximately 4- to 13-inch-thick layer of topsoil was encountered at the ground surface

in the test pits performed for this study, averaging approximately 6 inches. Below the topsoil,

existing fill materials were encountered in 39 of the 46 explorations. The fill extended to depths

ranging from about 2 to 8 feet below the existing surface grades, and predominantly consisted of

silty gravel in the explorations performed in the northern portion of the site and sandy silt in the

explorations closer to the existing office building. The existing fill soils were generally consistent

with the natural site soils and likely placed during construction of the existing buildings as part of the

site grading. However, basalt cobbles and boulders were encountered within the fill in several of the

test pits performed in the northern wooded portion of the site, which was unique to that area and

differed from the native residual shale soils.

A layer of organic silt was observed in 4 of the test pits performed adjacently north of the

existing pond area. The organic soils were generally about 2 feet in thickness and overlying the

residual clay soils. The natural soils encountered below the topsoil, fill, and organic materials appear

to be consistent with the geologic mapping, and generally consisted of residual shale soils. The soils

profile generally a few feet of lean clays (CL) soils, which graded into silty gravel (GM) overlying

highly-weathered shale bedrock. The surface of weathered rock was encountered in 15 of the 46 test

pits at depths ranging from about 7 to 16 feet below the ground surface.

Groundwater was not observed in the test pits performed for this study. However, seepage of

perched or trapped water was observed in 5 of the 46 test pits at depths ranging from about 4 to 10

feet below the existing surface grades. Long-term groundwater readings were not obtained because

the explorations were backfilled for safety considerations. It should be anticipated that seepage of

water atop impermeable layers or trapped within locally porous zones may occur in construction

excavations at varying depths throughout the site, and that fluctuation in the groundwater levels will

occur due to variations in precipitation, seasonal factors, and other factors, such as site development

activities. Soil mottling indicative of the seasonal high groundwater level was not observed in any of

the test pits performed for this study. Therefore, we believe the seasonal high groundwater elevation

is below the depths excavated in the test pits.


6

INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS

In-situ infiltration tests were performed adjacent to each of the test pits performed for this

study using a double-ring infiltrometer in accordance with the ASTM D 3385 test procedure. The

tests were performed at depths ranging from approximately 2 to 8½ feet below the ground surface

within the existing fill and natural soils. The results of the infiltration tests performed for this study

are summarized in the following table:

SUMMARY OF INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS

Test Pit Location

Approximate Test Depth*

(ft)

Final Water Level Drop

(in)

Time Interval

(min) USCS Classification

Measured Infiltration

Rate (in/hr)

TP-1 8 0 30 Lean CLAY (CL) 0










TP-9 3 0 30 Silty GRAVEL (GM) [FILL] 0








TP-13 5 0 30 Lean CLAY (CL) [FILL] 0

TP-14 5½ 0 30 Lean CLAY (CL) 0


7

Test Pit Location


(ft)


(in)

Time Interval



Rate (in/hr)

TP-15 4½ 0 30 Silty GRAVEL (GM) [FILL] 0

TP-16 5 0 30 Silty GRAVEL (GM) [FILL] 0





TP-24 3 0 30 Sandy SILT (ML) [FILL] 0






















8

Test Pit Location


(ft)


(in)

Time Interval



Rate (in/hr)








*Beneath the existing ground surface. Note: A factor of safety of at least 2 should be applied to the measured infiltration rates.

The primary conditions that affect the capacity to infiltrate water are the soil gradation and

density properties and the presence of hydraulically restrictive layers such as silt or clay (fines),

rock, or groundwater, each of which would restrict the flow of water into the underlying aquifer. In

general, the soil profile throughout the majority of the site consisted of a few feet of existing fill

overlying residual clay soils, which graded into silty gravel and highly-weathered shale rock.

In general, the natural soils tested were not receptive to infiltration. Based on the results of the

testing, it is GTA’s opinion that infiltration of collected stormwater is generally not feasible at the

site.

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP (HSG) EVALUATION

Based on soil survey information available on the NJ GeoWeb website, four separate soil

mapping units are present at the site. The northern and southern portions of the property are mapped

as Norton Loam (NotB) with slopes ranging from 2 to 6 percent. The remainder of the site contains

three units, which run roughly east to west in bands through the middle portion of the site. The

northern-central band is mapped as Parsippany Silt Loam (PbpAt) with slopes ranging from 0 to 3

percent, the middle band is mapped as Rowland Silt Loam (RorAt) with slopes ranging from 0 to 2

percent, and the south-central band is mapped as Raritan Silt Loam (RarAr) with slopes ranging

from 0 to 3 percent. Based on the information available, the Parsippany Silt Loam is classified as

Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) D and all other units are classified as HSG C.


9

According to Chapter 7 of the National Engineering Handbook, HSG D soils have high

runoff potential and a saturated hydraulic conductivity of less than or equal to 0.06 inches per hour

for all soil layers within 40 inches of the ground surface. HSG C soils have moderately high runoff

potential and a saturated hydraulic conductivity between 0.14 and 1.42 inches per hour for all soil

layers within 40 inches of the ground surface.

Because our initial infiltration tests at the site resulted in zero infiltration, GTA was requested

to perform additional explorations throughout the areas mapped as NotB, RorAt, and RarAr, which

are all classified as HSG C, to determine if the HSG classifications are appropriate based on the

actual site conditions.

According to Chapter 12, for areas where the HSG is either unknown or inaccurate with

respect to field conditions, a minimum of one soil profile pit and four soil borings shall be conducted

within each soil mapping unit less than 2 acres in area. If the unit is larger than 2 acres, an additional

soil pit and two soil borings shall be conducted for each additional 2 acres. In all cases, soil profile

pits may be performed in place of soil borings. Scaled measurements of the units, excluding areas

presently occupied by buildings and pavements, were provided to us by GDI. The acreage of the

undeveloped area within each unit and number of infiltration tests performed for this study are

summarized in the following table:

Soil Mapping Unit Current

HSG Undeveloped Area

(acres) Total Explorations

Required

NotB (North) C 2.11 8

PbpAt D 2.26 -

RorAt C 2.78 8

RarAr C 1.77 5

NotB (South) C 3.09 8

The explorations performed throughout the site generally encountered a few feet of existing

fill materials overlying residual clay soils, which graded into silty gravel. The existing fill in the

northern half of the site generally extended to depths of about 5 feet below the ground surface, and


10

the fill encountered in the southern half of the site generally extended to depths of about 2 feet below

the ground surface.

Based on Chapter 12, soils can be considered HSG D if the permeability rates of the most

restrictive soil layer within the upper 40 inches is less than 0.14 inches per hour. Additionally, soils

can be classified as HSG D if the depth to bedrock is less than 20 inches or the depth to the seasonal

high groundwater table (SHWT) is less than 24 inches below the ground surface. However, the

explorations performed for this study did not encountered bedrock or SHWT at or above these

depths.

GTA performed in-situ infiltration tests within the upper 40 inches of the soil profile

throughout the site. The infiltration tests were performed using a double-ring infiltrometer in

accordance with the ASTM D 3385 test procedure, and the results of the testing are included in the

Summary of Infiltration Test Results table on Page 6 of this report. In areas where the existing fill

materials were present within the to 40 inches of the soil profile and the testing equipment could not

be properly seated to prevent leaking due to the presence of gravel and cobbles within the fill,

additional infiltration tests were performed within the natural soils underlying the fill materials. The

results of the testing performed within each soil unit are summarized below.

Norton Loam – NotB (Northern Unit)

GTA performed several infiltration tests at varying depths throughout the unit. Four of the

infiltration tests (TP-8, TP-26, TP-28, and TP-29) performed within natural clay soils encountered in

the top 40 inches of the soil profile and two infiltration tests (TP-9 and TP-27) performed within the

existing fill materials in the top 40 inches of the soil profile were not receptive to infiltration and

resulted in 0 inches per hour. Infiltration tests were attempted in Test Pits TP-7 and TP-12 within the

existing fill materials; however, due to the presence of gravel and cobbles within the fill, the

infiltration equipment could not be properly seated to prevent leaking. Therefore, infiltration tests

were performed within the underlying natural soils at depths of 5 feet and 6 feet below the ground

surface, respectively. The natural soils tested at these locations were not receptive to infiltration.


11

Rowland Silt Loam – RorAt

GTA performed 8 infiltration tests at varying depths throughout the unit. Four of the

infiltration tests (TP-41, TP-42, TP-45, and TP-46) performed within natural clay soils encountered

in the top 40 inches of the soil profile and three infiltration tests (TP-24, TP-25, and TP-43)

performed within the existing fill materials in the top 40 inches of the soil profile were not receptive

to infiltration and resulted in 0 inches per hour. An infiltration test was attempted in Test Pit TP-44

within the existing fill materials; however, due to the presence of gravel and cobbles within the fill,

the infiltration equipment could not be properly seated to prevent leaking. Therefore, an infiltration

test was performed within the underlying natural clay soils at a depth of 5 feet below the ground

surface. The natural clay soils tested at this location were not receptive to infiltration.

Raritan Silt Loam – RarAr

GTA performed 5 infiltration tests (TP-22, TP-23, TP-30, TP-38 and TP-40) within the

natural clay soils encountered in the top 40 inches of the soil profile, which were not receptive to

infiltration and resulted in 0 inches per hour.

Norton Loam – NotB (Southern Unit)

GTA performed 8 infiltration tests (TP-31, TP-32, TP-33, TP-34, TP-35, TP-36, TP-37, and

TP-39) within the natural clay soils encountered in the top 40 inches of the soil profile, which were

not receptive to infiltration and resulted in 0 inches per hour.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We believe the subsurface conditions and infiltration test results indicate that infiltration of

collected stormwater is generally not feasible at the site. Based on the results of our field

explorations and infiltration testing, it is GTA’s opinion that the soils tested at this site meet the

criteria outlined in Chapter 12 to be classified as HSG D.

At two of the test locations performed within the northern NotB unit (TP-7 and TP-12) and

one location performed within the RorAt unit (TP-44), infiltration tests were attempted within the

upper 40 inches of the soil profile but the equipment could not be properly seated to prevent leaking

due to the presence of gravel, cobbles, and debris within the existing fill soils. Therefore, additional

testing was performed within the natural soils immediately underlying the fill materials, which were


12

consistent with HSG D soils. In addition, at the locations within these units where existing fill

materials were present within 40 inches of the ground surface (TP-9, TP-24, TP-25, TP-27 and

TP-43) and in-situ infiltration testing was able to be performed with the double-ring infiltrometer

equipment, the results indicate that the existing fill materials were not receptive to infiltration.

Therefore, based on the composition of the existing fill materials and results of the field infiltration

testing where able to be performed within the fill, we believe the fill matrix also exhibits

characteristics of HSG D soils per Chapter 12.

LIMITATIONS

This report, including all supporting test pit logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data,

calculations, estimates and other documents prepared by GTA in connection with this project have

been prepared for the exclusive use of Gladstone Design, Inc. (Client) pursuant to the Agreement

between GTA and Client dated July 13, 2021, and in accordance with generally accepted

engineering practice. All terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and the General Provisions

attached thereto are incorporated herein by reference. No warranty, express or implied, is made

herein. Use and reproduction of this report by any other person without the expressed written

permission of GTA and Client is unauthorized and such use is at the sole risk of the user.

The analysis and recommendations contained in this report are based on the data obtained

from limited observation and testing of the encountered materials. Test pits indicate soil conditions

only at specific locations and times, and only at the depths penetrated. They do not necessarily

reflect strata or variations that may exist between test pit locations. Consequently, the analysis and

recommendations must be considered preliminary until the subsurface conditions can be verified by

direct observation at the time of construction. If variations of subsurface conditions from those

described in this report are noted during construction, recommendations in this report may need to be

re-evaluated.

In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned,

the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless

the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are verified in writing. GTA is not

responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface data or


13

reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analysis without the expressed written authorization of

GTA.

The scope of our services for this geotechnical exploration did not include any environmental

assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials

in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this

report or on the logs regarding odors or unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed are

strictly for the information of our Client.

This report and the attached logs are instruments of service. The subject matter of this report

is limited to the facts and matters stated herein. Absence of a reference to any other conditions or

subject matter shall not be construed by the reader to imply approval by the writer.

31211310 GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.

Geotechnical-Engineering ReportImportant Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this ReportGeotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific TimesGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer

will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client;• for a different project or purpose;• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of

the original site); or• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;

e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in FullCostly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About ChangeYour geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

• the site’s size or shape;• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,

function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria;

• the composition of the design team; or • project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept

responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional OpinionsBefore construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-DependentThe recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be MisinterpretedOther design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members;• help develop specifications;• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and

specifications; and• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note

conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not CoveredThe personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and MoldWhile your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written

permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent

Telephone: 301/565-2733e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org

APPENDIX A

Figures

Figure 1

BED ONE

Bedminster Township

Somerset County, New Jersey

Prepared For: Gladstone Design, Inc.

14 Worlds Fair Drive, Suite ASomerset, New Jersey 08873

(732) 271-9301

fax (732) 271-9306

GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.

SITE LOCATION MAP

SCALE: NTS DATE: SEPT. 2021 PROJECT #: 31211310

SOURCE: Google Maps

Note: Site boundary is approximate.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

N

Figure 2

TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN

SCALE: NTS

BED ONE

Bedminster Township

Somerset County, New Jersey

Prepared For: Gladstone Design, Inc.

14 Worlds Fair Drive, Suite ASomerset, New Jersey 08873

(732) 271-9301fax (732) 271-9306

GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.DATE: AUG. 2021 PROJECT#: 31211310

DESIGN BY: * DRAWN BY: AMT REVIEWED BY: DCL

*Base plan prepared by Gladstone Design, Inc. titled "Soil Testing Locations Plan" dated June 2, 2021.

LEGEND:

Indicates the numbers and locations of test pits performed by GTA for this study.

N

TP-21

TP-20

TP-18

TP-19 TP-17

TP-16

TP-14

TP-13

TP-11

TP-9

TP-10

TP-12

TP-7

TP-6

TP-5

TP-4

TP-2

TP-1

TP-8 TP-28 TP-29 TP-27 TP-26

TP-25

TP-24

TP-30 TP-31

TP-32 TP-33 TP-34

TP-35

TP-36 TP-37

TP-38

TP-40

TP-41

TP-42

TP-43

TP-44TP-45

TP-46

TP-X

TP-15

TP-23 TP-22

TP-39

TP-3

NotB

PbpAt

RorAt

RarAr

NotB

Portion of site presently classified as HSG D (PbpAt).

Portion of site to be reclassified as HSG D (NotB, RorAt, RarAr) based on field testing.

APPENDIX B

Exploration Logs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

174.6

169.0

164.0

163.0

CL

GM

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, silty gravel with sand, cobbles, and boulders (Basalt)

Dark yellow-brown, moist, Lean CLAY

Red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)

Test pit complete at 12 Ft. due to refusal on weathered rock.

- Infiltration rate =0 in/hr at 8 Ft.

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-1 (SP-17)

PROJECT: Bed One PROJECT NO.: 31211310PROJECT LOCATION: Bedminster Township, Somerset County, New Jersey

CLIENT: Gladstone Design, Inc.GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED: N/E

DATE STARTED: 7/22/2021 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 175 Ft.DATE COMPLETED: 7/22/2021 DATUM: Topo

CONTRACTOR: Heritage Contracting Company, Inc. LOGGED BY: AFSEQUIPMENT: John Deere 710G CHECKED BY: AMT

NOTES:Locations and elevations are approximate.Backfilled on completion.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

177.1

172.5

166.5

165.5

CL

GM


- with buried topsoil layer (6 In. in thickness) at 4-1/2 Ft.Red-brown and gray, moist, Lean CLAY

Dark red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)






DATE STARTED: 7/22/2021 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 177.5 Ft.DATE COMPLETED: 7/22/2021 DATUM: Topo




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

175.6

170.0

165.0

160.0

CL

GM



- Red-brown at 8 Ft.











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

180.5

175.0

172.0171.5171.0

CL

GMHW


- Red brown and light gray at 2 Ft.

- with wire and pocket of dark yellow-brown poorly-graded sand at 5 Ft.

Red-brown and light gray, moist, Lean CLAY

Red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)Red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)Test pit complete at 10 Ft. due to refusal on weathered rock.









EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

180.1

174.5

170.5

169.5169.0

CL

GM

HW



- Red-brown at 7 Ft.


Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)Test pit complete at 11-1/2 Ft. due to refusal on weathered rock.









EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

178.1

173.0

169.5169.0168.5

CL

GMHW


Red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY

Dark red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)Test pit complete at 10 Ft. due to refusal on weathered rock.









EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

177.0

172.5

167.5167.0166.5

CL

GMHW



- Dark red-brown at 6 Ft.

Dark red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)Test pit complete at 11 Ft. due to refusal on weathered rock.

- Unable to sitinfiltration deviceat 3 Ft.










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

177.0

175.0

168.5168.0

CL

HW

6 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with brick, asphalt, and concrete fragments

Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY with sand with gravel

Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)Test pit complete at 9-1/2 Ft. due to refusal on weathered rock.










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

176.6

172.0

163.0

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with asphalt and brick fragments

- with black asphalt layer (12 In. in thickness) at 4 Ft.

Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY with sand

Test pit complete at 14 Ft. due to refusal.











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

176.1

172.5

165.5

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with cobbles.


Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

175.1

171.0

162.5

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, clayey gravel with sand, cobbles, and boulders

- with black asphalt layer (6 In. in thickness) at 4 Ft.Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY

- with wood fragments at 7 Ft.

Test pit complete at 13 Ft.


- Perched waterseepage at 7 Ft.








EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

174.1

169.0

164.5

161.5

CL

GM

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with cobbles

- with asphalt and brick fragments at 4 Ft.














EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

172.6

166.0

163.0

160.0

CL

GM

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel

- with buried topsoil layer (6 In. in thickness) at 6-1/2 Ft.Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY












EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

172.6

168.0

161.0

CL


Dark yellow-brown and red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY with sand and gravel

- Dark red-brown and gray, sand and gravel grade out at 9 Ft.


- Infiltration rate =0 in/hr at 5-1/2 Ft.


LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-14 (SP4A-2)







EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

171.1

166.0

164.0

159.5

OL

CL


Dark brown, moist, Organic SILT











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

171.7

164.0

162.0

159.0

OL

CL

4 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with sand


Dark yellow-brown and red brown, moist, Lean CLAY with sand and gravel


- NMC = 10.7%


- Moderateperched waterseepage at 10 Ft.

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-16 (SP4B-1)






LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-16 (SP4B-1)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

169.6

163.5

162.0

159.0

OL

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with sand




- NMC = 8.7%

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-17 (SP4C-1)







EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

168.1

161.0

156.5

CL












EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

169.6

162.0

160.0

158.0

OL

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty sand with gravel


Dark yellow-brown and gray, moist, Lean CLAY


- NMC = 10.7%








EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

167.6

164.0

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silt with sand, cobbles, and boulders (Basalt)

Test pit complete at 4 Ft. due to refusal. - Rapid perchedwater seepage at4 Ft.

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-20 (SP5-1)







EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

166.6

164.0

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silt with sand, cobbles, and boulders (Basalt)

Test pit complete at 3 Ft. due to refusal. - Offset by 7 Ft.and encounteredrefusal at 3 Ft.again.








EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

169.2

167.5

160.5160.0

158.5

CL

GMHW

4 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with concrete and asphalt fragments


Dark red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

170.2

168.5

161.0160.5

159.5

CL

GMHW

4 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, sandy silt with gravel and concrete and plastic fragments

Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY with gravel

Dark red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)



- Infiltration rate =0 in/hr at 4-1/2 Ft.- NMC = 14.7%








EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

174.6

170.5

164.0

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, sandy silt with gravel, brick, and plastic fragments


- with wood fragments at 4 Ft.Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

176.7

169.5

166.0

165.0

CL

GM

4 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, sandy silt with gravel, brick fragments, and a 6 In. thicklayer of yellow-brown, poorly-graded sand along the northern sidewall.

- with black asphalt (3 In. in thickness) at 2-1/2 Ft.

- with wood fragments at 7 Ft.Dark red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY












EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

174.7

173.0

165.5

CL

GM

4 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, sandy silt with gravel and asphalt fragments

Dark yellow-brown and gray, moist, Lean CLAY


Dark red-brown, wet, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

174.7

171.0

165.0

CL

GM

4 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, sandy silt with gravel- with irrigation line at 1 Ft.



Dark red-brown, wet, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

180.6

179.0

177.0

173.0

CL

GM

HW

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, sandy silt with gravel



Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

180.6

179.0

175.0

171.5

CL

GM

HW

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, sandy silt with gravel



Dark red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)Test pit complete at 10 Ft. due to refusal weathered rock.









EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

169.6

168.0

165.0

163.0

160.0

CL

GM

HW

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, silty gravel with concrete and asphalt fragments- with abandoned electric conduit at 1 Ft.



Red-brown, moist, Highly-weathered ROCK (Shale)



LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-30




CONTRACTOR: Heritage Contracting Company, Inc. LOGGED BY: DSPEQUIPMENT: John Deere 310SL CHECKED BY: AMT

NOTES:Location and elevation are approximate.Backfilled on completion.


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

174.1

172.5

170.5

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, silty gravel with concrete fragments

Red-brown, moist, Sandy Lean CLAY










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

178.1177.5

175.5

174.5

CL

GM

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, silty gravel with concrete fragmentsRed-brown, moist, Sandy Lean CLAY











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

182.0

179.5179.0

CL

GM

12 In. of Topsoil


Red-brown, moist, Silty GRAVEL (Residual Shale)Test pit complete at 4 Ft.

- NMC = 24.4%- Infiltration rate =0 in/hr at 2 Ft.








EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

185.0

182.5182.0

CL

GM

12 In. of Topsoil











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

182.5

181.5

179.5

CL

12 In. of Topsoil

FILL - Dark red-brown and dark yellow-brown, moist, silty sand with gravel and concretefragmentsRed-brown, moist, Sandy Lean CLAY










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

185.0

182.0

CL

12 In. of Topsoil











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

175.8

174.5

173.0172.5

CL

GM

8 In. of TopsoilFILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with sand and glass fragments











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

175.0

174.0

172.0

CL

12 In. of Topsoil

FILL - Dark red-brown, moist, silty gravel with sand and twigs











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

177.4

174.5

CL

13 In. of Topsoil











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

182.4

179.0

CL7 In. of TopsoilRed-brown, moist, Lean CLAY










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

182.0

179.0

CL

12 In. of Topsoil











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

177.6

176.0

174.0

CL

5 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, silty gravel

- with stone and burlap at 1-1/2 Ft.Red-brown, moist, Lean CLAY


- NMC = 23.1%- Infiltration rate =0 in/hr at 3 Ft.








EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

172.5

168.0167.5 CL

6 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, sandy silt with brick fragments

- with stone and wood fragments at 4 Ft.

Red-brown, moist, Lean CLAYTest pit complete at 5-1/2 Ft.










EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

175.0

170.5

169.5CL

6 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, silty gravel with brick, concrete, and asphalt fragments












EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

175.5

173.0

172.0CL

6 In. of TopsoilFILL - Red-brown, moist, sandy silt with twigs- with rubber tire at 1 Ft.











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

174.5

171.5

CL

12 In. of Topsoil











EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

.)

DE

PT

H (

ft.)

US

CS

GR

AP

HIC

SY

MB

OL

DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Sheet 1 of 1

Sheet 1 of 1

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Data

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.

Tested By: AFS Checked By: DSP

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: TP-11 (SP-12) Depth: 3

Figure

32.1 22.8 33.5805 25.3035 13.8628 0.1023

Clayey GRAVEL with sand GC A-2-4(0)

31211310 Gladstone Design, Inc.

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 46.1 9.0 4.1 6.6 4.8 29.4

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

Particle Size Distribution Report

Bed One NMC = 9.4%

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.





Project:

Source of Sample: TP-16 (SP4B-1) Depth: 4

Figure

NV NP 28.3534 12.8920 9.2941 0.7942

Silty GRAVEL with sand GM A-1-b


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 25.8 32.3 6.4 8.3 4.1 23.1

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200


Bed One NMC = 10.7%

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.





Project:

Source of Sample: TP-17 (SP4C-1) Depth: 5

Figure

NV NP 43.9126 1.9999 0.4702

Silty GRAVEL with sand GM A-4(0)


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 29.9 3.2 6.9 10.6 6.9 42.5

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200


Bed One NMC = 8.7%

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.





Project:

Source of Sample: TP-19 (SP4C-2) Depth: 3

Figure

NV NP 4.9205 0.7335 0.2959

Silty SAND with gravel SM A-4(0)


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 15.7 12.2 18.4 11.6 42.1

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200


Bed One NMC = 10.7%

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.





Project:

Source of Sample: TP-23 (SP9-2) Depth: 4.5

Figure

33.6 22.2 0.4723

Lean CLAY with gravel CL A-6(9)


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 10.1 2.3 2.8 3.5 81.3

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200


Bed One NMC = 14.7%

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.

Tested By: DSP Checked By: AMT




Project:

Source of Sample: TP-33 Depth: 2

Figure

32.7 20.3 1.5149 0.2089

Sandy Lean CLAY CL A-6(5)


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 5.3 6.6 20.9 11.5 55.7

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200


Bed One NMC = 24.4%

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.





Project:

Source of Sample: TP-42 Depth: 3

Figure

33.6 20.0

Lean CLAY CL A-6(12)


PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 1.5 1.8 5.5 3.8 87.4

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200


Bed One NMC = 23.1%

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.

Tested By: AFS Checked By: AMT

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT - ASTM D4318P

LA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o

r OL

CH o

r OH

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximateupper limit boundary for natural soils

4

7

SOIL DATA

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL

USCSSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY

NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX(%) (%) (%) (%)

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

Gladstone Design, Inc.

Bed One

31211310

TP-11 (SP-12) 3 9.4 22.8 32.1 9.3 GC

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.

Tested By: AFS Checked By: AMT


LA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o

r OL

CH o

r OH

ML or OL MH or OH


4

7

SOIL DATA

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL



Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure


Bed One

31211310

TP-23 (SP9-2) 4.5 14.7 22.2 33.6 11.4 CL

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.



LA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o

r OL

CH o

r OH

ML or OL MH or OH


4

7

SOIL DATA

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL



Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure


Bed One

31211310

TP-33 2 24.4 20.3 32.7 12.4 CL

AS

TM

Sp

ecific

atio

ns p

erf

orm

ed

my in

clu

de

: D

42

1, D

42

2, D

22

16

, D

22

17

, a

nd

D4

31

8.



LA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o

r OL

CH o

r OH

ML or OL MH or OH


4

7

SOIL DATA

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL



Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure


Bed One

31211310

TP-42 3 23.1 20.0 33.6 13.6 CL

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TESTING REPORT

Documents