C. Geotechnical Evaluation Report

ExhibitC
GeotechnicalEvaluationReport
Y:\CollegeTownRochesterLLC\212095CollegeTownSEQR&NEPA\Part1EAF\Exhibits\ExhibitCover
Pages.docx
6/27/201210:55AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.00
2.00
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.10
GENERAL ............................................................................................................. 1
1.20
SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.30
PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 2
CURRENT SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM.................................................. 3

2.10
LAYOUT AND SURVEY OF EXPLORATORY LOCATIONS ............................... 3.
2.20
TEST BORINGS.................................................................................................... 4
2.30
MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS ............................................................... 5
2.40
FIELD HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING ................................................. 5
2.50
TEST PITS ............................................................................................................ 5
2.60
GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION AND LOGGING .................................................. 5
3.00
LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................. 6
4.00
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 7
5.00
4.10
BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 7
4.20
GENERAL ............................................................................................................. 7
4.30
ASPHALT, TOPSOIL AND FILL SOILS ................................................................ 7
4.40
INDIGENOUS SOILS ............................................................................................ 8
4.50
BEDROCK ............................................................................................................. 9
4.60
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.......................................................................... 10
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 13

5.10
GENERAL ............................................................................................................. 13
5.20
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPREAD FOUNDATIONS ..................................... 15
5.30
RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATIONS ............................. 17
5.40
SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOOR DESIGN .................................................................... 18
5.50
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR SUBSURFACE WALL DESIGN.............. 19
5.60
FOUNDATION DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFING/DAMPROOFING ............ 20
5.70
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 21
5.80
PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................................ 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
5.90
SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 24

5.90.1 CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING ........................................................... 24
5.90.2 EXCAVATION AND SPREAD FOUNDATIONS CONSTRUCTION ........ 25
5.90.3 DRIVEN PILE INSTALLATION ................................................................ 26
5.90.4 PILE SUPPORTED FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION ........................... 27
5.90.5 SUBGRADE PREPARATION FOR SLAB-ON-GRADE AND
PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ............................................................... 27
5.90.6 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ............................................................... 28
6.00
CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................................ 29
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 2 - SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN
FIGURE 3 TOTAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN
FIGURE 4 APPROXIMATE FILL DEPTHS ENCOUNTERED AT EXPLORATION LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5 CROSS SECTION A A
FIGURE 6 CROSS SECTION B B
FIGURE 7 CROSS SECTION C C
FIGURE 8 CROSS SECTION D D
FIGURE 9 CROSS SECTION CONSTINUATION D D
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS AND MONITORING WELL DETAILS
APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING RESULTS
APPENDIX C TEST PIT LOGS AND TEST PIT PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX D HISTORICAL SOIL BORINGS COMPLETED BY OTHERS
APPENDIX E LABORATORY TEST DATA
APPENDIX F FILL MATERIAL AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX G INFORMATION REGARDING THIS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
1.00 INTRODUCTION
1.10 GENERAL
This report presents the results of a subsurface exploration program and
geotechnical engineering evaluation completed by Empire Geo-Services, Inc.
(Empire) for the proposed College Town Development project planned at the
University of Rochester Medical Campus in Rochester, New York. The
approximate location of the project site is shown on Figure 1.
College Town Rochester, LLC (CTR) retained Empire to complete a subsurface
exploration program and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations to
assist with the site planning, foundation design, and associated site work for
development of the proposed College Town project. SJB Services, Inc. (SJB), our
affiliated drilling company, completed the subsurface exploration program for the
project. The geotechnical subsurface exploration program consisted of test borings,
groundwater monitoring wells and test pits completed at the project site, along with
geotechnical laboratory testing of selected representative soil and bedrock samples.
The University of Rochester provided copies of previous subsurface investigations,
including an environmental investigation for portions of the project site and
adjacent properties, for Empires review and to aid in our recommendations.
On this basis, Empire prepared this report, which summarizes the subsurface
conditions encountered by the test borings and test pits along with a review of
geologic data presented in previous geotechnical studies, and presents geotechnical
recommendations for design and construction of the foundations, slab-on-grade and
pavement construction, based on the currently proposed building and site feature
locations. The geotechnical subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation
were completed in general accordance with Empires initial proposal dated
November 2, 2011 to CTR.
1.20 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed College Town Development project is planned to be constructed on
the lands adjacent to and between Mount Hope Avenue, East Drive, Crittenden
Boulevard and Elmwood Avenue on the University of Rochesters Medical
Campus in Rochester, New York, as shown on Figure 1.
The project site currently consists predominately of parking lots and building
structures, either previously demolished or slated for demolition. The area is used
by the College and the Medical Campus for parking, offices, and business
activities.
1 of 29
A gasoline station (Hess) operates on the property at the southeast corner of the
proposed development. Our investigations for this project were not performed
directly on this property.
The College Town Development site is located over an area of once sloping and
hilly topography that has since been altered and developed with portions filled and
leveled. The project site is generally lower over its western and southern portions
and higher at its center, north, and along its east ends. Elevations at the proposed
development site range from about El. 554 feet to about El. 581 feet above mean
sea level (AMSL) based on the elevations obtained at the test boring locations.
Based on information provided to Empire, the proposed development site had and
still has a variety of land uses including: past and present gasoline filling stations,
former grocery store, former hotel, current medical and University offices, parking
lots, etc. The present building structures and pavement areas are planned to be
demolished and/or altered as part of the proposed College Town Development
project.
1.30 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The College Town Development project is currently planned to consist of the
following based on the information provided by CTR. It is Empires understanding
the current concept plan is preliminary, and may change.
A five (5) story, 150 room Hotel with a first floor reception area and rooms
totally about 20,800 square feet and second, third, fourth, and fifth floor
levels with rooms totaling about 104,000 square feet. Attached to the
Hotel will be a one-story 15,000 square feet Conference Center.
A two (2) story Bookstore with 12,500 square feet on each floor level;
A one (1) story Market with 20,000 square feet of retail space;
A four (4) level Transit Garage containing 1,440 spaces (360 on each
level);
A two (2) level Parking Garage containing 400 spaces (200 on each level)
and attached four (4) story Residential Building with thirty-two (32) 750
square foot units;
A four (4) story Residential Building with 12,800 square feet on each level
and a total of sixty-eight (68) 750 square foot units;
Seven (7) separate Office and Retail Buildings ranging between one (1)
and four (1) levels with 1,900 to almost 24,000 square feet on each level;
2 of 29
A parking Lot consisting of 147 parking spaces;
The proposed commercial buildings will be designed for seismic loads per
the Building Code of New York State. It is anticipated the residential
buildings will be designed for seismic conditions per the Residential Code
of New York State, although it is possible the Building Code of New York
State may be appropriate as determined by the designer.
The site development beyond the limits of the buildings will include new
asphalt and concrete sidewalk improvements. Traffic is expected to consist
mainly of automobiles/SUVs, occasional delivery trucks, bicycle, and
walking pedestrians. In addition, new landscaping (i.e. trees, lawn, etc.)
will be established.
A site plan showing the proposed project area, test boring locations, groundwater
monitoring well locations and test pit locations completed by Empire/SJB is
presented on Figure 2. A comprehensive subsurface exploration plan has also been
prepared as Figure 3, which includes the locations of past studies along with
Empires current geotechnical investigation locations.
2.00 CURRENT SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM
The current subsurface exploration program, completed by Empire/SJB, consisted
of thirty (30) test borings, designated as B-1 through B-30 and three (3) test pits
designated as TP-1 through TP-3. In addition, a groundwater observation well was
installed in test borings B-27 through B-30 to confirm groundwater levels on the
site. The subsurface exploration program was completed by SJB between
November 14th, 2011 and December 5th, 2011.
2.10 LAYOUT AND SURVEY OF EXPLORATORY LOCATIONS
The test boring, groundwater monitoring well, and test pit locations were
established in the field by SJB, using a combination of hand held global positioning
satellite (gps) instrumentation and tape measurements referenced to existing site
features. The locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by
the methodologies used. Some of the locations were moved from the originally
designated locations due to poor accessibility and/or conflicts with the location of
existing utilities present throughout the site. Ground surface elevations, at each of
the test boring locations, were obtained and provided by URS Greiner.
3 of 29
The following table presents a description of the currently proposed site features
investigated for each boring location, monitoring well and test pit.
Outline of Subsurface Investigatory Work Performed by SJB/Empire
Project Feature
Method of Investigation
Investigation Designation
4-Level Transit Garage
Soil Test Borings
B-1, B-2, B-13, B-14,
Monitoring Well/Test Boring
B-27
4-Story Hotel
Soil Test Borings
B-2, B-3, B-4, B-7, B-8
Bookstore
Soil Test Borings
B-28, B-5
2-Level Garage
Soil Test Borings
B-6, B-9, B-12, B-11
Office/Retail Buildings-Various
Soil Test Borings
B-10, B-15, B-17 through
Monitoring Wells/Test Borings
B-24, B-30
Market
Soil Test Borings
B-12, B-16
Parking Lot
Soil Test Borings
B-25, B-26, B-29
Former Hotel
Test Pits
TP-1, TP-2
Former Wegmans Building
Test Pits
TP-3
Environmental Conditions
Monitoring Wells/Test Borings
B-27 through B-30
2.20 TEST BORINGS

Test borings were made using a Central Mine Equipment (CME) Model 75 truck
mounted drill rig or a 550X rubber tire all-terrain vehicle mounted drill rig. The
test borings were advanced in the overburden soils using hollow stem auger and
split spoon sampling techniques and bedrock using NX core barrel techniques.
Split spoon samples and Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were generally taken
continuously from the ground surface through the fill and native soils to a depth of
about 12 feet and at 5 feet intervals thereafter. At test boring locations B-1 and B30, the driller augered to a depth of about 5 feet and 15 feet, respectively prior to
obtaining any split spoon samples. The split spoon sampling and SPTs were
completed in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 - Standard Test Method for
Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.
Five (5) feet of bedrock was cored at test borings B-1, B-13 and B-14 after
reaching auger refusal at depths of 70.1 feet, 80.2 feet and 89.1 feet, respectively.
Bedrock coring was completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2113 Standard Test Method for Rock Core Drilling and Sampling Rock for Site
Investigations. The core sampling was advanced five (5) feet into the bedrock at
each of these locations.
4 of 29
2.30 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS

Four (4) groundwater monitoring wells (B-27 through B-30) were installed by SJB.
The wells were installed with hollow stem auger drill rigs in general accordance to
ASTM D5092-02 Standard Practice for Design and Installation of Ground Water
Monitoring Wells in Aquifers. These wells, constructed of 2-inch Schedule 40 flush
threaded well screen (machine-slotted with 0.010 inch slot openings) and riser
casing, were installed to assist in the evaluation of the groundwater conditions
beneath the site through direct water table measurements and field hydraulic
conductivity testing.
2.40 FIELD HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING
Field permeability (hydraulic conductivity) testing was performed on monitoring
wells located at boring locations B-27, B-29, and B-30. The permeability tests were
performed in general accordance with the methodologies outlined in the
Foundation Engineering Handbook (Winterkorn and Fang, 1975) to determine the
horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the soils surrounding the screened intervals of
the wells. The rising head (basic time lag) method was utilized on the monitoring
wells, which consists of evacuating water from the well and observing the rate of
recovery of the water level until the rise in water level becomes negligible.
The groundwater observation well installed at test boring location B-28 was dry
and therefore rising head permeability tests were not performed at this location.
2.50 TEST PITS
Test pits were excavated by SJB at three (3) locations (TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3) using
a backhoe. The locations were determined by LiRo Engineers based upon the
location of a former hotel and a former Wegmans Store which have since been
demolished. Test Pit excavation depths ranged between 5.2 feet and 7.0 feet below
the existing ground surface.
2.60 GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION AND LOGGING
A geologist from SJB was present onsite during portions of the subsurface
explorations and prepared the test boring logs based on visual observations of the
recovered soil and rock samples and review of the drillers field notes. SJBs
geologist also prepared the test pit logs and obtained several photographs of the test
pit conditions at each location. The soil samples were described following the
5 of 29
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) based on a visual/manual estimation of

the grain size distribution, along with characteristics such as color, relative density,
consistency, moisture, etc. The recovered rock core samples were also described,
including characteristics such as color, rock type, hardness, weathering, bedding
thickness, core recovery and rock quality designation (RQD).
The test boring logs are presented in Appendix A, along with general information
and a key of terms and symbols used to prepare the logs. The monitoring well
installation details are presented with the corresponding boring logs in Appendix A.
The hydraulic conductivity testing results are present in Appendix B. The test pit
logs and test pit photographs have been included in Appendix C. Historical soil
boring logs completed by others are included in Appendix D.
3.00 LABORATORY TESTING
Selected soil and rock samples collected from the explorations were tested in SJBs
geotechnical testing laboratory to confirm the visual soil classifications and provide
soil index properties or compressive strength of the rock to aid in our design
recommendations.
The selected soil samples were tested for the following parameters.
Organic content in accordance with ASTM D-2974 Moisture, Ash, and

Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils.
Natural moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 2216 Standard

Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of
Soil and Rock by Mass.
Grain size analyses (sieve analyses only) in general accordance with ASTM
C136-Standard Test Method for Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
Grain size analyses (sieve hydrometer analysis) in general accordance with

ASTM D-422- Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils.
Atterberg Limit Tests in general accordance with ASTM D4318-Standard

Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils.
The selected rock samples were tested for the following parameters.
6 of 29
Rock Core Compressive Strength Testing in general accordance with ASTM

D2938- Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Intact Rock Core Specimens.
The laboratory test data is presented in Appendix E, and summarized below, in

Section 4.00 Subsurface Conditions.
4.00 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.10 BACKGROUND
The College Town Development site is located just south of a mapped kame-kettlemoraine complex composed of outwash gravels and sands in hills and depressions
grading to glacial till deposits. Based on past subsurface investigations on the
University of Rochester Medical Campus, the overburden soils beneath the College
Town Development site and surrounding area consist of stratified layers of
lacustrine, alluvium, glaciofluvial, and kame moraine sediments and deposits. The
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service published the
Soil Survey of Monroe County in 1973 which mapping illustrates the project area
as urban land. Bedrock underlying the site has been classified as Dolostone
bedrock of the Lockport Formation or mapped as Lockport Dolomite by the New
York State Geological Survey.
The findings of this subsurface investigations completed at the site are in
agreement with past investigations at the site and the general mapping described
above.
4.20 GENERAL
The general stratigraphy encountered at the test borings completed by SJB
consisted of surface asphalt, topsoil and fill soils/materials which overlie
indigenous soil deposits made predominantly of sand, silt, clayey silt and silty clay
underlain by Dolostone bedrock. The soil stratigraphy encountered during the
subsurface exploration program along with the groundwater conditions observed
are described in more detail below and on the boring logs and test pit logs
presented in Appendix A and Appendix C, respectively.
4.30 ASPHALT, TOPSOIL, AND FILL SOILS
Asphalt was encountered at the ground surface at borings B-2, B-3, B-6, B-8
through B-13, B-15 through B-21, B-23 through B-30 and test pits TP-1 through
TP-3. The asphalt thicknesses measured by the drillers ranged between 3 inches
7 of 29
and 12 inches. Crushed stone, sand and gravel fill and/or reworked indigenous
soils were encountered beneath the asphalt at the boring locations.
The driller noted topsoil at the ground surface of test boring B-1, B-4, B-5 and B-7.
The thickness of the topsoil was typically about 3 to 4 inches, based on the drillers
interpretation of topsoil.
The topsoil and asphalt thickness measurements are widely spaced and are
approximate, as the data is limited and subject to interpretation. Therefore this
information should not be solely relied on for estimating topsoil or surface material
quantities present on the site, which may be required to be removed. Accordingly,
we recommend the Contractor, and/or others, make their own detailed observations
and measurements, prior to bidding and construction, to determine the quantities,
costs and efforts that will be required for topsoil/surface material removal and any
associated replacement with appropriate suitable fill materials.
Fill soils and/or reworked indigenous soils were encountered at the ground
surface of B-14 and B-22 and below the surface materials at the remaining boring
and test pit locations. The fill soils consisted generally of varying proportions of
intermixed fine sand, silt, clay, and gravel along with inclusions of asphalt
fragments, bricks, cinders cobbles, crushed stone, organics, roots, aluminum can
fragments, floor tile, metal and wood. Buried topsoil was encountered at borings
B-7 and B-14 at depth intervals of 2 to 4 feet and 6 to 8 feet, respectively. The
organic content of the buried topsoil soil samples recovered and tested in our
geotechnical laboratory was 3.0% and 7.8% at borings B-7 and B-14, respectively.
The fill soils/materials were generally found to extend to depths ranging from
approximately 2 feet to 8 feet bgs. It is possible that the upper indigenous soils in
some of these areas could have been previously reworked and disturbed by the past
activities on the site and prior to the filling. It should be expected that the fill
thickness will vary between and away from the test boring locations. In addition, it
is expected the fill soils will extend to the bottom of previous excavations for the
existing foundation structures and utilities. Figure 4 includes the approximate
depth and elevation at which the fill soils extend at each boring and test pit
location.
4.40 INDIGENOUS SOILS
The indigenous soils encountered beneath the fill soils at the test boring and test pit
locations generally consisted of brown and grayish-brown silt, fine sand, clayey silt
and silty clay soils with varying amounts of gravel, cobbles and rock fragments.
Occasionally, a predominate fine-coarse sand and/or fine-coarse gravel soil stratum
8 of 29
was encountered within the finer grained soil deposits. The indigenous soils vary
in composition between CL, ML-CL, ML, SM-ML, SM, SM-GM, SP-GP, SP and
GP group soils using the USCS. The grain size analyses performed on the selected
soil samples tested in our geotechnical laboratory confirmed our soil classifications
as summarized on the test boring logs included in Appendix A. Refer to the
laboratory test data included in Appendix E for more information.
The SPT N values obtained in the indigenous soil strata range from w.h. weight
of hammer (split spoon sampler advanced through overburden by weight of rods
and hammer only) to REF Sample Spoon Refusal (i.e. greater than 50 blows
required to advance the sample spoon six inches or less) indicating the relative
density of the granular soils varies from very loose to very compact and the
cohesive soils vary from a very soft to hard consistency.
Hydraulic conductivity of the soils surrounding the well screen at boring locations
B-27, B-29, and B-30 were on the order of magnitude of 0.083 feet/day, 0.045
feet/day, and 0.054 feet/day, respectively. The groundwater observation well at test
boring location B-28 was dry and therefore, a rising head permeability test was not
conducted at this location. The hydraulic conductivity testing results are present in
Appendix B.
4.50 BEDROCK
Auger refusal (presumed bedrock refusal) was encountered at test borings B-1, B-2,
B-13, B-14 and B-22 at depths varying from about 70.1 feet and 99.3 feet below
the existing ground surface, with corresponding elevations ranging between about
El. 474.4 feet and El. 487.4 feet. Auger refusal was not obtained in any of the
historical test borings completed at the proposed project site.
Bedrock core samples were obtained from borings B-1, B-13 and B-14 after
reaching auger refusal. The bedrock cores recovered consisted generally of gray,
medium hard to hard, sound, thinly bedded to thickly bedded, Dolostone Rock. The
recovered rock cores were noted to be occasionally argillaceous, slightly styolitic
and vuggy. In addition, the bedrock recovered from test borings B-13 and B-14
was fractured at varying depths throughout the cores.
Core recoveries ranged from 76% to 100%. Following ASTM D6032 - 08 Standard
Test Method for Determining Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of Rock Core, the
rock quality designation (RQD) values of the recovered cores ranged from 20% to
77% indicating the recovered rock cores have varying rock mass qualities ranging
from very poor to good.
9 of 29
The following table summarizes the depth and elevation where auger refusal was
encountered at the above mentioned test borings as well as the core recoveries,
RQD, depth interval of core run and the unconfined compressive strength of the
rock core tested.
Summary of Dolostone Bedrock Encountered
Test
Boring
Depth (bgs) /
Elevation (ft) of
Auger Refusal
Depth Interval
of Core Run
(ft)
Rock Core
%Recovery /
%RQD
Depth
Interval of
Rock Core
Tested (ft)
Unconfined
Compressive
Strength of Rock
Core (psi)
B-1
70.1 / 485.7
70.1 75.1
76 / 42
90.2-90.5
15,820
B-2
88.6 / 487.4
NC
NC
NC
NC
B-13
80.2 / 474.4
80.2 82.7
92 / 64
80.5-80.8
9,930
B-13
80.2 / 474.4
82.7 85.7
97 / 77
NT
NT
B-14
89.1 / 478.0
89.1 94.1
100 / 20
89.1-89.4
15,560
B-22
99.3 / 475.6
NC
NC
NC
NC
1)
2)
3)
4)
ft bgs = feet below existing ground surface.

NC bedrock not cored
NT core run not tested
psi=pounds per square inch
Rock coring was not performed at test borings B-2 and B-22, therefore, the exact
nature of the refusal material encountered at these locations was not determined
(i.e. bedrock or possibly a cobble/boulder obstruction), although it appears in
general that it is bedrock.
Presuming the auger refusal encountered at each location is actually bedrock, it
appears the bedrock elevation is relatively inconsistent across the site, varying
more than 10 feet across the northwestern portion of the site. However, the
bedrock appears to be generally shallower on the northern side of the site.
4.60 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Water level measurements were made in the test borings at the completion of
overburden drilling and sampling. Freestanding water was encountered in borings
B-2, B-14, B-22 and B-30 at depths of 27.5 feet (El. 548.5 feet), 39.2 feet (El.
527.9 feet), 29.1 feet (El. 545.8 feet) and 21.5 feet (El. 552.4 feet), respectively.
No freestanding water was recorded at the remaining test borings following the
completion of overburden drilling and sampling.
10 of 29
In most cases it appears groundwater did not have sufficient time to accumulate
and/or stabilize in the boring holes within the time that had elapsed from the
completion of drilling operations and the time of measurement.
As mentioned above, a 2-inch diameter PVC groundwater observation well was
installed in test borings B-27 through B-30 to assess the approximate static
groundwater level. Refer to the monitoring well installation detail presented with
the test boring logs in Appendix A for detailed information regarding the well
construction.
In addition, Hailey & Aldrich of New York (H&A) installed a 2-inch diameter
PVC groundwater observation well at monitoring locations MW-1 through MW-3
on April 28, 2011. The monitoring well installation details are presented with
H&As test boring logs presented in Appendix D.
A representative of Empire visited the site on December 5th and 9th, 2011 to record
the water level in the wells. In addition, based on H&As subsurface investigation
report completed in June 2011, water level readings were obtained at monitoring
wells MW-1 through MW-3 on April 28, 2011 and May 12, 2011 by H&A. The
static water levels measured from all the monitoring wells varied from El. 533.3
feet to 568.7 feet. The following table summarizes the static water levels recorded
at the groundwater observation wells.
11 of 29
Summary of Piezometric Water Levels in Observation Wells
Well
Ground
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Depth /
Elevation of
Bottom of
Well (feet)
B-27
559.8
20.0 / 539.8
B-28
B-29
B-30
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
575.9
561.2
573.9
573.6
573.6
569.5
Date
Water Level
Measured
GW Depth
(feet)
GW
Elevation
(feet)
12-5-11
16.8
543.0
12-9-11
16.7
543.1
12-5-11
dry
NA
12-9-11
dry
NA
12-5-11
7.9
533.3
12-9-11
4.8
536.4
12-5-11
15.3
558.6
12-9-11
15.3
558.6
4-28-11
6.5
567.1
5-12-11
6.4
567.2
4-28-11
11.2
562.4
5-12-11
4.9
568.7
4-28-11
13.7
555.8
5-12-11
5.3
564.2
20.0 / 555.9
20.0 / 541.2
30.0 / 543.9
19.5 / 554.1
19.5 / 554.1
19.5 / 550.0
Based on the groundwater measurements obtained from the test borings and
groundwater observation wells, as well as the moist-wet and wet nature of
many of the soil samples recovered it appears groundwater conditions at the
proposed College Town Development site location are present in perched or in
localized zone conditions within site fills, and in a more generalized condition
within the upper indigenous soils (shallow groundwater zones) and in the lower
indigenous soils (deeper groundwater zones). We note that the dense nature and
fine textural composition of the silt and clay soils may have confining/semiconfining properties.
12 of 29
As such, varying zones of groundwater may exist at some locations where more
permeable, saturated sand soils underlie or overlie less permeable silt and clayey
silts soils. Therefore, we note that the water levels (piezometric water levels) in the
wells may be higher or lower than the actual zones of saturation in the subsurface
soils at some locations across the site, depending on the depths/elevations at which
the wells were screened. In addition, it should be expected that groundwater
conditions could vary with location and with changes in soil conditions,
precipitation and seasonal conditions as well as fluctuations of the nearby Genesee
River.
Refer to the test boring logs in Appendix A for more detail information regarding
the soil and rock stratigraphy encountered and the groundwater conditions observed
at each location by SJB. As mentioned above, the approximate fill depths and
elevations encountered at the exploration locations are shown on Figure 4. In
addition, four subsurface profile cross sections, as located on Figure 4 were
completed by Empire and are presented on Figures 5 through 9.
5.00 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.10 GENERAL
Based on our analysis of the conditions disclosed by the test borings, test pits, past
historical test borings and the groundwater observation wells, the following general
considerations and recommendations are provided to assist with planning the
design and construction of the foundations for the proposed buildings/structures
and associated site development.
The soils encountered are predominately intermixed sand, silt, clayey silt and silty
clay soils. These soils are non-organic, and are considered to not be highly
compressible, or highly susceptible to shrinkage, swelling, or liquefaction. In
addition, these soils are considered to have adequate strength properties to support
lighter residential and commercial foundation loads.
There are some isolated zones of loose / soft soils that were encountered at various
locations and depths, which may require limiting the net allowable bearing capacity
and/or the maximum permissible foundation widths, which can be used for a
shallow spread foundation system. This will be dependent upon the actual
building/structure loads and the planned foundation bearing grade elevations.
It is anticipated that heavier structures, such as the parking garages, hotel structure,
etc., may need to be supported on a deep foundation system (i.e. driven piles
bearing on the Dolostone Bedrock) due to their influence on, and the settlement
13 of 29
which may occur within the loose /soft soil zones. Once the structure details are
established (i.e. bearing grade depth and loads) the appropriate foundation system
can be determined.
Preliminary recommendations for the use of both a spread foundation system, and a
deep foundation system consisting of driven piles end bearing on the bedrock, are
provided below.
Based on the test pit excavations and the samples recovered within the split spoons
obtained at several test boring locations, trace to little amounts of brick, concrete,
wood, etc. was noted within the fill soils at varying locations across the site.
Based on the variable composition and density of the fill, it appears that the fill was
placed in an uncontrolled manner. The fill and organic soils can undergo
potentially excessive and unpredictable differential settlement which could cause
cracking and distortion of the floor slabs. Therefore, we would generally
recommend the existing fill and any underlying organic soils are removed and
replaced with a properly controlled and compacted engineered fill beneath the slabon-grade areas.
Due to the deeper extent of the fill soil/materials in some areas, it may not be
logistically and economically practical to remove these unsuitable materials in their
entirety beneath the building floor and exterior slab areas. Consideration could be
given to leaving a portion of the fill and unsuitable soils in-place. There are,
however, uncertainties with leaving some of the unsuitable soils in-place, such as
the potential for longer-term differential settlement to occur within these materials,
which is difficult to predict. Accordingly, the Owner must be willing to accept such
risks if this option is selected. If the Owner is willing accept these risks, then we
recommend the measures presented in Section 5.40 be implemented as minimum
requirements for constructing the slab-on-grade over the existing fill soils.
Also as an alternative, the slab on grade floors could be constructed as a structural
slab supported by a deep foundation system. In all cases it is recommended the
existing fill soils/materials and buried topsoil/organics be removed from beneath
proposed spread foundations.
The impacts of groundwater on the structure design and construction will be
dependent on the design depths of the various components. The silty clay and
clayey silt soils are not expected to yield vast quantities of water, however, more
substantial seepage can be expected from more pervious fill soils and materials, as
well as from indigenous, non-plastic, sand and silt soils. The more granular and
non-plastic soils will also be more susceptible to subgrade and excavation side wall
instability, if not properly dewatered. We note that more substantial amounts of
14 of 29
groundwater could be encountered where existing fill extends below the

groundwater surface. Construction dewatering considerations and methods are
provided in more detail below in Section 5.90.1.
In addition to the construction dewatering, it will be necessary to provide
permanent foundation wall and underslab drainage of basement and pit structures,
along with proper damp proofing. Alternatively, the below grade structures could
also be designed for full hydrostatic pressures, with proper waterproofing.
In order to minimize or eliminate intrusion below potential groundwater conditions,
and limit the associated impacts, consideration should be given to avoiding
incorporation of basements or below grade parking structures in the development
scheme. We also recommend that the structural foundation elements (i.e. spread
footings, pile caps, grade beams, elevator pit, structures, etc.) be constructed as
high as possible.
The general site preparation work should be performed during seasonal dry periods
to minimize potential degradation of the subgrade soils and undercuts which may
be required to establish a stable base for construction. It should be understood that
both the fill and indigenous subgrade soils that will be exposed are sensitive and
may degrade and lose strength when they are wet and disturbed by construction
equipment traffic. Accordingly, efforts should be made to maintain the subgrades in
a dry and stable condition at all times, and not permit construction traffic directly
over these soils. In addition, procedures to improve site drainage should be
implemented prior to commencing the site stripping and subgrade preparation
work.
Measures necessary to control surface water and groundwater, in conjunction with
site preparation, may include installation of drainage swales and underdrains to
intercept and divert surface runoff and groundwater away from the construction
areas, sloping of the subgrade and sealing of the surface with a smooth drum
roller to promote runoff, and restricting construction equipment traffic from
traveling directly over the subgrade surfaces, especially when they are wet.
Additionally placement of a suitable base material and underlying stabilization
geotextile, in the building pad areas, beneath haul roads, and in construction staging
areas, will help to protect the subgrades and minimize problems associated with
subgrade degradation.
5.20 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPREAD FOUNDATIONS
Fill was encountered at all of the test boring locations and was generally found to
extend to depths of about 4 to 5 feet below existing site grades. However, at
15 of 29
several test boring locations, the fill soils were found to extend up to a depth of
about 8 feet. It is expected the fill soils will extend to the bottom of the previous
excavations for the existing building foundations and utility trenches. Settlement
beneath spread foundations constructed over the existing fill soils can be variable,
potentially excessive, and is difficult to predict.
Accordingly to use a spread foundation system, it will be necessary to remove the
existing fill soils from beneath the foundations in their entirety and install an
Engineered Fill (i.e. compacted Structural Fill or flowable backfill) which replaces
the existing fill or lower the foundations to bear on suitable indigenous soil
subgrades. Suitable indigenous soil bearing grades should consist of firm to very
compact, silt and sand soils or stiff to very stiff clayey silt and silty clay soil
deposits, which are free of organics, loose, wet or otherwise deleterious conditions.
In most cases, suitable indigenous soil bearing grades were encountered directly
beneath the fill and buried topsoil/organic soils.
The subsurface conditions between and away from the test boring locations, in
some cases, may vary and require adjustments in the suitable subgrade elevation
based on actual conditions encountered at the time of construction. In addition,
there are some zones of poorly graded silt and sand soils which are highly sensitive
to disturbance and strength degradation when groundwater is present, and as such,
excavations made in these soils could encounter sidewall and bearing grade
instability problems. These conditions could require that the bearing grades be
undercut in localized areas to establish a firm and stable subgrade for the
foundations. Accordingly, close inspection of the foundation bearing grades by
qualified geotechnical personnel should be required at the time of construction.
If Structural Fill is placed beneath spread foundations, it must be placed beyond the
foundation limits a horizontal distance equal to at least 0.5 times the thickness of
the Structural Fill layer beneath the foundation. Excavations, therefore, will need
to be planned and sized accordingly. Recommendations for Structural Fill material
along with its placement and compaction are presented in Appendix F.
Flowable backfill material, if used, should be a non-swelling type material and should
have a minimum 28-day compressive strength (fc) of 250 pounds per square inch
(psi). The flowable backfill should extend at least 12 inches horizontally beyond the
foundation limits for its entire depth.
Preliminarily, it is expected that spread foundations constructed on suitable
indigenous soil bearing grades or on properly constructed Engineered Fill materials
placed over the suitable bearing grades can be sized based on a maximum net
allowable bearing pressure in the range of about 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per square
16 of 29
foot (psf) . This will be contingent, however, on the actual structure loads, and
determining that the expected foundation settlement will be within tolerable limits.
It is recommended that continuous footings be at least 2.0 feet in width and
column/individual footings should be at least 3.0 feet in width. Interior foundations
should be embedded a minimum of 2.0 feet below the finished floor elevation in
order to develop adequate bearing capacity. Exterior foundations should be
embedded a minimum of 4.0 feet below finished exterior grades for frost
protection. All spread foundations, however, must bear on suitable bearing grades
in accordance with the recommendations above.
5.30 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATIONS
The Dolostone bedrock beneath the site will provide a suitable bearing stratum for
supporting the proposed heavier structures/buildings, using end bearing pipe piles
or H-piles driven to refusal on the bedrock. As mentioned above, it is expected the
bedrock elevation will vary across the site. Based on auger refusal the bedrock
bearing grades were encountered at depths varying from about 70.1 feet and 99.3
feet below the existing ground surface with corresponding elevations ranging
between about El. 474.4 feet and El. 487.4 feet.
A pipe pile, driven to refusal on the bedrock, may be designed for an allowable
axial capacity equal to 30% of the pile yield strength or 15 kips per square inch
(ksi), whichever is less, times the cross sectional area of the pipe pile. Based on this
criteria, a 10.75 O.D. Pipe Pile section (Grade 50 steel), with a wall thickness of
0.365-inches and a cross sectional area of 11.9 in2, would provide an allowable
axial compressive capacity of about 89 tons per pile. Pipe piles should have a wall
thickness of at least 0.313 inches and may be driven open ended or with a closed
end, as determined appropriate by the pile driving contractor. If a closed end pipe
pile is used, a flat steel plate, at least 0.50 inches thick, should be welded to the pile
tip to form the closed end.
An H-pile, driven to refusal on the bedrock, may also be designed for an allowable
axial capacity equal to 30% of the pile yield strength times the cross sectional area
of the pile. Accordingly, an HP12 x 53 section (Grade 50 steel), with a cross
sectional area of 15.5 in2, would provide an allowable axial capacity of about 116
tons per pile.
Lighter or heavier pile sections could also be used to obtain different allowable
axial capacities, using the same criteria outlined above. Pile sections, which are
embedded within the existing fill, should be coated with a suitable bitumastic
17 of 29
coating to help limit potential corrosion action from these surrounding

soils/materials.
An appropriate number of piles will need to be dynamically tested in accordance
with ASTM D 4945 Standard Test Method for High Strain Dynamic Testing of
Piles to confirm the driving criteria and to evaluate that the pile capacity has been
obtained with an adequate factor of safety (i.e. Factor of Safety of 2.0 or greater),
as required by the Building Code of New York State.
Driven pile foundations end bearing on the bedrock are expected to undergo
insignificant total settlement, when designed and constructed in accordance with
our recommendations. Driven piles should be spaced a minimum of 3 pile widths
apart, or three feet, whichever is greater. At this spacing, no group reduction factor
is considered necessary.
5.40 SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOOR DESIGN
As discussed in Section 5.10 above, if the floor system is constructed as slab-ongrade over the existing fill, we would suggest that a minimum of 15 inches of
Subbase Stone be placed beneath the slab-on-grade construction for lightly loaded
floors. The Subbase Stone layer should be increased to a minimum of 24-inches
where heavier loads are expected (i.e. slabs subject to vehicle, equipment or
material storage loads). A suitable stabilization/separation geotextile, such as
Mirafi 500X, should be placed over the existing fill soil subgrades following proper
subgrade preparation and prior to placement of the Subbase Stone layer.
Recommendations for Subbase Stone are provided in Appendix F.
Where the existing fill is removed in its entirety beneath the slab-on-grade
construction, we recommend minimum of 6 inches of Subbase Stone be placed
beneath the slab-on-grade construction for lightly loaded floors and a minimum of
12-inches where heavier loads are expected. Fill required to backfill excavations
and undercuts beneath the Subbase Stone course can be Suitable Granular Fill as
described in Appendix F.
The existing fill soil subgrades should be thoroughly compacted and properly
prepared and evaluated in accordance with our recommendations in Section 5.90.5
prior to placing the geotextile and controlled fill material(s). Indigenous soil
subgrades should also be proof-rolled, evaluated and approved by a representative
of Empire. Any organics or large debris/rubble present at the subgrade elevation,
should be removed and replaced with compacted Suitable Granular Fill or
Structural Fill, as described in Appendix F.
18 of 29
Floor slabs constructed as slab-on-grade can be designed using a modulus of

subgrade reaction of 175 pounds per cubic inch at the top of the Subbase Stone
layer. It is recommended that the slab-on-grade be constructed such that it floats on
the subbase and subgrades and is not structurally connected to, or resting directly
on, perimeter walls or column footings in order to limit differential settlement
effects.
Alternatively, the at-grade floor system could be constructed as a structural slab
supported by grade beams and the deep foundation system. If the floors are
structurally supported by the deep foundation system, it is recommended a
minimum of 4-inches Subbase Stone material be placed beneath the structural slab
to provide a suitable working surface to construct the slabs.
We note that the above subbase stone thicknesses are not designed for carrying
construction vehicle loads. Therefore, it may be desirable for the Contractor to
temporarily increase the Subbase thickness within building pad areas to provide a
suitable working surface to stage the construction, carry construction vehicle loads
and protect the underlying subgrades. This will be particularly important if
construction proceeds during seasonally wet periods. The additional subbase stone
material can then be removed in preparation for the actual floor construction and
re-used as foundation backfill.
Subgrade and subbase drainage (i.e. underdrains) should be provided to help
minimize the potential for frost action, beneath exterior slabs.
A moisture barrier does not appear to be necessary where the floor slabs are
constructed above the final site grades, unless otherwise recommended by the
finished flooring manufacturer. A suitable moisture barrier is recommended
beneath any below grade floor areas to reduce the potential for dampness. In
addition, it is recommended that any below grade walls be damp proofed.
5.50 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR SUBSURFACE WALL DESIGN
The design of basement walls, below grade parking and elevator pit structure walls
should be based on lateral earth pressures caused by the load of backfill against the
wall and the surcharge effects from any permanent or temporary loads. In addition
perimeter exterior foundation drains, as discussed below, should be incorporated in
the design where the walls are designed for relieved hydrostatic pressures (i.e.
drained conditions).
The design of earth retaining foundation walls or depressed pit structure walls
(restrained) walls, should be designed to resist at rest lateral earth pressures. The
19 of 29
lateral earth pressures can be computed using the following soil parameters where
the wall backfill is a Suitable Granular Fill or Structural Fill, as described in
Appendix F and contains a proper foundation drain(s) as discussed below.
Recommended Soil Parameters for Earth Retaining Wall Design
Coefficient of At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure 0.50
Coefficient of Passive Lateral Earth Pressure 3.00
Angle of Internal Friction 30 Degrees
Total Unit Weight of Soil 125 pcf
Submerged Unit Weight of Soil 65 pcf
Surcharge Load Lateral Coefficient 0.50
Water should not be allowed to collect against the backfilled wall section unless the
wall is designed for the additional hydrostatic pressure.
If the earth retaining structure is designed for full hydrostatic pressures, the walls
should be designed to resist the hydrostatic pressures as well as the lateral earth
pressures acting the walls. In this case, the lateral earth pressure should be
computed based on a submerged soil unit weight below the design groundwater
level. In addition, the floor or bottom slab must be designed to resist the hydrostatic
uplift pressure acting on floor or pit bottom slab. In this case, the pit structure
should also be fully water proofed. For design purposes, we recommend the
groundwater conditions be assumed to extend to within four feet or so of the
existing ground surface.
5.60 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFING / DAMPROOFING
Where the basement walls, below grade parking and elevator pit structure walls are
designed for relieved hydrostatic pressures (i.e. drained conditions), foundation
drains should be provided to intercept potential groundwater and relieve potential
hydrostatic pressures. The drainage system must be properly designed, installed
and maintained for long-term performance. The design should include such
features as clean-outs to properly maintain the system in the drained condition. The
foundation drainage system should drain to a sump(s) and pump system or a
suitable gravity drainage system. The foundation drain pipes along the foundation
walls should be set at a minimum depth of 1.0 foot below the floor or bottom slab
grade or the lowest adjacent grade.
The foundation drainage system should include a geotextile, selected considering
drainage and filtration, installed around drainage stone surrounding a slotted under20 of 29
drain pipe. The drainage stone should be sized in accordance with the pipe slotting
or perforations. A crushed aggregate conforming to NYSDOT Standard
Specifications Section 703-02, Size Designation No. 1 (-inch washed gravel or
stone) is generally acceptable for slotted under-drain pipe. The foundation drainage
stone and surrounding drainage geotextile (i.e. Mirafi 160N or suitable equivalent)
should extend above the drainpipe a minimum of 2 feet.
A pervious granular backfill or a suitable geosynthetic drainage composite (i.e.
Grace Hydroduct, Miradrain 5000, Delta MS or suitable equivalent) should be
placed against the foundation wall, above the drainage system, to allow infiltration
to the drainage system.
Concrete Sand, which meets the minimum requirements of NYSDOT Standard
Specifications Section 703-07 (100 percent passing 3/8 inch sieve to maximum of 3
percent passing a No. 200 sieve), is generally acceptable as pervious granular
backfill. Structural Fill, as described in Appendix F, is also acceptable provided the
Structural Fill is well graded to prevent infiltration of the adjacent soils and has a
permeability of 1 x 10-3 cm/sec or greater when placed and compacted.
If a pervious granular backfill drainage media is used against the wall, it should be
a nominal 2 feet in width and should extend up to the bottom of the Subbase Stone
layer beneath adjacent slabs and pavements, and should extend up to about 1 to 2
feet below the finished grade in landscape areas, where it may be capped off with
the foundation backfill material. The site grades surrounding the structure should
be graded as such to provide positive surface water drainage away from the
structure.
It is recommended the below grade walls and floors be damp proofed where
suitable foundation drainage is provided. If the depressed structures would be
designed to withstand full hydrostatic pressure, then the below grade walls and
floors must be properly water proofed.
5.70 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, the upper 100
feet of the proposed College Town Development site can be classified as Seismic
Site Class D in accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the Building Code of New
York State (December 2010). Therefore, seismic design may be based on this
seismic site classification.
The spectral response accelerations in the project area were obtained by Empire
using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web site application
21 of 29
(https://geohazards.usgs.gov/secure/designmaps/us/). The accelerations are based

on the 2009 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions, which makes use of the
2008 USGS seismic hazard data. The acceleration values obtained from this
application were then adjusted, as recommended by the USGS, to obtain the 2%
probability in 50 years mapping accelerations, as presented in the NYS Building
Code.
Using the Zip Code 14620 for the Rochester, New York area, the calculated
spectral response acceleration for Site Class B soils is 0.164g for the short period
(0.2 second) response (S S ) and 0.051g for the one second response (S 1 ). For design
purposes, these spectral response accelerations must be adjusted for the Seismic
Site Class D soil profile determined for the project site.
Accordingly, the adjusted spectral response accelerations for Site Class D are as
follows:
Short Period Response (S MS ) - 0.262g
1 Second Period Response (S M1 ) - 0.122g
The corresponding five percent damped design spectral response accelerations (S DS
and S D1 ) are as follows:
S DS - 0.174g
S D1 - 0.081g
5.80 PAVEMENT DESIGN
Pavement design recommendations are provided for construction of the new
pavement parking areas and access drives to accommodate the proposed College
Town Development. Pavement recommendations are provided for both a light duty
and a heavy duty asphalt concrete pavement structure, considering the fill subgrade
conditions encountered in the test borings. The light duty pavement section
recommended can be used for automobile parking only areas, while the heavy duty
pavement section recommended is for the entrances, access drives and parking
areas which will be subject to more frequent traffic and/or truck and bus traffic.
Both sections are based on the assumption that the subgrades will be prepared as
discussed in Section 5.90.5. A stabilization/separation geotextile is recommended
beneath the subbase course of the pavement sections.
22 of 29
Light Duty Asphalt Concrete Pavement (Automobile Only Parking Areas):
1.5 inches - Top Course

2.0 inches - Binder Course
12 inches - Subbase Course*
Geotextile
Heavy Duty Asphalt Concrete Pavement (Entrances, Access Roads and Areas Used
by Trucks, Buses, etc.):
1.5 inches - Top Course

3.5 inches - Binder Course
15 inches - Subbase Course*
Geotextile
*It may be necessary to increase the subbase thickness in some areas to improve
subgrade conditions and to promote drainage to underdrains, etc, as discussed below.
Materials for the above pavement structure components should consist of the
following:
A. Asphalt Concrete Top Course - NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Item No.
403.198902 - Hot Mix Asphalt, Type 7 Top Course.
B. Asphalt Concrete Binder Course - NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Item
No. 403.138902 - Hot Mix Asphalt, Type 3 Binder Course.
C. Subbase Course Should comply with NYSDOT Standard Specifications,
Item No. 304.12 - Type 2 Subbase.
D. Geotextile - Woven polypropylene stabilization/separation geotextile (i.e.,
Mirafi 500X or approved suitable equivalent).
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) obtained from milling of the existing pavement
structure or Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) obtained from suitable off-site
sources will also be acceptable for subbase material provided the material complies
with NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 304-2.02.
If existing subbase, RAP or RCA materials are used for the subbase layer, they should
generally be placed in the lower 2/3 of the design subbase course. We would
23 of 29
recommend the remaining portion of the subbase course be new subbase material as
described above.
Proper grading and drainage of the pavement structure is recommended to help
limit potential frost action and improve pavement structure life and performance.
Under-drains, connected to the site storm water drainage system, are recommended to
drain the pavement subgrades and the subbase layer and limit the potential for frost
action. Accumulation of water on pavement subgrades can be avoided by grading the
subgrade to a slope of at least 2 percent to drain to the underdrain system.
5.90 SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION
5.90.1 Construction Dewatering
Construction dewatering will be required for surface water control and for
excavations, which encounter groundwater conditions. Surface water should be
diverted away from and prevented from accumulating on exposed soil subgrades. The
exposed soil subgrades will be susceptible to strength degradation in the presence of
excess moisture. Surface water should be controlled with diversion berms, swales, and
proper site grading.
The silty clay and clayey silt soils are not expected to yield vast quantities of water,
however, more substantial seepage can be expected from more pervious fill soils
and materials, as well as from indigenous, non-plastic, sand and silt soils. The more
granular and non-plastic soils will also be more susceptible to subgrade and
excavation side wall instability, if not properly dewatered. We note that more
substantial amounts of groundwater could be encountered where existing fill
extends below the groundwater surface. The amount of groundwater, which will be
encountered in the excavations will vary with location on the site and will be
dependent on the size and depth of the excavation, the actual soil and groundwater
conditions present along with the time period the excavation must remain open.
Generally it is expected that excavations which do not extend more than a couple of
feet below the groundwater can be dewatered with the use of sump and pump
methods of dewatering. Placement of a working mat/drainage stone layer, installed
in the bottom of basement, below grade parking and pit structure excavations, in
conjunction with sump and pump methods of dewatering, can be used to help
control groundwater conditions where the excavations do not extend more than a
few feet below the groundwater level. The working mat/drainage layer could also
be incorporated to provide permanent under-slab drainage.
24 of 29
More substantial methods of dewatering, such as deep sumps, deep wells and/or
vacuum well points, could be necessary at locations where excavations must extend
further below the groundwater and/or where more free draining or pervious soils
are present.
In all cases, it is recommended that dewatering be implemented prior to excavation
below the groundwater. Groundwater conditions should be maintained at least 1 to
2 feet below the excavation bottom until construction is complete and the
excavation is backfilled.
The construction dewatering should be planned and implemented only by
Contractors experienced in these conditions. It is also recommended that
dewatering plans and procedures be reviewed with the Engineer prior to
implementation. Dewatering plans should include implementation of measures to
control erosion, sedimentation and the migration of soil fines along with a monitoring
and maintenance plan.
5.90.2 Excavation and Spread Foundation Construction
Excavation to the proposed bearing grades for spread foundation construction should
be performed using a method which reduces disturbance to the bearing grade soils.
Any existing foundations, structures, along with all fill, organics, or otherwise
deleterious soil material beneath the proposed foundation bearing grades should be
removed. The indigenous soil bearing grades should be observed and evaluated by a
representative of Empire, prior to placement of the foundation and/or any engineered
fill materials. Placement and compaction of Structural Fill beneath foundations
should also be observed and tested by a representative of Empire.
The indigenous soils will be sensitive to disturbance and strength degradation when
in the presence of excess moisture. All soil bearing grades for foundation
construction should be protected from precipitation and surface water. In addition,
groundwater should not be allowed to accumulate on and potentially soften and
degrade the bearing subgrades. The bearing grades should not be allowed to freeze,
either prior to or after construction of foundations. If bearing grades are not protected
and degrade, they must be undercut/removed accordingly.
Where foundations are constructed directly on the indigenous soil bearing grades,
and where construction of the foundations proceeds during seasonal wet periods
and/or the foundations will not be constructed on the same day of the excavation, it
may be desirable to place a 2 to 3-inch thick lean concrete mud-mat in the
excavation bottom, to help protect the exposed subgrades and provide a suitable
working surface for the foundation construction.
25 of 29
Foundation excavations should be backfilled as soon as possible and prior to

construction of the superstructure. It is recommended that foundation excavations,
within slab on grade areas and adjacent pavement and sidewalk areas be backfilled
with a Structural Fill or Suitable Granular Fill, as recommended in Appendix F. Onsite soils may be used for backfill and site grading in non loaded landscape areas.
5.90.3 Driven Pile Installation
Driven H-piles should be equipped with a driving shoe to limit potential damage
when driving through any obstructions in the fill soils and into the Dolostone
bedrock. Driven pipe piles and/or H-piles should be driven to practical refusal
using a suitable pile hammer producing the energy necessary to drive and test the
piles, yet not overstress the piles. Practical refusal can generally be assumed to
have been obtained when about 5 blows have been recorded for less than inch of
pile penetration, when the pile reaches the predetermined bedrock elevation. The
pile contractor should confirm the final pile driving criteria, through the use of an
appropriate wave equation analysis using the actual pile, hammer and cushions that
will be used for the project.
As mentioned above, an appropriate number of piles will need to be dynamically
tested in accordance with ASTM D 4945 Standard Test Method for High Strain
Dynamic Testing of Piles to confirm the driving criteria and to evaluate that the
pile capacity has been obtained with an adequate factor of safety (i.e. Factor of
Safety of 2.0 or greater), as required by the Building Code of New York State.
Pile stresses should not exceed 85% of the pile yield stress. Plumbness of the piles
should be maintained within 1% of the total length. Any misaligned or damaged piles
should be replaced.
A qualified individual should observe all pile driving and should prepare an
individual pile driving report for each pile installed. The report should include, pile
number and location, hammer and cushion types, pile size and material, installed
length, blows per foot, unusual conditions encountered during driving, top of pile
elevation following driving and notes on any necessary re-striking. Installed piles
should be monitored for potential heaving during installation of adjacent piles. Any
piles which heave should be re-driven and reseated as appropriate. Following
driving the inside of the pipe pile should be inspected, before concreting, to assure
that no damage occurred during driving. Any damaged piles should be removed
and replaced.
26 of 29
5.90.4 Pile Supported Foundation Construction

Excavations to prepare the proposed subgrades for driven pile supported foundation
construction (i.e. pile caps / grade beams) should be performed using a method, which
reduces disturbance to the subgrade soils. All exterior grade beams should be
embedded a minimum of 4 feet for frost protection.
Foundation excavations should be backfilled as soon as possible and prior to
construction of the superstructure. It is recommended that foundation excavations,
within slab on grade and pavement areas be backfilled with a Structural Fill or
Suitable Granular Fill, as recommended in Appendix F of the geotechnical report.
5.90.5 Subgrade Preparation for Slab-On-Grade and Pavement Construction
The general site preparation work should be performed during seasonal dry periods
to minimize potential degradation of the subgrade soils and undercuts which may
be required to establish a stable base for construction. It should be understood that
both the fill and indigenous subgrade soils that will be exposed are sensitive and
may degrade and lose strength when they are wet and disturbed by construction
equipment traffic.
Accordingly, efforts should be made to maintain the subgrades in a dry and stable
condition at all times, and not permit construction traffic directly over these soils.
These efforts should include installation of temporary drainage swales or berms to
divert surface runoff away from the construction areas, sloping of the subgrade and
sealing of the surface, at the end of each day or when rain is anticipated, with a
smooth drum roller to promote runoff, and restricting construction equipment
traffic from traveling directly over the subgrade surfaces, especially when they are
wet.
Existing vegetation, topsoil, structures, asphalt pavement, concrete slabs, etc., and any
other deleterious materials within the proposed slab on grade and pavement areas
should be removed. Any deleterious materials, such as organics, soft soils, highly
voided debris, etc., which are present at the bottom of the subgrade excavation,
should be further undercut and removed Existing foundations should be removed to
a depth of at least 1.5 feet below the Subbase Stone course for slab-on-grade and
pavement construction. Resulting excavations should be backfilled with Structural Fill
or Suitable Granular Fill as described in Appendix F.
Following removal of the surface materials and excavation to the proposed subgrades,
the exposed existing fill soil subgrades should be thoroughly compacted/densified and
then proof-rolled. The subgrade compaction and proof-rolling should be performed,
27 of 29
prior to any required fill placement and ground improvement, using a vibratory
smooth drum roller weighing at least 10 tons. The roller should be operated in the
vibratory mode for compacting the subgrades and in the static mode for proof rolling.
The roller should complete at least four (4) passes over the exposed subgrades for the
compaction/densification operation and at least two (2) passes for the proof rolling
evaluation.
The subgrade proof-rolling and compaction should be done under the guidance of, and
observed by, a representative of Empire. Accordingly, it may be necessary to waive
the compaction and/or proof-rolling requirement which will be dependent on the type
of subgrade conditions exposed (i.e. native versus fill) and/or if wet subgrades are
present. This should be determined by Empire. Any undercuts, which may be required
as the result of the compaction and/or proof-rolling, should be performed based on
guidance and evaluation of the conditions by Empire. Resulting over-excavations
should be backfilled with a suitable fill material as determined by Empire.
Suitable Granular Fill, as described in Appendix F, can be used as subgrade fill to
raise the site grades, beneath the Subbase Stone course for slab-on-grade and
pavement construction. It is recommended that utility trenches located within slab on
grade and pavement areas be backfilled with controlled Structural Fill.
During construction the contractor should take precautions to limit construction traffic
over the subgrades for floor slab and pavement construction. Any subgrades, which
become damaged, rutted or unstable should be undercut and repaired as necessary
prior to placement of the overlying fill courses.
5.90.6 Pavement Construction
Placement of the pavement subbase stone can proceed, following proper subgrade
preparation, proof-rolling, compaction and subgrade filling as described in Section
5.90.5. Installation of adjacent geotextile panels should have minimum overlap of 18
inches. The subbase stone should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
recommendations presented in Appendix F for Structural Fill. Construction of the
asphalt concrete courses (i.e., binder and top) should be performed in accordance with
NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 400. In addition, placement of asphalt
concrete courses should not be permitted on wet or snow covered surfaces or when
the subgrade surface is less than 40 F.
6.00 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This report was prepared to assist in planning the design and construction of the
proposed College Town Development project planned at the University of
28 of 29
FIGURES
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS
AND
MONITORING WELL DETAILS
DATE:
START
12/5/2011
FINISH
12/5/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
2
College Town Development
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
LOCATION:
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
TOPSOIL
topsoil encountered
Augered to 5'
at ground surface.
Driller notes fill soils
beneath topsoil.
12 10 11 15 21
Grades to trace gravel
Grades to Some Gravel (Moist-Wet)
10 10 14 15 24
11 13 11 10 24
20 18 28
Driller notes 4" of
FILL
555.77'
G.W. DEPTH See Notes
U of R Medical Campus
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-1
Brown Clayey SILT, Some Gravel, trace sand

(Moist, Very Stiff, ML)
10
15
19 18 28
20
Brown SILT, little fine sand (Wet, Firm, ML)
25
30
6 WH
WH - Weight of hammer
and rods.
(Very Loose)
35
3 WH
WH/18
40
N = NO. BLOWS TO DRIVE 2-INCH SPOON 12-INCHES WITH A 140 LB. PIN WT. FALLING 30-INCHES PER BLOW
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
DRILL RIG TYPE :
ASTM D-1585 Using Hollow Stem Augers
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/5/2011
FINISH
12/5/2011
SHEET 2 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
2
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
555.77'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-1
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
Brown fine SAND and SILT (Wet, Loose)
45
50
10 WH/18
1 WH
Gray SILT, little fine sand (Wet, Very Loose, ML)
Gray Clayey SILT, trace sand (Moist-Wet, Very Soft, ML)
55
11 WH WH
60
12
50/.1
REF
Brown fine SAND, Some Silt, Some Gravel

(Wet, Very Compact, SM)
50/.1
REF
Color changes to Gray
Ref. - Sample Refusal
65
13 27
70
Medium Gray DOLOMITE, medium hard to hard, sound,

thin bedded to bedded, occasionally argillaceous, slightly
stylolitic and vuggy
75
Boring complete at 75.1 feet
Run #1
70.1' to 75.1'
REC 76%
RQD 42%
No freestanding water
was encountered at
boring completion.
80
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/14/2011
FINISH
11/15/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
576.04'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-2
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
17 18 12
10 21 14 31
13 10 11 23
ASPHALT
30
Gray Crushed STONE (Moist) FILL
Brown fine SAND, Some Silt, little gravel (Moist) FILL

Brown fine SAND and SILT, Some Gravel (Moist, SM)
Brown Silty CLAY, little sand, trace gravel
(Moist, Medium, CL)
Brown fine SAND and SILT, Some Gravel, trace clay
(Moist-Wet, Compact, SM)
(Firm)
10
13 16 19 18 35
Brown SILT, Some fine-coarse Sand, little gravel, trace clay

(Moist, Compact, ML)
10 12 15 24 27
Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, Some Gravel, trace clay

(Moist-Wet,Firm, ML)
Gray Silty CLAY, Some Sand, trace gravel

(Moist-Wet, Stiff, CL)
13 19 23 26 42
Gray SILT, little fine sand

(Wet, Compact, ML)
10
Gray Clayey SILT, little fine sand, little gravel

(Moist-Wet, Medium, ML)
11
12 12 19
15
20
16
25
30
12
35
Grayish Brown fine SAND and SILT

(Wet, Firm, SM)
40
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/14/2011
FINISH
11/15/2011
SHEET 2 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
12
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
576.04'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-2
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
10
(Loose)
Driller notes "running

sands" at +/- 40'.
45
13
Gray SILT, Some fine Sand

(Wet, Loose, ML)
Gray fine-coarse SAND and SILT, trace clay
50
14 10 13 17 18 30
(Wet, Compact, SM)
55
15 10 20 29 30 49
60
16 18 15 21 19 36
(Very Moist)
65
17
15 23 17 38
Gray SAND and GRAVEL, little silt, occasional cobbles

(Moist-Wet, Compact, SM-GM)
70
18 15 20 22 23 42
75
19 17 21 22 27 43

(Wet, Compact, SM)
80
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/14/2011
FINISH
11/15/2011
SHEET 3 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
20 29 41
576.04'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-2
50/.2
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
REF
Gray SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt, occasional cobbles
Ref. - Sample Refusal.
(Moist-Wet, Very Compact, SP-GP)
85
21 38
22
50/.2
REF
50/.1
(Moist)
REF
Boring Complete with Sample and Auger
90
Refusal at 88.6 feet
Freestanding water was

encountered at 27.5
feet at boring completion.
95
100
105
110
115
120
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/16/2011
FINISH
11/16/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
1
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
576.04'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-3
Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
6/12 12/18 18/24
12
15 16
12 13 20
15 16 19 24 35
13
Mount Hope Ave
NOTES
ASPHALT
Grayish Brown SAND and GRAVEL (Moist) FILL
Driller notes
Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, little gravel, trace clay

(Moist-Wet, Loose, ML)
Grades to Some Gravel (Firm)
approximately 4" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
Grades to little gravel
10
15
Grades to Some Gravel (Compact)

Boring Complete at 17.0 feet
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/5/2011
FINISH
12/5/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-4
577.78'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
22 11
18
10
TOPSOIL
Brown SAND and GRAVEL (Moist) FILL
12 10 16
Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, little gravel (Moist, ML)

Brown Clayey SILT, trace sand
(Moist-Wet, Stiff, ML)
Grades to Some Gravel
(Very Stiff)
for Sample No. 3.
12
Brown SILT and CLAY, trace sand

(Moist, Stiff, ML/CL)
20 35 38
50/.4
73
Brown fine SAND, Some Silt, Some Gravel, occasional

cobbles (Moist, Very Compact, SM)
43 34 47
50/.4
71
Grades to "and" SILT (SM-ML)
25 26 24 25 50
Brown SILT, little fine sand, little gravel

(Moist-Wet, Very Compact, ML)
(Firm)
10
No split spoon recovery
15
20
25
11 12 15 23
30
10 15 16 15 18 31

(Moist, Compact)
11 17 18 18 20 36
35
40
DRILLER:
B. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/2/2011
FINISH
12/2/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
6/12 12/18 18/24
RE-11-038
B-5
574.69
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
TOPSOIL
Brown Silty SAND, little gravel, little brick fragments

2
10
10
19
10 12 13 14 25
16
Grades to "and" SILT, color changes to Brown (SM-ML)
10 10
20
12 13 16 30 29
20 31 41 50 72
Brown SILT, little fine sand

(Moist, Very Compact, ML)
16 15 25 25 40
(Moist-Wet, Compact)
10
(Wet, Firm)
(Moist) FILL
Grades to trace brick fragments, trace roots
Light Brown fine SAND, Some Silt, trace gravel
(Moist, Firm, SM)
10
15
20
25
30
11 10 15 21
35
11 16 25 38 47 63

(Moist, Very Compact)
40
DRILLER:
B. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/30/2011
FINISH
11/30/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
1
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
LOCATION:
6/12 12/18 18/24
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
ASPHALT
approximately 3" of
Grayish Brown SILT and CLAY, Some Gravel, trace

sand (Moist) FILL
Brown Clayey SILT, little fine sand, trace roots
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
11 12 14 13 26
12 11 11 13 22
Grades to Some Gravel (Very Stiff)
13 24 24 13 48
(Moist, Hard)
12 18 23 12 41

(Moist-Wet)
(Stiff)
10
15 18 24
23
10 10 16
10
10
Driller notes

15 12 11
6
NOTES
40 35 30 18 65
9
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
570.18'
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-6

Grades to trace gravel, color changes to Grayish Brown
(Moist-Wet, Stiff)
15
20
25
16 13
30
(Moist, Very Stiff)
35
11 30 35
50/.4
REF
Grades to Some Gravel, occasional cobbles (Hard)

Boring Complete with Sample Refusal at 36.4 feet
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
was encountered at
boring completion.
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/16/2011
FINISH
11/16/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
1
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
LOCATION:
12
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
6/12 12/18 18/24
578.43'
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-7
NOTES
TOPSOIL
13 15 15 24 30
11
13
10 16
10 13 17
Grades to little gravel (Moist-Wet)
11 13 20
Brown fine SAND and SILT, Some Gravel, trace clay
Driller notes
(Moist) FILL
Grayish Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, trace organics
(Moist) FILL
approximately 3" of
topsoil encountered
at ground surface.
Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, trace fine gravel

(Moist, Firm, ML)
Grades to trace clay
10
Possible buried native

topsoil horizon
encountered in
Sample #2.
15
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/16/2011
FINISH
11/16/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
1
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
576.56'

LOCATION:
U of R Meidcal Campus
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-8
Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave
NOTES
ASPHALT
Driller notes
approximately 3" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
Dark Brown Sandy SILT, Some Gravel, trace clay

(Moist) FILL
11
Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, trace fine gravel, trace clay
(Moist-Wet, Firm, ML)
12
12 13 15 25
10 11 15 19 26
10
15
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/2/2011
FINISH
12/2/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
2
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
29 22
577.51'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-9
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
10 31
10 17
10 11 15
10 14 21 24
42 48 34 49 82
50/.3
12
Dark Brown to Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, little gravel
Driller notes
(Moist) FILL
Grades to little fine sand, trace gravel
Brown SILT, little fine sand, trace gravel (Moist, Firm, ML)
approximately 6" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
Grades to Some fine-coarse Sand, little gravel

10
(Very Compact)
Brown Clayey SILT, Some fine-cooarse Sand, Some
15
10 12 13 22
fine Gravel (Moist-Wet, Very Stiff, ML-CL)
20
REF
Contains occasional cobbles (Hard)
25
10 14 17
Brown Silty CLAY, little to Some fine-coarse sand,

trace gravel (Moist, Very Stiff, CL)
30
10 12 14 17 15 31

(Mosit-Wet, Compact, SM)
11
35
27 15 18 42
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/2/2011
FINISH
12/2/2011
SHEET 2 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
2
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
577.51'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-9
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
12 11 12 15 17 27
Grades to little gravel (Moist-Wet, Firm)
45
13
17 16
14
12 15 17
15
10 11 12 21
Brown fine SAND, Some Silt (Wet, Firm, SM)
50
55
60
16 15 17 24 31 41
(Compact)
17 14 18 20 26 38
Brown Clayey SILT, little fine sand (Moist-Wet, Hard, ML)
65
70
75
80
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/25/2011
FINISH
11/25/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-10
575.64'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
50 17 13 15 30
18 12
18
50/.2
12
50/.3
24 32 46
ASPHALT
Gray Crushed Stone (Moist) FILL
Driller notes
13
Brown Sandy SILT, little gravel, trace clay (Moist) FILL

Brown SILT, Some Gravel, little fine sand (Moist, Firm, ML)
approximately 12" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
REF
Contains occasional cobbles (Very Compact)

possible Cobble
13 14
10
Brown Clayey SILT, Some Gravel, little fine sand

REF
Contains occasional cobbles (Moist, Hard)
78
Brown SILT, Some Gravel, little fine sand

(Moist, Very Compact, ML)
15
50/.4
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/25/2011
FINISH
11/25/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-11
578.74'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
23 12
17
10 16 16
(Moist-Wet, Firm)
10 15
Grades to trace sand (Moist)
20 19 21 18 40
Grades to Some Gravel (Compact)
11 14 23 25 37
Grades to little fine sand
12 23
Driller notes
Brown Sandy SILT, Some Gravel (Moist) FILL

Grades to little gravel, trace clay
Brown SILT, little gravel, little fine sand (Moist, Loose, ML)
approximately 6" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
10
15
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/25/2011
FINISH
11/25/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
LOCATION:
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
6/12 12/18 18/24
576.6'
0/6
RE-11-038
B-12
SURF. ELEV.
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
ASPHALT
approximately 6" of
Brown Silty SAND, Some Gravel (Moist) FILL

Brown Clayey SILT, little gravel, trace sand
asphalt.
10 12
11 11
13 19 16 17 35
Grades to Some Gravel (Moist, Hard)
Grades to little gravel (Moist-Wet, Stiff)
10 11 15 21
Contains a Seam of fine Sand

(Moist, Very Stiff)
15 18 19 33
(Hard)
11
Driller notes

2
NOTES
10
15
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/1/2011
FINISH
12/1/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
42 11
LOCATION:
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
15
Driller notes
Brown Clayey SILT, trace sand (Moist) FILL

Grades to Some Gravel, little silt (Moist-Wet)
Brown Clayey SILT, trace sand, trace gravel
approximately 6" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
10 15
10
11 11 20
(Moist-Wet, Very Stiff, ML)

10 15 16
Grades to trace gravel (Moist)
16 15 16 16 31
(Moist-Wet, Hard)
15 17 16 19 33
11 11 20
Brown SILT, little fine sand (Wet, Firm, ML)
Gray Clayey SILT, trace sand (Moist-Wet, Stiff, ML)
10
Brown SILT, trace sand (Wet, Loose, ML)
554.63'
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-13
10
10
15
20
25
30
Driller notes "running

sand" conditions at
approximately 30'.
35
11
Color changes to Grayish Brown
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/1/2011
FINISH
12/1/2011
SHEET 2 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
554.63'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-13
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
Grades to little fine sand
12
13
10 13 16 23
Color changes to Gray (Moist-Wet, Firm)
14
12 16 21
Color Changes to Grayish Brown (Wet)
15
13
Grades to trace sand, contains partings of clay,

color changes to Gray
16
Gray Clayey SILT, trace sand (Wet, Stiff, ML)
17
Gray SILT and CLAY, trace sand (Moist-Wet, Soft, ML/CL)
18
(Medium)
19
Gray SILT, trace sand (Wet, Very Loose, ML)
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/1/2011
FINISH
12/1/2011
SHEET 3 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
20
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
554.63'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-13
6/12 12/18 18/24
85
Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
REF
50/.2
Mount Hope Ave
Gray ROCK Fragments
Light to medium Gray DOLOMITE, medium hard to hard,
Run #1
sound, thin bedded to thick bedded, occasionally

argillaceous, slightly styolitic and vuggy
Fractured from 80.2' to 80.7'
80.2' to 82.7'
REC 92%
RQD 64%
Run #2
82.7' to 85.7'
REC 97%
RQD 77%
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/23/2011
FINISH
11/23/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
LOCATION:
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
11
Gray Clayey SILT, little gravel, little asphalt fragments,

trace sand (Moist-Wet)
Grades to trace gravel, trace organics (Moist)
13
Brown Clayey SILT, Some fine-coarse Sand, trace gravel

Grades to trace sand
15 20 24
Grades to little gravel (Very Stiff)
14
Grades to Some Gravel (Stiff)
15
Gray Clayey SILT, trace sand, trace gravel

10
12
11
11
567.10'
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-14
Possible buried native

topsoil horizon in
Sample #4.
FILL
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/23/2011
FINISH
11/23/2011
SHEET 2 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
567.10'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-14
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
12
11
13
Gray SILT, little fine sand (Wet, Loose, ML)
14
Color Changes to Brown
15
13
Color changes to Grayish Brown (Firm)
16
14
17
12
18
12
19
45
50
55
60
65
70
Gray SILT and CLAY, contains Seam of fine Sand

(Moist-Wet, Stiff, ML/CL)
75
80
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/23/2011
FINISH
11/23/2011
SHEET 3 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
20
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
567.10'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-14
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
17 13
Gray Clayey SILT, trace gravel, trace sand

(Wet,Medium, ML-CL)
85
21 10 12
15 21
Gray fine SAND and SILT (Wet, Firm, SM)

(Wet, Medium, ML)
90
Light to medium Gray DOLOMITE, medium hard to hard,

sound, thin bedded to thick bedded, occasionally
argillaceous, slightly styloitic
Fractured from 90.1' to 92.0', 92.5' to 93.0' and 93.3' to 94.1'
95
Boring complete at 94.1 feet
100
Run #1
89.1' to 94.1'
REC 100%
RQD 20%
encountered at 39.2 feet
before rock core was
obtained.
After rock core was taken,
freestanding water was
encountered at 85.9 feet.
105
110
115
120
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/25/2011
FINISH
11/25/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-15
569.70'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
45 39 27 22 66
15
17
12
17
10 11 11 21
16 17 17 15 34
ASPHALT
Dark Brown Clayey SILT, trace sand, trace gravel

(Moist) FILL
Grades to little gravel (Moist-Wet)
(Very Stiff)
10
15
(Hard)
20
encountered at boring
completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/25/2011
FINISH
11/25/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-16
579.41'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
14
10 10 12 20
19 14 14 14 28
20 12
Brown Clayey SILT, little fine sand (Moist, Very Stiff, ML)
15 19 27 16 46
Grades to Some Gravel (Hard)
23
Grades to little gravel, trace sand (Very Stiff)
10
10 19
Driller notes
Brown Sandy SILT, little gravel (Moist) FILL

Grades to Some Crushed Stone
Brown SILT, Some Gravel, little fine sand (Moist, Firm, ML)
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
10
15
13 18
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/5/2011
FINISH
12/5/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-17
580.27'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
30 17 17 23 34
17 15
23
Brown SILT, trace sand, trace roots (Moist-Wet, Loose, ML)

Brown Clayey SILT, trace fine sand, trace roots
Grades to little fine sand, trace fine gravel
11 16
Driller notes
Brown Silty SAND, Some Gravel (Moist) FILL

Dark Brown Sandy SILT, little gravel, trace clay, trace roots
(Moist) FILL
approximately 4" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
10
15
Grades to trace fine sand (Very Stiff)

20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
B. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/29/2011
FINISH
11/29/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
1
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
LOCATION:
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
13
Gray Crushed SONE (Moist) FILL
Driller notes
Brown Clayey SILT, little gravel, trace sand (Moist) FILL

Brown Clayey SILT, little fine sand
(Moist, Stiff, ML)
approximately 6.5" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
11
14
10
10 11 19
14 16 23
16 12 25
10
Gray SILT and CLAY, trace sand

(Moist-Wet, Stiff, ML/CL)
10
14
Gray Clayey SILT, trace sand

10
Grades to trace fine gravel (Medium)
11
10 17
566.31'
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-18
17 16
10

(Moist-Wet, Very Stiff)
Brown SILT, little fine sand
15

for Sample No. 7.
20
25
30
35
Gray SILT, little fine sand, trace gravel

40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
was encountered at
boring completion.
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/23/2011
FINISH
11/23/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-19
574.39'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
26 10
19
12
10 10
10
12 11 19
(Moist, Very Stiff)
11
10
10 11 18
10 13 12 16 25
11 20
Driller notes
Brown SILT, little fine sand (Moist, Firm, ML)
approximately 6" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
Brown Clayey SILT, little fine sand (Moist-Wet, Stiff, ML)
10
15
Grades to trace gravel (Moist)

20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/23/2011
FINISH
11/23/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
6/12 12/18 18/24
LOCATION:
574.13'
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
19
34 14
12 14
10 14 17
19 14 16 24 30
RE-11-038
B-20
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
11 19 19
Driller notes
Brown SILT and CLAY, little gravel, trace sand

(Moist) FILL
Brown SILT, trace sand, trace gravel (Moist, Firm, ML)
approximately 6" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.

10
50/.4
REF
Grades to Some Gravel, trace clay, occasional cobbles

(Very Compact)
15
16 25 24 41
(Compact)
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/23/2011
FINISH
11/23/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-21
574.78'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
ASPHALT
48 20 11 12 31
11
11 15 14 26
12 11 11 12 22
Grades to trace gravel (Moist-Wet)
Grades to Some Gravel (Moist, Compact)
10 10 13 15 23
(Firm)
(Moist-Wet)
14 14 13 15 27
NOTES
11 15
12 33 12 45
Driller notes
Brown Silty SAND, Some Gravel (Moist FILL)

(Moist, Firm, ML)
approximately 6" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
10
15
12 15
(Moist)
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/28/2011
FINISH
11/29/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
574.94'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-22
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
43 27 18 15 45
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, little silt

(Moist) FILL
10 14 18
Brown Clayey SILT, little gravel, little fine sand

(Moist-Wet) FILL
16 22 19 19 31
18 20 18 20 38
Grades to Some Gravel, trace aluminum can fragments
Brown Clayey SILT, trace sand

10 12 15 14 27
10 15 16 25
12 13 19 25

for Sample No. 3.
14
10
Grades to little fine sand, trace gravel

(Very Stiff)
15
15 15
20
25
30
10 14 20 20 24 40

(Moist, Hard)
11
Grades to "and" SAND

35
10 18 14 28
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/28/2011
FINISH
11/29/2011
SHEET 2 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
12
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
574.94'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-22
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
11 13 16
Brown SILT, little fine sand, trace gravel

(Wet, Firm, ML)
45
13
12 14 17
14
11 12
15
16
13 20 31 33
(Compact)
17
(Firm)
18
16 23 25 39
Gray SILT, trace sand

(Moist-Wet, Compact, ML)
19
11 15 12 26
Gray SILT and CLAY

(Moist-Wet, Very Stiff, ML-CL)
Contains a Seam of Clay
50
55
(Loose)
60
65
17 24 26
70
75
80
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/28/2011
FINISH
11/29/2011
SHEET 3 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
3
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
20 WH
6/12 12/18 18/24
574.94'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-22
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
Gray Silty CLAY, trace sand
WH - Weight of 140 lb.
(Moist-Wet, Medium, CL)
hammer.
85
21 WH
Gray Clayey SILT, trace sand

(Wet, Stiff, ML)
90
22
10 13 15 23
Gray fine-coarse SAND, Some Silt, little gravel

(Moist-Wet, Firm, SM)
23
18 23 25 41
Gray fine-coarse GRAVEL, Some fine-coarse Sand,

Some Silt, trace clay (Moist-Wet, Compact, GP)
95
100
Boring Complete with Auger Refusal at 99.3 feet

encountered at 29.1
feet after borehole was
left open overnight.
105
110
115
120
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/22/2011
FINISH
11/22/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
6/12 12/18 18/24
50 23
RE-11-038
B-23
574.77'
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
32
14 14
11 10
14 11 14 14 25
10
Driller notes

Brown SILT, little fine sand (Moist) FILL
approximately 9.5" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
Grades to little gravel, trace asphalt fragments

(Moist-Wet)
Brown SILT, little gravel, little fine sand, trace clay
(Moist-Wet, Loose, ML)
(Moist, Firm)
15
11 12 12 17 24

20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/22/2011
FINISH
11/22/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
SAMPLE
NO.
573.44'
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-24
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
6/12 12/18 18/24
13
20
Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
0/6
Mount Hope Ave
NOTES
ASPHALT
Driller notes
Brown Clayey SILT, trace sand (Moist, Very Stiff, ML)
approximately 6" of
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
11
12 11 12 13 23
12 10
11 10 12 16 22
Grades to Some Gravel (Moist)
11 11 12 22
10 19
Grades to little fine and (Moist-Wet)
10
15
10 19 19
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
S. Gorski
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/22/2011
FINISH
11/22/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
32
6/12 12/18 18/24
RE-11-038
B-25
574.04'
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
12 15
17 20 19 40 39
19
15
Dark Brown to Brown fine SAND, Some Silt, little gravel
Driller notes
(Moist) FILL
Black-Gray Silty SAND, Some Crushed Stone, little
gravel (Moist) FILL
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
Grades to trace cinders

Brown SILT, Some fine Sand (Moist-Wet, Firm, ML)
(Loose)
10
was encountered at
boring completion.
15
20
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/22/2011
FINISH
11/22/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
LOCATION:
568.77'
18
12
12
13
12 16 20
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
6/12 12/18 18/24
50 11
RE-11-038
B-26
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
NOTES
ASPHALT
Brown SAND and GRAVEL, Some Clayey Silt
Driller notes
(Moist) FILL
Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, little gravel, trace clay
(Moist-Wet) FILL
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.

Grades to "and" ASPHALT fragments
10
was encountered at
boring completion.
15
20
25
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/30/2011
FINISH
11/30/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
1
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
6/12 12/18 18/24
10 10
559.75'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-27
Mount Hope Ave.

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
16
Driller notes 4" of
Brown SILT, little fine sand, little gravel (Moist) FILL
asphalt encountered

(Moist-Wet, Loose, SM)
Gray Clayey SILT, little gravel, trace sand
at ground surface.
11 18
16 18 17 18 35
(Hard)
19 27 24 26 51
11 13 16 24
Grades to Some Gravel, color changes to Brown

(Moist,Very Stiff)
10
Gray Clayey SILT, containes a Seam of wet fine Sand


(Moist, Very Stiff)
10
15
20
17
A 2" PVC groundwater

monitoring well was
25
installed in completed
borehole.
Refer to groundwater
observation well
detail.
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
12/2/2011
FINISH
12/2/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
6/12 12/18 18/24
575.85'
0/6
RE-11-038
B-28
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
Mount Hope Ave

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT
asphalt encountered
at ground surface.
10 12
Grades to Some Gravel (Firm)
Brown Clayey SILT, little fine sand, little gravel
10 13 17

Brown SILT, little fine sand, littlle gravel (Moist, Firm, ML)
10 14 17
Grades to Some Gravel (Moist-Wet)
12 17 21
21 27 38 50 65
Brown SILT, trace sand (Moist, Very Compact, ML)
18 18 20 24 38
(Compact)
Driller notes 5" of
Brown fine SAND and SILT, little gravel (Moist, Loose, SM)
10
15
20
was encountered at
boring completion.
25
monitoring well was

borehole.
observation well detail.
30
35
40
DRILLER:
B. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/29/2011
FINISH
11/29/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
SURF. ELEV.
1
SAMPLE
NO.
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
561.19'

LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
RE-11-038
B-29
6/12 12/18 18/24
26 19 13
Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
ASPHALT
32
asphalt encountered
(Moist) FILL
at ground surface.
12 13 12 25
10
10 11 17 20 28

10 10 15 16 25
Grades to little gravel (Stiff)
15 13 14 14 27
18 16 24
18
Driller notes 6" of
Brown SILT, Some fine Sand, Some Gravel

9
NOTES
Mount Hope Ave
10
15

for Sample No. 7.
20
Color changes to Gray

(Medium)
25
was encountered at
boring completion.
monitoring well was
borehole.
30
35
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME85
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
DATE:
START
11/22/2011
FINISH
11/23/2011
SHEET 1 OF
PROJECT:
SAMPLE
NO.
RE-11-038
B-30
573.91'
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0/6
SURF. ELEV.
1
LOCATION:
DEPTH
(ft.)
PROJ. NO.
HOLE NO.
SJB SERVICES, INC.

SUBSURFACE LOG
6/12 12/18 18/24
Mount Hope Ave.

Rochester, NY
SOIL OR ROCK
CLASSIFICATION
REC.
(ft.)
NOTES
ASPHALT

monitoring well was
Augered to 15'
borehole.
10
15
11 13 18
11 12 15
28 15 14 18 29
25 25 19 15 44
Grades to little gravel (Hard)
Brown Clayey SILT, little gravel, trace sand

(Moist,Very Stiff, ML)
20
25
monitoring well was

borehole.
30
35
On 11/23, freestanding
water was encountered
at 21.5 feet.
40
DRILLER:
K. Fuller
DRILL RIG TYPE :
CME550X
CLASSIFICATION:
Visual by
Geologist
MONITORING WELL COMPLETION RECORD
PROJECT: COLLEGE T
PROJECT NUMBER: RE-11-038
WELL NUMBER:
B-27
DRILLER: K. FULLER
DRILLING METHOD:
GEOLOGIST:
INSTALLATION DATE(S):
ASTM D1585
M. BILLY
11/30/2011
TYPE OF SURFACE SEAL:
FLUSHMOUNT
TYPE OF BACKFILL:
AUGER CUTTINGS
+/- 8"
2.0"
PVC
559.75'
BOREHOLE DIAMETER
I.D. OF RISER PIPE:
TYPE OF RISER PIPE:
6.0'
BENTONITE CHIPS
DEPTH OF SEAL:
TYPE OF SEAL:
8.0'
10.0'
DEPTH OF SAND PACK:

DEPTH OF TOP OF SCREEN:
PVC
.010 X 5.0'
2.0"
MORIE "O" FILTER SAND
TYPE OF SCREEN:
SLOT SIZE X LENGTH:
I.D. OF SCREEN:
TYPE OF SAND PACK:
20.0'
DEPTH BOTTOM OF SCREEN:
20.0'
DEPTH BOTTOM OF SAND PACK:

TYPE OF BACKFILL BELOW OBSERVATION WELL:
AUGER CUTTINGS
ELEVATION/ DEPTH OF HOLE:
537.75' / 22.0'
PROJECT: COLLEGE TOWN DEVELOPMENT

DRILLING METHOD:
WELL NUMBER:
B-28
GEOLOGIST:
DRILLER: K. FULLER
ASTM D1585
M. BILLY
12/2/2011
GROUND ELEVATION
578.85'
3.0'
ELEVATION/TOP OF RISER PIPE:
575.85'
STICK- UP/ TOP OF RISER PIPE:
NONE
AUGER CUTTINGS
+/- 8"
TYPE OF BACKFILL:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
2.0"
PVC
5.0'
BENTONITE CHIPS
I.D. OF RISER PIPE:

TYPE OF RISER PIPE:
DEPTH OF SEAL:
TYPE OF SEAL:
8.0'
10.0'
DEPTH OF SAND PACK:

TYPE OF SCREEN:
SLOT SIZE X LENGTH:
I.D. OF SCREEN:
TYPE OF SAND PACK:
PVC
.010 X 10.0'
2.0"
20.0'
20.0'
N/A
555.85' / 20.0'

DRILLING METHOD:
WELL NUMBER:
B-29
GEOLOGIST:
DRILLER: K. FULLER
ASTM D1585
M. BILLY
11/29/2011
561.19'
FLUSHMOUNT
TYPE OF BACKFILL:
AUGER CUTTINGS
+/- 8"
2.0"
PVC
BOREHOLE DIAMETER
I.D. OF RISER PIPE:
TYPE OF RISER PIPE:
6.0'
BENTONITE CHIPS
DEPTH OF SEAL:
TYPE OF SEAL:
8.0'
10.0'
DEPTH OF SAND PACK:

PVC
.010 X 5.0'
2.0"
TYPE OF SCREEN:
SLOT SIZE X LENGTH:
I.D. OF SCREEN:
TYPE OF SAND PACK:
20.0'
20.0'

AUGER CUTTINGS
539.19' / 22.0'

DRILLING METHOD:
WELL NUMBER:
B-30
GEOLOGIST:
DRILLER: K. FULLER
ASTM D1585
M. BILLY
11/22/2011
573.91'
FLUSHMOUNT
TYPE OF BACKFILL:
AUGER CUTTINGS
+/- 8"
2.0"
PVC
BOREHOLE DIAMETER
I.D. OF RISER PIPE:
TYPE OF RISER PIPE:
15.0'
BENTONITE CHIPS
DEPTH OF SEAL:
TYPE OF SEAL:
17.0'
20.0'
DEPTH OF SAND PACK:

PVC
.010 X 5.0'
2.0"
TYPE OF SCREEN:
SLOT SIZE X LENGTH:
I.D. OF SCREEN:
TYPE OF SAND PACK:
30.0'
30.0'

AUGER CUTTINGS
541.19' / 32.0'
APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING RESULTS
MW1JJorRSIug_Bouwer-Rice.xls
WELL ID; UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

Local ID:
Date:
Time:
INPUT
12/5/2011
B-27
Entry
1
2
Construction:
Casing dia. (dc)
2 Inch
Annulus dia. (dw)
8.25 Inch
Screen Length (!_}
10 Feet
Depths to:
water level (DTW)
16.8 Feet
4
5
6
7
top of screen (TOS)

Base of Aquifer (DTB)
10 Feel
20 Feet
Reduced Dafa
Time,
Water
Hr:Min:Sec
Level
12:45:00.0
17.86
12:46:00.0
17.86
12:48:00.0
17.75
12:52:00.0
13:00:00.0
13:16:00.0
13:32:00,0
17.65
17.58
17.55
17.55
13:40:00.0
17.55
Annular Fill:
across screen - Coarse Sand
above screen - Bentonite
Adjust slope of line to estimate K
Aquifer Material - Silt, Loess
COMPUTED
3.2 Feet
3.2 Feet
3.2 Feet
D=
H=
L/rw =
9.31
1-06 Feet
1.06 Feet
From look-up table using L/rw
Fully penetrate C =
ln(Re/rw) =
Re =
1.171
1.616
1.73 Feet
Slope = 0.000237 logic/sec

tgo% recovery =
Input is consistent.
K =
4217 sec
0.083 Feet/Day
14.24
REMARKS:
28:48
43:12
TIME, Minute:Second
57:36
12:00
Bouwer and Rice analysis of slug test, WRR 1976
MW1_UorRSiug_Bouwer-Rice.xls
MW3_UorRSIug_Bouwer-Rice.xls
VVtLL 1U: UJNIVtKSI 1 Y Uh KUUMtb 1
Local ID:
MW-3
INPUT
Date: 12/5/2011
Construction:
Time:
Casing dia. (dc)
2 Inch
Annulus dia. (dw)
8.25 Inch
Screen Length (L)
10 Feet
*
/v
->
mw fr
7.85 Feet
top of screen (TOS)

10 Feet
20 Feet
*
D IB
Entry
1
T"
* TOS1
Depths to:
water level (DTW)
fcK
ft_29
11:03:00.0
15.35
11:05:00.0
14.65
11-09-000
13fifi
5
6
7
11:17:00.0
11:33:00.0
11:45:00.0
12.47
9.90
8.56
12:00:00.0
7.88
iv
Reduced Data
Time,
Water
Hr:Min:Sec
Level
11:02:00.0
15.45
dw
COMPUTED
10 Feet
12.15 Feet
12.15 Feet
29.09
7.60 Feet
7.60 Feet
Fully penetrate C =
ln(Re/rw) =
Re =
2.041
2.641
4.82 Feet
Slope = 0.000249 Iog10/sec

t9Mi, recovery =
K ~
4023 sec
0.045 Feet/Day
14:24
REMARKS:
28:48
43:12
TIME, Minute:Second
57:36
MW3JJorRSIug_Bouwer-Rice.xls
MW4_Slug_Bouwer-Rice.xls
WELL ID: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER

INPUT
Local ID:
MW-4
Date:
Time:
12/5/2011
B-30
Reduced Data
Time,
Entry
1
2
Water
Hr:Min:Sec
9:30:00.0
9:35:00.0
Level
20.43
20.40
Construction:
Casing dia. (dc)
2 Inch
Annulus dia. (dw)
8.25 Inch
9:37:00.0
20.35
Screen Length (L)
10 Feet
Depths to:
water level (DTW)
15:32 Feet
4
5
6
7
9:38:00.0
9:39:00.0
9:40:00.0
9:41:00.0
20.30
20.15
20.05
19.90
top of screen (TOS)

20 Feet
30 Feet
9:42:00.0
9:43:00.0
9:44:00.0
9:45:00.0
9:46:00.0
9:47:00.0
9:48:00.0
9:49:00.0
9:50:00.0
10 Feet
14.68 Feet
14.68 Feet
29.09
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
9:54:00.0
9:55:00.0
19.70
19.50
19.32
19.15
19.08
19.00
18.92
18.86
18.78
18.73
18.68
18.62
18.59
18.55
5.11 Feet
22
9:56:00.0
18.49
5.10 Feet
VO-SLUG ~
23
9:57:00.0
18.44
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
9:58:00.0
18.39
18.35
18.30
18.27
18.24
18.18
18.15
18.12
Annular Fill:
across screen - Coarse Sand
above screen Bentonite
[Base of Aquifer!
Aquifer Material - Silt, Loess
COMPUTED
^DISPLACEMENT -
Fully penetrate C =
!n(Re/rw) =
Re =
2.041
2.754
5.40 Feet
Slope = 0.000284 log,0/sec

tgo% recovery =
K =
3520 sec
0.054 Feet/Day
14:24
28:48
43:12
9:51:00.0
9:52:00.0
9:53:00.0
9:59:00.0
10:00:00.0
10:01:00.0
10:02:00.0
10:03:00.0
10:04:00.0
10:05:00.0
10:06:00.0
10:12:00.0
10:22:00.0
10:25:00.0
18.10
17.92
17.76
17.66
57:36
TIME, Minute:Second
REMARKS:
MW4_Slug__Bouwer-Rice.xls
APPENDIX C
TEST PIT LOGS
AND
TEST PIT PHOTOGRAPHS
TEST PIT LOGS
Rochester Office
535 Summit Point Drive
Henrietta, NY 14467
TEST PIT FIELD LOG
PROJECT
CLIENT
CONTRACTOR
FIELD REP
Collegetown
LiRo Engineers, Inc.
SJB Services
M. Billy
EXCAVATION EQUIP Backhoe

GROUND ELEV
TIME STARTED
9:30
TIME FINISHED
10:30
DEPTH
1'
2'
Phone: (585) 359-2730

Fax: (585) 359-9668
DATE
LOCATION
TEST PIT NO.
PROJECT NO.
WEATHER / TEMP
11/18/2011
Rochester, NY
TP-1
RT-11-038
Partly Sunny/ 40
OPERATOR
MAKE/ MODEL
CAPACITY
REACH
Art
Ford 555E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
CY
FT
EXCAV
EFFORT
ASPHALT (4.5")
Brown SAND and GRAVEL (moist, Subbase Material/FILL)
Dark brown to brown Silty SAND, some Gravel, some Concrete
fragments, little Brick fragments, trace metal, trace wood
(moist, FILL)
REMARK
NO.
1, 2
3'
4'
Brown fine SAND, little Gravel, little Silt (moist, SP)
5'
6'
7'
8'
Test pit complete at 7.0 feet.

No freestanding water encountered at test pit completion
9'
10
11'
12'
13'
14'
Remarks:
ABREVIATIONS
1.) A geotextile fabric was encountered between
F - FINE
F/M - FINE TO MEDIUM
TRACE (TR.)
0-10%
the asphalt and apparent subbase material
C - COARSE
F/C-FINE/COARSE
LITTLE (LI.)
10 - 20%
2.) Approximately 8 1/2" of subbase material
GR - GRAY
M - MEDIUM
SOME (SO.)
20 -35%
BN - BROWN
V-VERY
AND
35 - 50%
YEL-YELLOW
PROP USED
Rochester Office
Henrietta, NY 14467
TEST PIT FIELD LOG
PROJECT
CLIENT
CONTRACTOR
FIELD REP
Collegetown
SJB Services
M. Billy

GROUND ELEV
TIME STARTED
10:30
TIME FINISHED
11:30
DEPTH
1'
2'
Phone: (585) 359-2730

Fax: (585) 359-9668
DATE
LOCATION
TEST PIT NO.
PROJECT NO.
WEATHER / TEMP
11/18/2011
Rochester, NY
TP-2
RE-11-038
Partly Sunny/ 40
OPERATOR
MAKE/ MODEL
CAPACITY
REACH
Art
Ford 555E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
CY
FT
EXCAV
EFFORT
ASPHALT (3.5")
Brown SAND and GRAVEL (moist, Subbase Material/FILL)
Brown Silty SAND, some Gravel, some Cobbles, little small
Boulders, little Concrete fragments, little Brick fragments,
trace floor tile, trace metal (moist, FILL)
REMARK
NO.
1, 2
3'
Brown Silty SAND, trace roots (moist-wet, SM)
4'
5'
6'

7'
8'
9'
10
11'
12'
13'
14'
Remarks:
ABREVIATIONS
1.) A geotextile fabric was encountered between
F - FINE
TRACE (TR.)
0-10%
the asphalt and apparent subbase material.
C - COARSE
F/C-FINE/COARSE
LITTLE (LI.)
10 - 20%
2.) Approximately 8" of subbase material.
GR - GRAY
M - MEDIUM
SOME (SO.)
20 -35%
BN - BROWN
V-VERY
AND
35 - 50%
YEL-YELLOW
PROP USED
Rochester Office
Henrietta, NY 14467
TEST PIT FIELD LOG
PROJECT
CLIENT
CONTRACTOR
FIELD REP
Collegetown
SJB Services
M. Billy

GROUND ELEV
TIME STARTED
12:00
TIME FINISHED
1:00
DEPTH
1'
2'
3'
Phone: (585) 359-2730

Fax: (585) 359-9668
DATE
LOCATION
TEST PIT NO.
PROJECT NO.
WEATHER / TEMP
11/18/2011
Rochester, NY
TP-3
RT-11-038
Partly Sunny/ 40
OPERATOR
MAKE/ MODEL
CAPACITY
REACH
Art
Ford 555E
SOIL DESCRIPTION
CY
FT
EXCAV
EFFORT
ASPHALT (3")
Gray Crushed STONE (moist, Subbase Material/FILL)
REMARK
NO.
1, 2
Grayish brown Sandy SILT, some Gravel, little Concrete

fragments, trace metal pipe, trace wire mesh, trace wood,
trace clay (moist, FILL)
4'
5'
Brown Clayey SILT, little fine Sand

(moist-wet, ML)
6'
7'

8'
9'
10
11'
12'
13'
14'
Remarks:
ABREVIATIONS
PROP USED
1.) A geotextile fabric was encountered between the asphalt F - FINE
TRACE (TR.) 0-10%
and apparent subbase material on the north end of test pit
C - COARSE
F/C-FINE/COARSE
LITTLE (LI.)
10 - 20%
2.) Approximately 12" of crushed stone at south end of
GR - GRAY
M - MEDIUM
SOME (SO.)
20 -35%
test pit and about 18" of crushed stone at the north end
of test pit.
BN - BROWN
V-VERY
AND
35 - 50%
YEL-YELLOW
TEST PIT PHOTOGRAPHS
TEST PIT 1
U OF R COLLEGE TOWN-TEST PIT #1
TEST PIT 2
TEST PIT 3
APPENDIX D
HISTORICAL SOIL BORINGS COMPLETED BY OTHERS
DAY ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
HALEY & ALDRICH OF NEW YORK
Boring No.
H&A-TEST BORING-07-1
2010_1029_REVISED LIBRARY.GLB
HA-TB+CORE+WELL-07-1.GDT
Hammer Fall (in.)
--
--
S1
28/48
0.0
4.0
573.3
0.5
SP
S2
38/48
8.0
12.0
S4
31/31
12.0
14.7
(Density/consistency, color, GROUP NAME, max. particle size*,

structure, odor, moisture, optional descriptions
GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION)
6" Organic Topsoil

Medium brown, poorly-graded SAND with gravel (SP), mps 1.0 in., no
structure, no odor, moist.
PID = 0.0 ppm
570.8
3.0
MH
Light brown, sandy elastic SILT (MH), mps 0.75 in., no structure, no odor,
moist.
PID = 0.0 ppm
567.1
6.7
ML
Light brown, sandy SILT (ML), mps 1 mm., no structure, no odor, moist,
but drier than above.
PID = 0.0 ppm
Similar to above.
PID = 0.0 ppm
4.0
8.0
S3
41/48
VISUAL-MANUAL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
Gravel
Sand
Field Test
5 10 20 40 20 5
5 15 65
L M H
10 40 50
L N N-L
10
15
Similar to above, wet at 12.0 ft.
559.1
14.7
PID = 0.0 ppm
Refusal at 14.7 ft. bgs.

Bottom of Exploration at 14.7 ft. bgs.
PID = 0.0 ppm
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Time (hr.) Bottom Bottom Water
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Strength
--
Plasticity
--
Toughness
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
573.8
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
--
% Fine
--
USCS Symbol
Inside Diameter (in.)
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
--
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
Type
Drilling Equipment and Procedures

Rig Make & Model: Truck-Mounted Geoprobe
Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
PID Make & Model: MiniRAE 2000
SB-1
37821-000
1 of 1
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
Jim/Mike
B. Zinni/T. Robitalle
% Medium
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
G:\37821 (UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER)\000\FIELD LOGS\MOUNT HOPE AVE INVESTIGATION TEST BORINGS.GPJ
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
1401 Mount Hope Ave. Investigation, 1401 Mount Hope Ave. Rochester
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP
Client
Contractor Trec Environmental
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
U - Undisturbed Sample
Cuttings
Samples
S - Split Spoon Sample
Grout
SB-1
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Plasticity: N - Nonplastic L - Low M - Medium H - High
Dilatancy: R - Rapid S - Slow N - None
Field Tests:
Dry Strength: N - None L - Low M - Medium H - High V - Very High
Toughness: L - Low M - Medium H - High
*Note: Maximum particle size is determined by direct observation within the limitations of sampler size.
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Note: Soil identification based on visual-manual methods of the USCS as practiced by Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
Boring No.
--
--
S1
29/48
0.0
4.0
S2
45/48
4.0
8.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
5 30 50
L-M M M
5 30 50
L M L
5 10 30 45
M L M
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
572.2
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--
Barrel
37821-000
1 of 1
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
SB-2
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
ORGANIC TOPSOIL
571.4
0.8
567.2
5.0
MH
Medium brown, sandy elastic SILT (MH), mps 1.5 in., no structure, no odor,
moist.
PID = 0.0 ppm

Wet at 4.8 ft.
wet.
PID = 0.0 ppm

S3
45/48
8.0
12.0
563.6
8.6
wet.
10
PID = 0.0 ppm
S4
48/48
Similar to above.
12.0
16.0
At 13.3 ft. observed a 1.3 ft. section with 10% coarse gravel and 10 % fine
gravel.
PID = 0.0 ppm
15
556.2
16.0
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Bottom of Exploration at 16.0 ft.
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-2
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Boring No.
--
--
0.0
4.0
572.7
0.4
MH
568.2
4.9
SM
567.1
6.0
MH
564.5
8.6
SM
S1
27/48
S2
48/48
4.0
8.0
S3
42/48
8.0
12.0
S4
14/42
12.0
15.6
10

5 in. of ASPHALT
Medium brown, sandy elastic SILT (MH), mps 1.5 in., no structure, no odor,
moist.
PID = 0.0 ppm
Wet at 4.8 ft.

Medium brown, silty SAND (SM), mps = 0.5 in., no structure, no odor,
wet.
PID = 0.0 ppm
Medium brown, sandy elastic SILT (MH), mps 1 in., no structure, no odor,
wet.
PID = 0.0 ppm
Medium brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM), mps 1 in., no structure, no
odor, wet.
PID = 0.0 ppm
Similar to above.
Gravel
Sand
Field Test
5 20 65
10 5
5 45 35
5 25 55
5 10 10 5 40 30
PID = 0.0 ppm
15
557.5
15.6
Refusal at 15.6 ft.
PID = 0.0 ppm

Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-3
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
573.1
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
SB-3
37821-000
1 of 1
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
L M M-H
M M L-M
Boring No.
--
--
S1
26/48
0.0
4.0
572.4
1.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
1.0 in. gravel ASPHALT with very coarse gravel/clay beneath.

PID = 0.0 ppm
SM
Light brown, silty SAND (SM), mps 1 in., no structure, no odor, moist.
PID = 0.0 ppm
5 45 35
PID = 0.0 ppm

PID = 0.0 ppm
S2
40/48
Similar to above. Wet at 4.0 ft., noted black staining and petroleum-like odor
to 5.5 ft.
PID = 0.0 ppm
4.0
8.0
PID = 0.0 ppm

At 7.0 ft., noted a ~6 in. layer of dark gray, coarse gravel, with petroleumlike odor.
PID = 0.0 ppm
S3
48/48
PID = 0.0 ppm

Similar to above, black staining a petroleum-like odor observed at 10.0 ft.
PID = 0.2 ppm
8.0
12.0
563.4
10.0
10
SM
PID = 0.1 ppm

Light brown, silty SAND (SM), no structure, faint petroleum-like odor, wet.
PID = 0.1 ppm
5 15 5 40 35
PID = 0.2 ppm

S4
24/26
12.0
14.2
PID = 0.2 ppm
559.2
14.2
15
PID = 0.2 ppm

Similar to above, black staining, petroleum-like odor, not observed after 12.0
ft.
PID = 0.2 ppm
PID = 0.2 ppm
PID = 0.5 ppm
Refusal at 14.2 ft.
Bottom of Exploration at 14.2 ft. bgs
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-4
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
573.4
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
SB-4
37821-000
1 of 1
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
Boring No.
--
--
S1
30/48
0.0
4.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
1.0 ft. ASPHALT underlain by gravel.

571.0
1.0
PID = 0.2 ppm

SM
Light brown, silty SAND (SM), mps 1/4 in., no structure, petroleum-like
odor, black staining.
PID = 0.2 ppm
5 40 45
PID = 0.1 ppm

Wet at 3.0 ft.
S2
20/48
PID = 0.1 ppm
Similar to above.
4.0
8.0
At 6.0 ft., black staining and stong petroleum-like odor observed.

PID = 0.1 ppm
PID = 0.7 ppm
PID = 1.0 ppm
S3
20/42
Similar to above, black staining and faint petroleum-like odor observed to

11.8 ft.
PID = 1.0 ppm
8.0
11.8
PID = 1.0 ppm
10
PID = 2.7 ppm

560.2
11.8
Refusal at 11.8 ft.

PID = 0.8 ppm
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-5
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
572.0
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
37821-000
1 of 1
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
Type
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
SB-5
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
Boring No.
--
--
S1
27/48
0.0
4.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
1.5 ft. ASPHALT

PID = 0.0 ppm
569.4
1.5
MH
PID = 1.2 ppm

Light brown, elastic SILT with sand (MH), no structure, black staining at
2.0 ft., petroleum-like odor associated with stained soils.
5 25 60
PID = 1.3 ppm
S2
48/48
4.0
8.0
PID = 0.6 ppm

PID = 0.9 ppm
S3
38/48
PID = 3.4 ppm

Similar to above.
Wet at 4 ft. 6 in., 3 inch wide section of black stained soil with a strong
petroleum-like odor; mottled black staining and a light petroleum-like odor
extend to 7.0 ft.
PID = 2.6 ppm
8.0
12.0
PID = 1.2 ppm

PID = 1.1 ppm
10
S4
28/30
PID = 2.8 ppm

At ~10 ft. observed a ~ 1 ft. layer of soils with a petroleum-like odor, some
staining and some coarser gravel.
Similar to above (MH), slight petroleum odor.
PID = 2.2 ppm
12.0
14.5
PID = 2.2 ppm
15
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
570.9
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
SB-6
37821-000
1 of 1
April 27, 2011
April 27, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
556.4
14.5
PID = 1.4 ppm

Similar to above, some staining 12.0 to 13.5 ft., mild petroleum odor.
PID = 3.0 ppm
PID = 2.5 ppm
Refusal at 14.5 ft.
PID = 2.3 ppm
PID = 1.3 ppm
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-6
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
L M L
Boring No.
--
--
S1
37/48
0.0
4.0
568.5
1.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
1.0 ft. ASPHALT;

~ 3 in. dark brown to black gravel below asphalt.
SM
Dark brown, silty SAND (SM), mps 0.25 in., no structure, very faint
petroleum-like odor, moist.
PID = 2.8 ppm
5 10 35 40
PID = 2.8 ppm

Wet at 3.8 ft.
S2
36/48
PID = 3.2 ppm
Similar to above.
Gravelly layer at 5.5 ft. to 6.0 ft.;
No odor or staining noted.
4.0
8.0
PID = 1.1 ppm

PID = 2.1 ppm
PID = 1.7 ppm
S3
42/46
PID = 0.7 ppm

Similar to above; stained layer from 8.6 to 10.0 ft. with a strong petroleumlike odor.
PID = 0.8 ppm
8.0
11.8
10
PID = 0.9 ppm
557.7
11.8
PID = 1.1 ppm
Refusal at 11.8 ft.

Bottom of Exploration at 11.8 ft.
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-7
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
569.5
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
37821-000
1 of 1
April 28, 2011
April 28, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
Type
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
SB-7
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
Boring No.
Hammer Fall (in.)
--
--
S1
26/48
0.0
4.0
572.5
0.8

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
8" ASPHALT
SM
Dark brown silty SAND (SM), mps 1 in., no structure, moist, black mottled
staining, strong petroleum-like odor.
PID = 2.1 ppm
Black staining at 1.4 ft. to 2.0 ft.
PID = 3.0 ppm
5 10 5 40 35
PID = 1.7 ppm

5
S2
38/48
4.0
8.0
PID = 3.8 ppm

Black staining 4.0 to 4.6 ft., strong petroleum-like odor.
Wet at 4.6 ft.
Gravelly layer at 5.0 to 5.5 ft.
PID = 0.9 ppm

PID = 3.8 ppm
S3
32/48
PID = 1.3 ppm
8.0
12.0
PID = 1.3 ppm

Similar to above, faint petroleum-like odor, mottled black staining 8.0 to 9.0
ft.
PID = 1.6 ppm
10
PID = 0.8 ppm

S4
30/42
12.0
15.7
561.3
12.0
559.8
13.5
15
557.6
15.7
PID = 1.3 ppm 10 5 10 10 30 35
SM
PID = 1.4 ppm

Silty sand with gravel, mps 1 in., no structure, wet, mild staining at 13.0 to
15 5
13.5 ft. faint petroleum-like odor.
PID = 0.7 ppm
Dark brown, silty SAND (SM), mps 1.0 in., no structure, petroleum-like
odor, moist, black staining.
PID = 0.8 ppm
Refusal at 15.7 ft.
PID = 0.7 ppm
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
5 25 45
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-8
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Strength
Plasticity
--
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
573.3
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fines
--
% Fine
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
SB-8
37821-000
1 of 1
April 28, 2011
April 28, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
Boring No.
--
--
S1
32/48
0.0
4.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
ASPHALT to 1.0 ft.

571.5
1.0
PID = 0.4 ppm

SM
Dark brown, silty SAND (SM), no structure, strong petroleum-like odor,

mps 0.3 in., dry. Black staining to 5.0 ft.
PID = 1.5 ppm
5 10 60 20
PID = 2.3 ppm
S2
30/48
4.0
8.0
PID = 0.8 ppm

Wet at 6.0 ft., similar to above.
PID = 1.4 ppm
S3
24/48
8.0
12.0
564.5
8.0
PID = 1.0 ppm

SM
Dark brown, silty SAND (SM), mps 0.5 in., no structure, petroleum-like
odor, wet. Staining from 8.0 to 10.0 ft.
PID = 0.9 ppm
5 40 45
PID = 1.1 ppm
10
PID = 1.2 ppm
S4
6/36
15
Similar to above, no odor, no staining.
12.0
15.0
557.5
15.0
PID = 0.8 ppm
Refusal at 15.0 ft.
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-9
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
572.5
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
SB-9
37821-000
1 of 1
April 28, 2011
April 28, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
Boring No.
--
--
S1
40/48
0.0
4.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
573.6
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
SB-10
37821-000
1 of 1
April 28, 2011
April 28, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
ASPHALT to 1.0 ft.

572.6
1.0
SM
Dark brown, silty SAND (SM), mps., 0.3 in., no structure, strong
petroleum-like odor, dry, mottled black staining.
PID = 1.6 ppm
5 10 10 60 15
PID = 2.3 ppm
S2
48/48
Black staining, strong petroleum-like odor 4.0 to 5.5. ft.
4.0
8.0
567.6
6.0
PID = 0.8 ppm

PID = 1.9 ppm
PID = 1.9 ppm
MH
Light brown, sandy, elastic SILT (MH), mps 1/8 in., no structure, faint
petroleum-like odor, moist.
PID = 0.2 ppm
Wet at 7.0 ft.
S3
24/48
8.0
12.0
Similar to above
S4
14/38
12.0
15.2
Mottled black stained layer from 13.0 to 13.5 ft. with strong petroleum-like
odor.
PID = 0.1 ppm
5 40 50
L M L
PID = 0.1 ppm
10
PID = 0.1 ppm
Similar to above.
15
558.4
15.2
PID = 0.8 ppm

Refusal at 15.2 ft.
PID = 0.1 ppm
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-10
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Boring No.
--
--
S1
12/48
0.0
4.0

Gravel
Sand
Field Test
Strength
Hammer Fall (in.)
Plasticity
Toughness
--
Dilatancy
--
% Fines
Hammer Weight (lb)
Elevation
573.6
Datum
NAVD 1988
Location See Plan
% Fine
--

Bit Type:
Drill Mud:
Casing:
Hoist/Hammer:
/
SB-11
37821-000
1 of 1
April 28, 2011
April 28, 2011
Jim/Mike
% Medium
--
USCS Symbol
--
Stratum
Change
Elev/Depth (ft)
Sample
Depth (ft)
--
Sampler Blows
per 6 in.
--
Depth (ft)
--
Barrel
% Coarse
Sampler
Type
Sample No.
& Rec. (in.)
Jun 24, 11
Casing
File No.
Sheet No.
Start
Finish
Driller
H&A Rep.
% Fine
Project
Client
% Coarse
TEST BORING REPORT
ASPHALT to 1.0 ft.
PID = 0.0 ppm

570.6
3.0
S2
24/48
PID = 0.0 ppm

MH
4.0
8.0
Light brown, sandy elastic SILT (MH), mps 1/8 in., no structure, no odor,
moist.
PID = 0.0 ppm
10 10 10 20 50
L M L
PID = 0.5 ppm
PID = 0.3 ppm

PID = 0.5 ppm
S3
24/48
8.0
12.0
Thin layer of black staining from 8.0 ft. to 8.2 ft.

564.6
9.0
MH
10
PID = 19 ppm
Medium brown, sandy elastic SILT (MH), mps 1/8 in., no structure, very
strong petroleum-like odor, moist. No visible staining, but high PID reading
- 202 ppm.
PID = 143 ppm
5 15 10 20 50
PID = 202 ppm

S4
30/43
12.0
15.7
560.6
13.0
PID = 53 ppm
SM
Medium brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM), mps 1 in., no structure, mild
petroleum-like odor, wet at 12.0 ft.
PID = 107 ppm
5 15 15 10 30 25
PID = 73 ppm
15
557.9
15.7
PID = 5 ppm
Refusal at 15.7 ft.
PID = 2.3 ppm
Water Level Data

Depth (ft) to:
Elapsed
Time
Sample ID
Well Diagram
Summary
Riser Pipe
Overburden (ft)
Date
Screen
Rock Cored (ft)
of Casing of Hole
Filter Sand
Cuttings
Samples
Grout
SB-11
Concrete
Boring No.
Bentonite Seal
Field Tests:
O - Open End Rod
T - Thin Wall Tube
Well No.
OBSERVATION WELL
INSTALLATION REPORT
CONTRACTOR
DRILLER
1401 Mt. Hope Ave. Investigation

1401 Mt. Hope Avenue
Hiscock & Barclay LLP
Trec Environmental
Jim/Mike
Ground El.
El. Datum
573.56
NAVD 1988
PROJECT
LOCATION
CLIENT
ft
MW-1
Boring No.
SB-11
H&A FILE NO.

PROJECT MGR.
FIELD REP.
DATE INSTALLED
WATER LEVEL
Location
37821-000
Glenn White
Tom Robitaille
4/28/2011
6.51 ft.
Guard Pipe
Roadway Box
SOIL/ROCK
BOREHOLE
CONDITIONS
BACKFILL
Flush mount - hex locked
Type of protective cover/lock
CONCRETE
Height/Depth of top of guard pipe/roadway box

above/below ground surface
0.0
ft
Height/Depth of top of riser pipe

0.3
ft
Concrete/8 inch steel box
Type of protective casing:

Length
0.7
ft
Inside Diameter
4.0
in
0.7
ft
1.0 FT.
Depth of bottom of guard pipe/roadway box
Type of Seals
Top of Seal (ft)
Concrete
0.0
1.0
Bentonite Seal
1.0
2.2
Sand
3.2
16.0
L1
Thickness (ft)
BENTONITE
Type of riser pipe:
PVC
Inside diameter of riser pipe
2.0
in
Diameter of borehole
6.3
in
Depth to top of well screen
4.2
ft
10 slot
in
2.0
in
Depth of bottom of well screen
19.2
ft
Bottom of PVC cover
0.3
ft
Depth of bottom of borehole
19.5
ft
Type of backfill around riser
3.2 FT.
Bentonite
Type of screen
PVC 10 Slot
Screen gauge or size of openings
SAND
Diameter of screen
L2
Type of backfill around screen
L3
19.5
(Bottom of Exploration)
(Numbers refer to depth from ground surface in feet)
ft
Riser Pay Length (L1)
COMMENTS:
Form 2007
Sand
(Not to Scale)
ft
Length of screen (L2)
Sand filled in 1" above well screen
ft
Length of silt trap (L3)
ft
Pay length
Well No.
OBSERVATION WELL
INSTALLATION REPORT
CONTRACTOR
DRILLER

Trec Environmental
Jim/Mike
Ground El.
El. Datum
573.62
NAVD 1988
PROJECT
LOCATION
CLIENT
ft
MW-2
Boring No.
N/A
H&A FILE NO.

PROJECT MGR.
FIELD REP.
DATE INSTALLED
WATER LEVEL
Location
37821-000
Glenn White
Tom Robitaille
4/28/2011
11.2 ft.
Guard Pipe
Roadway Box
SOIL/ROCK
BOREHOLE
CONDITIONS
BACKFILL
CONCRETE

0.0
ft

0.3
ft

Length
0.7
ft
Inside Diameter
4.0
in
0.7
ft
0.7 FT.
Type of Seals
Top of Seal (ft)
Concrete
0.0
0.7
Bentonite Seal
0.7
3.5
Sand
4.2
15.0
L1
Thickness (ft)
BENTONITE
Type of riser pipe:
PVC
2.0
in
6.3
in
4.2
ft
10 slot
in
2.0
in
19.2
ft
Bottom of PVC cover
0.3
ft
19.5
ft
4.2 FT.
Bentonite
Type of screen
PVC 10 Slot
SAND
Diameter of screen
L2
L3
19.5
ft
COMMENTS:
Form 2007
Sand
(Not to Scale)
ft
ft
ft
Pay length
Well No.
OBSERVATION WELL
INSTALLATION REPORT
CONTRACTOR
DRILLER

Trec Environmental
Jim/Mike
Ground El.
El. Datum
569.54
NAVD 1988
PROJECT
LOCATION
CLIENT
ft
MW-3
Boring No.
SB-7
H&A FILE NO.

PROJECT MGR.
FIELD REP.
DATE INSTALLED
WATER LEVEL
Location
37821-000
Glenn White
Tom Robitaille
4/28/2011
13.7 ft.
Guard Pipe
Roadway Box
SOIL/ROCK
BOREHOLE
CONDITIONS
BACKFILL
CONCRETE

0.0
ft

0.4
ft

Length
0.7
ft
Inside Diameter
4.0
in
0.7
ft

0.7 FT.
Type of Seals
Top of Seal (ft)
Concrete
0.0
0.7
Bentonite Seal
0.7
3.5
Sand
4.2
15.0
L1
Thickness (ft)
BENTONITE
Type of riser pipe:
PVC
2.0
in
6.3
in
4.2
ft
10 slot
in
2.0
in
19.2
ft
Bottom of PVC cover
0.3
ft
19.5
ft
4.2 FT.
Bentonite
Type of screen
PVC 10 Slot
SAND
Diameter of screen
L2
L3
19.5
ft
COMMENTS:
Form 2007
Sand
(Not to Scale)
ft
ft
ft
Pay length
ROCHESTER DRILLING COMPANY, INC.
SUBSURFACE GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
OCHESTER
CONCRETE AND SOIL-TESTING AND INSPECTION
RILLING
961 Lyell Avenue Rochester, New York 14606
JMPANY, INC.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT
716-458-0821
1433
TnvRstigatirm.q, Eastman rental n
CLIENT
tental renter, T?nphpBter, NAW Vr>rl

INSPECTOR
ELEVATION
DATE S T A R T E D
COMPLETED
10/15/74
GROUND W A T E R ~ C A S I N G IN
38'0'
BELOW SURFACE
37*0"
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
_ - CASING OUT
B L O W S ON SAMPLER
BORING NO.
OF
PAGE
6"/ 2X
Tl /fa"
H
14
isjX
xf4"
20 30
N
40
LU
o! d
5z
tn
1
AT COMPLETION
TECHNICIAN
10/15
Aj
TIME
-WELLPOINT AT
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
0'0"-l'6 rt
WEATHER
1Q/15/74
SOIL AND ROCK CLASSIFICATION

REMARKS
MISCELLANEOUS FILL:
SAND,
SILT,
DENSE BROWN DAMP FINE
GRAVEL, A S H E S ,
CINDERS
5'
10
^>
5 ! 0"-6 r 6 n
5 '6"
FIRM MOTTLED
BROWN DAMP TO MOIST S 1 LT , SOME FIN
FINE SAND, TRACE OF FINE GRAVEL,
CLAY AND ROOTS
10'
in IS
?0
38 3
10rO"-llT6"
COMPACT BROWN DAMP TO MOIST SILT, SOME

FINE SAND, TRACE OF FINE GRAVEL AND CLAY
15'
IS
Ifi 16
3?<
15'0T!-16'6"
COMPACT BROWN DAMP SILT, TRACE OF FINE SAND,

CLAY, AND FINE GRAVEL
t
20'
20'0
11
J.Z- .5
20'0"-21'6"
FIRM
BROWN-GRAY MOIST S I L T ,
LITTLE FINE
SAND,
AND CLAY, TRACE OF FINE GRAVEL
251
10
a a
18
25TOtf-26r6n
FIRM BROWN-GRAY
AND CLAY,
MOIST SILT,
LITTLE FINE SAND
T R A C E OF FINE GRAVEL
301
NOTES:
N = NO. OF BLOWS TO D R I V E
2f
C = NO. OF BLOWS TO D R I V E ___
SPOON_
CASING
12
WITH
WITH
140
LB. WT.
LB. WT.
30"
EA. BL
EA. BL
SUBSURFACE GEOLOGICAL
CONCRETE
INVESTIGATIONS
AND SOIL-TESTING AND INSPECTION

OMPANY, INC
716-458-0821
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT_
BORING NO.
OF
Tnvpstig-atinns, ^ a s t m a n rVmfal Qpntpr ;

Dental Center. Rochester. New York
CLIENT
ELEVATION
TECHNICIAN
AT COMPLETION
TIME
- CASING OUT -
c gAT
6"/ ts
S7
A$\/24"
- W E L L P O I N T AT
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
17
30 ! 0"-31'6"
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
WEATHER
COMPLETED
SAWPLE
NO.
BELOW SURFACE
_L
NeTV Ycrk-
INSPECTOR
DATE STARTED
GROUND WATER ~ CASING IN
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
PAGE
1433

REMARKS
FIRM BROWN-GRAY MOIST S I L T , LITTLE FINE SAND
AND C L A Y , TRACE OF FINE GRAVEL
30'
17
35 ? 0"-36 f 6"
FIRM BROWN-GRAY MOIST SILT, LITTLE FINE SAND

AND CLAY. TRACE OF FINE GRAVEL
37'C
40'
IS
21 24
45
40 ! 0 ff -41 f 6 fl
DENSE
BROWN-GRAY WET FINE SAND, LITTLE SILT

4t '6
BORING TERMINATED AT 41 '6"
i
NOTES:
45'
-ADVANCED TEST HOLE WITH HOLLOW STEM AUGER CAS
!i
NOTES:
N = NO. OF B L O W S TO D R I V E
C = NO. OF BLOWS TO DRIVE
2"
SPOON
CASING
12rL_ WITH
WITH
140
LB. WT.
LB. WT.
30"
EA. BL
EA. BL
OCHESTER
INVESTIGATIONS
RILLING
)MPANY, INC.
716-458-0821
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT
PAGE
1438
Subsurface Investigations. Eastman Dental Center, Rochester, New York

Eastman Dental Center. Rochester. New York
INSPECTOR
WEATHER
556.0'
CLIENT
ELEVATION
DATE S T A R T E D
COMPLETED
10/18/74
GROUND W A T E R ~ C A S I H G I H ~
32'0"
BELOW SURFACE
39'ft"
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
. - C A S I N G OUT-
UJ
~i
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
BORING NO.
OF
2?
4
Q- O
\ty ItfP N 5 z
1/1
Xf4"
6"/
Xl2" r/fs"
TO
1Q/18/74
*T COMPLETION
TECHNICIAN
10/18
A^
Tftter
TIME
-WELLPOIHT AT
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE

REMARKS
i 0'0"-1'6M
MISCELLANEOUS FILL:
FIRM BROWN MOIST FINE
SAND, SILT, G R A V E L , CLAY,
A S H E S , CINDERS, ROOTS
/--!'.
V"
*. --
5'
5'0"-6 T 6"
LOOSE BROWN MOIST FINE SAND AND SILT, TRACE OF

CLAY, ORGANIC MATTER, ROOTS,
WOOD FIBERS
io
3
10'0"-11(6"
LOOSE MOTTLED BROWN MOIST SILT AND FINE S A N D ,

TRACE OF CLAY AND ORGAmC MATTER
!
i
15'
15'C
14
15'0 n -16 r 6"
FIRM BROWN MOIST SILT, SOME FINE SAND, LITTLE

CLAY, TRACE OF COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
14
16
16
32
20 I 0"-21 f 6"
COMPACT BROWN MOIST SILT, SOME FINE SAND,

LITTLE CLAY, TRACE OF COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
18
25 r O"-26 ! 6"
FIRM BROWN MOIST SILT, SOME FINE SAND, LITTLE

CLAY, TRACE OF COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
i
20'
j
25'
i
29'0'
30'
NOTES:
N = NO OF BLOWS TO D R I V E
- N Q OF B L O W S T0 D R I V E
2"
SPOON
CASING
12'J_ WITH
WITH
140
LB. W T .
LB. WT.
30"
c A . BL
EA. BL

OCHESTER
RILLING
- 961 Lyel! Avenue Rochester, New York 14606
)MPANY, INC.
716-458-0821
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT^
CLIENT
PAGE
1438
Eastman Dental renter. Rochester, New Ynrk

INSPECTOR
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
2?
WEATHER
TECHNICIAN
COMPLETED
DATE S T A R T E D
GROUND W A T E R ~ C A S I N G I N '
BELOW SURFACE
- CASING OUT -
BORING NO,
Subsurface Investigations. Eastman Dental renter,
ELEVATION
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
OF
2X isjX
v'X A
AT , 8"
X54"
AT COMPLETION
TIME
-WELLPOINT AT
UJ
_l
Q- O
5 Z
fi
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE

REMARKS
15
SO'D'^Sl'S"
12 16 13
34
ss'o^se'e"
COMPACT BROWN WET SILT, SOME FINE SAND
18
f)
40 r O"-41'6"
FIRM BROWN SATURATED FINE SAND AND SILT
35'
FIRM BROWNISH-GRAY WET FINE SAND, SOME SILT
40 f
8
4 1r 6
BORING TERMINATED AT 41 '6"
NOTES:
45'
-ADVANCED TEST HOLE WITH HOLLOW STEM AUGER CASI

-LOCATION OF TEST HOLE: 50' NORTH OF ORIGINAL
LOCATION, DUE TO EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE.
NOTt5:
N = NO. OF BLOWS TO DRIVE

2"
SPOON _
CASING.
12"
WITH
WITH
140
LB. W T . .
LB. WT.
_30'T
A. BL'
EA. EL'
OCHESTER
INVESTIGATIONS
RILLING
-961 Lyell Avenue Rochester, New York 14606
)MPANY, INC.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT
PAGE
1438
ELEVATION
DATE S T A R T E D
COMPLETED
10/15/74
GROUND W A T E R ~ C A S I N G IH
37'0 r
BELOW SURFACE
37'0"
- CASING OUT-
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
0"X 6"/ M/
/18"
Y?
AT
\$y N
Xl4"
5
6
5'
4
7
6
5
10
10
9
8
10
10'
15'
i
9
8
10
10
9
9
10
8
18
16
10 2$
17
11 2J
21
8 17
17
22
26
14
8
10
9
9
11
25'
12
14
1
16
14
30'
8 1
11
11 2
10
6 3
10
16 4
20
17 5
19
15 6
19
19 7
14
22 8
32
23 9
14
10
12
20 r
11
IS
0'0"-2'0"
18
16
16
19.
A.
Utter
TIME
-WELLPOINT AT

REMARKS
MISCELLANEOUS FILL:
FINE SAND,
2'0 n -4'0"
TECHNICIAN
10/16
ROOTS,
FIRM MOTTLED BROWN MOIST
SILT, G R A V E L ,
CINDERS, A S H E S ,
BRICKS,
ORGANIC MATTER
4'0 n -6'0"
6 I 0"-8 I 0"
8T0"
S'O-'-lO'O'
FIRM MOTTLED
BROWN MOIST FINE
SAND AND S I L T ,
LITTLE CLAY AND FINE GRAVEL
10'0"-12rO"
12'0"-14'O fT
FIRM BROWN DAMP TO MOIST S I L T ,
LITTLE FINE S A N D ,
TRACE OF CLAY AND COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
14T0"-16I0"
16'O n -18 T 0"
10
18'O t ( -20'0 M
11
20 ? 0"-22 ! 0 M
12
22 I 0"-24'0"
FIRM B R O W N DAMP FINE SAND AND SILT, TRACE OF CLA*i

AND COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
1,3
24'0"-26'0 M
14
26'0 M -28'0"
as
31
lQ/lft/74
AT COMPLETION
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
15
36
9fi
NOTES:
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
BORING NO,
OF
Snbaurface Investigations, K a s t m a n
renter,
"Eastman
, Kfc>w VnrkINSPECTOR
WEATHER
565. 7'
CLIENT
716-458-0821
COMPACT BROWN DAMP SILT,
LITTLE FINE S A N D ,
TRACE
OF CLAY AND COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
IS
28'0"-30'0 l t
C = NO, OF BLOWS TO D R I V E
SPOON
CASING
12"
WITH
WITH
140
LB, WT.
LB. WT.
30"
A. BL
EA. BL
OCHESTER
RILLING
JMPANY, INC.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT_
CLIENT
716-458-0821
1438
PAGE
Subsurface Investigations. Eastman Dental Center. Rochester, New Yorl;

Eastman Dental Center, Rochester. New York
'
ELEVATION
INSPECTOR
GROUND W A T E R "" CASIHG IN"

BELOW SURFACE .- CASING OUT -
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
/**
&^
18
12
35'
1?
?y
isjX
^"X
iXrl/fa"
X54"
22
40
fll
?A
1?
21
3f>
23
_J
Q- O
16
2J 41
2J
UJ
40
45
30
^0
TIME
-WELLPOINT AT
21
18
AT COMPLETION
?Z
t^>
24
31
40 f
WEATHER
TECHNICIAN
COMPLETED
DATE STARTED
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
BORING NO.
OF
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
30'0"-32 t O"
17
32'0fr-34r0n
34'0"-36 t O M
36 57
IS IP
3fl 74
33 ?o
32 S3

REMARKS
DENSE BROWN MOIST TO WET SILT, SOME FINE SAND ,
TRACE OF CLAY AND COARSE TO FINE
GRAVEL
VERY DENSE
SOME SILT
36'C
36'0IT-38fOri
BROWN WET FINE SAND,
38'0"-40'0"
40rC
BORING TERMINATED AT 40'0"
NOTES:
-ADVANCED TEST HOLE WITH HOLLOW STEM AUGEH; CAS
NOTES:
N - N O . OF BLOWS TO DRIVE
C = NO, OF BLOWS TO DRIVE
2"
SPOON
CASING
12" _ WITH
WITH
140
LB. W T .
LB. WT.
30"
E A.
BL
E A . BL
OCHESTER
INVESTIGATIONS
RILLING
. 961 Lyell Avenue Rochester, New York 14606
)MPANY, INC.
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT^
143ft
OF
PAGE
BORING NO.
e Tnvftst.igatirms, Eastman Ttental Center,
..Nftw.
Eastman Dental Center, Rochester. Kew York
CLIENT
ELEVATION
564.3'
DATE S T A R T E D
10/15/74
GROUND W A T E R " C A S I N G
INSPECTOR
IN-
10/15/74
AT COMPLETION
TECHNICIAN
10/15
12 12
39
^ Utter
TIME
- CASING OUT- 29'0' T
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
I2p \P
g*'><
S\T xfgl/24" N
18
WEATHER
COMPLETED
33fO"
SAMPLE
NO.
BELOW SURFACE
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
716-458-0821
-WELLPOINT AT
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
6<0 n -l'6"

REMARKS
MISCELLANEOUS
FILL:
COMPACT BROWN MOIST
FINE SAND t SOME SILT AND COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL

3'0"
5r
6
15
5 I 0"-6 ! 6"
FIRM BROWN MOIST FINE S A N D , SOME SILT,
LITTLE
FINE GRAVEL, TRACE OF CLAY
10'
13
15
2$
14
10 f O M -ll'6"
COMPACT BROWN MOIST SILT,
SOME FINE S A N D , LITTLE
FINE GRAVEL, TRACE OF CLAY
15'
13
14
27
13
15rO"-16'6f'
COMPACT BROWN MOIST SILT, SOME FINE SAND, LITTLE

COARSE TO FINE G R A V E L , TRACE OF CLAY
20'
12
14
28
14
20'0 r '-21'6"
COMPACT BROWN MOIST SILT,
SOME FINE S A N D ,
LITTLE
COARSE TO FINE G R A V E L , TRACE OF CLAY
25'
12
14
15
29
25tO"-26T6rf
COMPACT BROWN MOIST TO WET SILT, SOME FINE S A N D ,

LITTLE FINE G R A V E L , TRACE OF CLAY
30'
.
NOTEi:
_ NQ op B L O W S TQ D R I V E
CASING"
WITH
LB. W T .
OCHESTER
RILLING
- 961 Lyell Avenue Rochester, New York 14606
)MPANY, INC.
716-458-0821
PROJECT NO, 1438

PROJECT
PAGE
Subsurface Investigations, Eastman Dental Center, Rochester, New York

Eastman Dental Center, Rochester. New York
CLIENT
ELEVATION
INSPECTOR
GROUND W A T E R ~ C A S I N G I N
BELOW SURFACE
- CASING OUT -
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
BLOWS ON S A M P L E R
c IE AT
6"/
13
WEATHER_
^TECHNICIAN
COMPLETED
DATE STARTED
BORING NO.
OF
lap isX
/IB",/54"
30
13 17
AT COMPLETION
TIME
-WELLPOINT AT
OJ
CL O
2 Z
lX
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
30'0"-31'6"

REMARKS
COMPACT BROWN
MOIST SILT, LITTLE FINE SAND
AND FINE GRAVEL, TRACE OF CLAY
35'
35'0
14
16
30
35'0"-36r6M
COMPACT BROWN WET FINE SAND, LITTLE SILT
10
12
12
24
40'0"-41 T 6"
FIRM BROWN SATURATED FINE SAND, LITTLE SILT
'
40'
41 r 6 '
BORING TERMINATED AT 41 ' 6"
NOTES:
45'
-ADVANCED TEST HOLE WITH HOLLOW STEM AUGER CASH
i
i
NOTES
N = NO. OF B LOWS TO DRIVE

C = NO. OF B LOWS TO DRIVE
2"
SPOON
CASING
12"
WITH
WITH
140
LB. WT.
LB. WT.
30"
EA. BLC
EA. BLC
SUBSURFACE .GEOLOGICAL
OCHESTER
INVESTIGATIONS
RILLING
- 961 Lyell Avenue Rochester, New York 14606
>MPANY, INC.
716-458-0821
PAGE
PROJECT NO. 1438
'
BORING NO.
OF
PROJECT
Subsurface Investigations, Eastman Dental Center, Rochester, New York
CLIENT
Fflatma.n Dental Outer. Rochester. New York

INSPECTOR
ELEVATION
560.1
DATE STARTED
10/16/74
GROUND W A T E R " C A S I N G IN"
33*0"
BELOW SURFACE
30'0"
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
-. CASING OUT-
BLOWS ON S A M P L E R
^Z 6"X
f/
/$
AT,/m
18JX
X24"
101
N
15
WEATHER
COMPLETED
UJ
_t .
0. O
3z
i/i
10/16/74
AT COMPLETION
TECHNICIAN
10/ 16
A.
Utter
TIHE
-WELLPOINT AT
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
0'0 M -1'6"

REMARKS
MISC. FILL: FIRM BROWN MOIST FINE SAND, SOME SIL
AND COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
0'4"
MISC. FILL: FIRM BROWN MOIST FINE SAND, SOME SIL,
MISC.
FILL: FIRM GRAYISH-BROWN MOIST SILT AND CL.

4'0"
5r
14
5T0"~6'6'r
FIRM BROWN MOIST FINE SAND, SOME SILT, TRACE

OF CLAY AND FINE GRAVEL
10'
14
21
26
47
10'0"-11'6"
DENSE BROWN MOIST SILT, SOME FINE SAND, TRACE OF

CLAY AND FINE GRAVEL
i4'0
15'
21
18
18
36
15 r O"-16 r 6"
COMPACT BROWN MOIST TO WET FINE S A N D , SOME

SILT, LITTLE COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
20'
34
21
18
33
20'0"-21f6"
COMPACT BROWN MOIST FINE SAND,
SOME SILT, LITTLE
COARSE TO FINE GRAVEL
25'
?^
24
94
48
25'0"-26 ! 6"
DENSE BROWN MOIST FINE SAND AND SILT,
LITTLE
COARSE TO FINE G R A V E L
30'
30'0"
NOTES:
c _ NQ O f _ B[ _ OW5 TQ DRIVE
SPOON
CASING
I?"
WITH
WITH
140
LB. WT.
LB. WT.
30"
EA. BL
EA. BL
SUBSURFACE
OCHESTER
GEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS
RILLING
>MPANY, INC.
716-458-0821
PROJECT NO.
1438
BORING NO.
OF
PAGE
PROJECT
Subsurface Investigations. Eastman Dental Center,
CLIENT
Eastman Dental Center. Rochester. New York
ELEVATION
INSPECTOR
GROUND W A T E R ~ C A S I N G IN
BELOW SURFACE
DEPTH
BELOW
SURFACE
AT COMPLETION
TIME
_ CASING OUT -
ty
isX
6V:
/\, X] /24"
-WELLPOIHT AT
LU
_J .
5 '*'
<~n
DEPTH
OF
SAMPLE
BLOWS ON SAMPLER
WEATHER
TECHNICIAN
COMPLETED
DATE STARTED
0. O

REMARKS
10
30 f O"-31'6"
LOOSE BROWN SATURATED FINE S A N D , SOME SILT
20
35'0M-36'6"
FIRM BROWN WET SILT, SOME FINE SAND
f>
l^i
40 r O"-41 f 6 M
FIRM BROWN SATURATED FINE SAND,
35'
40'
SOME SILT
41 ' (
^
BORING TERMINATED AT 41 "6"
NOTES:
45 1
-ADVANCED TEST HOLE WITH HOLLOW STEM AUGER CAS
NOTES:
N = NO. OF BLOWS TO DRIVE

0"
SPOON
CASING
12"
WITH
WITH
140
LB. WT.__30,",
LB. WT.
EA. BL
EA. BL
APPENDIX E
LABORATORY TEST DATA
Contract
Drilling
Rochester Office
and
Henrietta, NY 14467
Phone: 585-359-2730
Fax; 585-359-9668
Testing
SERVICES,
INC.
Summary of Laboratory Testing

U of R College Town
Project:
Fainnount Properties
Client:
Project Number: RE-11-038
Date:
Lab ld#
Location
Depth (ft)
Organic Content (%)
11-922
B-7/S-2
2-4
3.0
11-933
B-14/S-4
6-8
7,8
SJB Laboratory Technician: William Gilmore

Respectfully submitted:
SJB Services, Inc.
Hamburg, New York

800-821-5911
Cortland, New York

800-296-6740
Albany, New York

888-248-8903
12-13-2011
Contract
Drilling
and
Testing
Rochester Office
Henrietta, NY 14467
Phone: 585-359-2730
Fax: 585-359-9668
S E R V I C E S , INC.
STANDARD TEST METHOD FOR

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF
INTACT ROCK CORE SPECIMENS
ASTM D2938
Project:
Client:
Project Number:
U of R College Town
Fairmount Properties
RE-11-038
Lab ID Number
Date:
12-9-2011
11-923
11-924
11-937
B-1
B-14
B-13
Depth (feet)
90.2
89.1
80.5
Moisture Condition at Test
Moist
Moist
Moist
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
1.975
1.975
1.975
3.06
3.06
3.06
3.95
3.95
3.95
48,420
47,620
30,380
2.0
2.0
2.0
15,820
15,560
9,930
Core Identification
Orientation of Core Axis in Structure

Average Diameter (in)
Cross-Sectional Area (sq. in.)
Length (in.)
Maximum Load (Ibs.)
Ratio of Capped Length to Diameter (UD)
Compressive Strength (psi)
SJB Laboratory Technician: William Gilmore

Respectfully submitted:
SJB Services, Inc.
Charles Guzzetta
District Manager
Hamburg, New York

800-821-5911
Cortland, Hew York

800-296-6740
Albany, New York

888-248-8903
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

60
Dashed line indicates the approximate

upper limit boundary for natural soils
50
40
X
UJ
Q
t 30
o
ico
Q_
20
10
7
MHorOH
4
TO
30
50
LIQUID LIMIT
70
90
110
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
NATURAL
WATER
CONTENT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
uses
Borings
B-2 / S-3
4' - 6 '
12.6%
22.0
31.5
9.5
CL
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Client: Fairmount Properties

Project: U of R College Town
Project No.: RE-11-038
Plate
11-902
Particle Size Distribution Report

c
'.~
'~ 3
S s
N!
100
r
1 \B
90
^ X,
<
\ vw.
Vs
80
-4,
-,
4
70
D
LJJ
h-
z.
LLJ
O
C
LLJ
CL
\\T
>
60
~Z.
U_
50
40
30
l\s
^*.
20
10
0
500
100
% COBBLES
10
% GRAVEL
8.0
0.0
0.1
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% SAND
19.3
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC*
PASS?
SIZE
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
100.0
94.9
92.6
92.1
92.0
87.8
87.2
86.3
79.8
77.7
72.7
0.01
% SILT
45.9
0.001
% CLAY
26.8
Soil Description
Silt, Some Clay, Little Sand, Trace Fine Gravel
PL= 22.0
D85^ 0.388
D 30 = 0.0065
Cu-
Atterberq Limits
LL= 31.5
Coefficients
D60= 0.0430
D15=
Cc-
P|= 9.5
D 50 = 0.0283
D 10 =
Classification
USCS^ CL
AASHTO=
Remarks
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: B-2/S-3

Location: B-2/S-3
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-06-2011
4' - 6'

Project: U of R College Town .
Project No: RE-11-038
Plate
11-902

100
90
'V
X.
80
>v
N
^' '"
70
<c s,
xv
a:
LU
iZ
iLJJ
O
Q:
UJ
CL
Y-,
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
% SAND
0.0
18.1
24.0
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
1 in.
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
89.3
85.9
83.1
81.9
77.4
74.0
71.5
' 68.5
65.2
57.9
% SILT
% CLAY
57.9
Soil Description
Fines, Some Sand, Little Fine Gravel
PL=
Atterberq Limits
LL=
Pl=
Coefficients
\_s* .
1'f^
uscs=
Classification
AASHTO=
L-<
Remarks
Sample No.: B-2/S-6

Location: B-2/S-6
Source of Sample: Borings
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-6-2011
10' - 12'

Project No: RE-1 1-038
Plate
11-903

50
LIQUID LIMIT
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
SOIL DATA
NATURAL
WATER
CONTENT
Borings
B-2/S-8
20' - 22'
10.3%
SJB
SERVICES,INC.
PLASTIC
LIMIT
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
uses
11.6
21.4
9.8
CL

Plate
11-904

.ID
. . - . v
pj 03
n r j ^ - - - n S
~-
100
**
^ ^ _
t t i t f t
y-j
5
,_ ,_, fj
t t w i t
\,
t
V'
90
'N
sV
>
_ ^
30
PERCENTFINER
70
>\
60
50
40
KN,
30
t\S
X
20
10
0
500
100
10
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
0.0
8.6
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
FINER
100.0
100.0
97.0
91.4
83.2
82.6
80.2
77.5
71.9
67.7
PERCENT
(X=NO)
no
#40
#60
#100
#200
0.1
0.01
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% SAND
23.7
% SILT
0.001
% CLAY
20.2
47.5
Soil Description
Silt, Some Sand, Little Clay, Trace Gravel
Atterberq Limits
PL= 11.6
LL= 21.4
Pl= 9.8
D85= 2.91
D30= 0.0127
Coefficients
D60= 0.0538
D-|5= 0.0026
D 50 = 0.0382
DIQ=
Cy=
CQ=
USCS= CL
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
Sample No.: B-2/S-8

Location: B-2/S-8
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-6-2011
20' -22'

Plate
11-904

*x
100
'
^\
90
80
70
cc
60
LU
\L
H
50
LJJ
O
LJJ
D_
40
30
20
10
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
0.0
0.0
% SAND
52.8
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
FINER
100.0
100.0
99.9
97.3
73.7
47.2
PERCENT
(X=NO)
% SILT
% CLAY
47.2
Soil Description
Sand and Fines
PL=
Atterberq Limits
LL=
P!=
Coefficients
D85= 0.193
USCS^
D60= 0.107
D15=
cc~
D50= 0.0811
D10=
Classification
AASHTO^
Remarks
Sample No.: B-2/S-14

Location: B-2/S-14
Source of Sample:
Borings
Date: 12-6-2011
Elev./Depth: 50' - 52'
SJB
SERVICES, INC. ProjectNo:
RE-11-038
Plate
11-906

L
100
90
i
i
80
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
-f
30
20
10
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
0.0
0.0
% SAND
63.0
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
FINER
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.3
90.2
61.5
37.0
PERCENT
(X=NO)
% SILT
% CLAY
37.0
Soil Description
Sand and Fines
Atterberq Limits
PL=
LL=
Pl=
D85= 0.224
D60= 0.146
D-,s=
Coefficients
D50= 0.116
D10=
Classification
USCS=
AASHTO^
Remarks
Sample No.: B-2/S-15

Location: B-2/S-15
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-6-2011
55' -57'

Plate
11-905

U)
!M
" . - . -
JS
100
90
80
\
\
^V
70
K.
LJJ
^:
st
60
LL
1z.
\0 10
,
*
50
LJJ
O
tf.
LJJ
Q_
40
30
20
10
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
0.0
% GRAVEL
0.0
% SAND
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
. #4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
% SILT
42.7
0.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.8
99.7
% CLAY
57.0
Soil Description
Clay and Silt, Trace Sand
PL-
Atterberq Limits
LL=
P!=
Coefficients
D 50 = 0.0038
D85= 0.0453
D 30 = 0.0012
^U~
D60= 0.0057
D15=
^C"
uscs=
Classification
AASHTO^
D10=
Remarks
Sample No.: B-22

Location: B-22
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Date: 12-13-2011
Elev./Depth: 80' -82'

Plate
11-931
LIQUID AND PLASTKS IslftllTS TEST REPORT

50
LIQUID LIMIT
90
110
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
Borings
(ft-)
NATURAL
WATER
CONTENT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
uses
6' - 8 '
11.0%
19.0
20.5
1.5
ML
SAMPLE
DEPTH
NO.
B-9/S-4
SJB
SERVICES. INC.

Project No.: RE-11-Q38
Plate
11-925
F3article Size Distribution Report

c
C
bC
>
!-j
100
f^
.-
in
90
80
V
^. ^
$ **^
= t t S 3
*.
<
^
PERCENT FINER
70
60
\_
50
40
30
20
10
0
500
100
% COBBLES
0.0
SIEVE
SIZE
2 in.
1.5 in.
lin.
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
10
0.1
0.01
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% SAND
% GRAVEL
16.8
% SILT
SPEC*
PASS?
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
% CLAY
57.1
26.1
PERCENT
0.001
Soil Description
Fines, Some Sand, Little Gravel
100.0
100.0
100.0
89.8
87.5
86.5
83.9
83.2
80.9
79.1
77.6
74.6
69.0
57.1
PL= 19.0
Atterberq Limits
LL= 20.5
D85= 7.60
USCS= ML
Coefficients
D60= 0.0876
D-|5=
PI= 1.5
D 50 D-io=
Classification
AASHTO^
Remarks

Sample No.: B-9/S-4
Location: B-9/S-4
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-13-2011
6' - 8'

Project No:
RE-11-03S
Plate
11-925

60

50
40
X
LU
Q
30
h-
co
5
CL
20
10
7
MHorOH
10
50
30
70
90
110
LIQUID LIMIT
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
Borings
SAMPLE
NO.
B-9/S-7
DEPTH
(ft.)
NATURAL
WATER
CONTENT
15' -17'
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
1 (%)
uses
(%)
PLASTIC
LIMIT
(%)
10.5%
15.3
19.7
4.4
CL-ML

Plate
11-926

c
^
_c
c.
100
. .
.s .
7 - - 5 C 5 S
-:
- m
i-
-T
a
it
!t
S
a *
Q Q
=tt
?
a
S
a
\-
90
80
*
^ *.
~. .
PERCENT FINER
70
< **
60
\V
50
40
30
20
10
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% SAND
% GRAVEL
24.8
0.0
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
2 in.
1.5 in.
1 in.
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
100.0
100.0
80.5
80.5
80.5
77.8
76.5
75.2
72.1
69.5
67.7
65.7
60.3
52.5
% CLAY
52.5
22.7
SIEVE
#200
% SILT
Soil Description
Fines, Some Gravel, Some Sand
PL= 15.3
Atterberq Limits
LL= 19.7
D85- 29.2
D30-
Coefficients
D60= 0.146
0-15=
USCS= CL-ML
Classification
AASHTO=
Pl= 4.4
D50=
D 10 =
cu=
Remarks
Sample No.: B-9/S-7

Location: B-9/S-7
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
ElevJDepth:
12-13-2011
15'- 17'

Plate
11-926

60

50
40
Ul
Q
30
h-
5
20
10
7
or OH
10
30
50
LIQUID LIMIT
70
90
110
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
SOURCE
SAMPLE
NO.
Borings
B-9/S-9
DEPTH
(ft.)
NATURAL
WATER
CONTENT
(%)
PLASTIC
LIMIT
(%)
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
(%)
uses
25' - 27'
12.0%
14.0
24.7
10.7
CL
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT Client: Fairmount Properties

SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Plate
11-927

FC
,E
.E
'^
(O
^.
100
,-.
.c
->
--^
^.
90
XX
80
s _,
70
o:
LLJ
-z.
60
LL
50
LJJ
O
cc
111
Q_
40
30
20
10
0
500
TOO
10
0.1
0.001
0.01
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
% SAND
0.0
3.2
19.8
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3/4
1/2
3/8
1/4
in.
in.
in.
in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
,#60
#100
'#200
100.0
100.0
98.0
97.1
96.8
94.3
92.1
90.4
88.4
85.4
77.0
% SILT
% CLAY
77.0
Soil Description
Fines, Little Sand, Trace Gravel
PL= 14.0
Atterberq Limits
LL= 24.7
Pl= 10.7
Coefficients
D85= 0.143
USCS= CL
Classification
AASHTO
Remarks
Sample No.: B-9/S-9

Location: B-9/S-9
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date: 12-13-2011

P roj ect: U of R College Town
Plate
11-927

MH or OH
50
LIQUID LIMIT
SOIL DATA
SYMBOL
110
90
I SOURCE
Borings
SAMPLE
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
NATURAL
WATER
CONTENT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
uses
B-14
on
C"M
oU1 - o2.
17.3%
15.8
23.1
7.3
CL-ML
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT Client: Fairmount Properties

SJB
SERVICES, INC,
Plate
11-936

c
. .
\H
100
90
VHV
__j-
^*
v- ~<SJ^
80
70
60
UJ
tZ
H
50
LJJ
o
cr
UJ
D_
40
30
20
10
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
% SAND
0.0
8.7
3.7
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
lin.
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
100.0
91.6
91.6
91.6
91.6
91.3
91.1
90.6
90.2
89.6
88.9
87.6
% SILT
% CLAY
87.6
Soil Description
Fines, Trace Gravel, Trace Sand
PL= 15.8
Atterberq Limits
LL= 23.1
PN 7.3
Coefficients
DSO-
Cu-
Classification
USCS= CL-ML
AASHTO=
Remarks
Sample No.: B-14

Location: B-14
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date: 12-13-2011
ElevJDepth: 80' -82'

Plate
11-936

d
^c
100
90
9 "-.
^
80
70
en
LJJ
LT
1LJJ
O
CC
LJJ
Q.
60
50
40
30
20
10
500
100
10
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
0.0
2.0
0.1
0.01
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% SAND
%S!LT
16.1
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
SIZE
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
100.0
98.5
98.0
96.0
94.5
93.3
91.0
88.2
81.9
0.001
%CLAY
81.9
Soil Description
PL-
Atterberq Limits
LL-
Pi-
Coefficients
D85- 0.102
D?5=
USCS-
D^Q-
Classification
AASHTO
Remarks
Sample No.: B-22

Location: B-22
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-13-2011
8' -10'

Plate
11-928

fV
C
m i v
.^
t o
51
&
90
80
It
'
'
100
"^
\
\
PERCENT FINER
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
% SAND
0.0
0.0
42.7
SIEVE
SIZE
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
PERCENT
FINER
100,0
99.9
99.8
99,6
98.5
92,1
57,3
SPEC*
PASS?
PERCENT
(X=NO)
% SILT
% CLAY
57.3
Soil Description
Fines and Sand
PL=
Atterberq Limits
LL=
D3tr
cu=
Coefficients
D60= 0.0784
p15cc~
uscs=
Classification
AASHTO=
D85= 0.124
PiD50=
D10=
Remarks
Sample No.: B-22

Location: B-22
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date: 12-13-2011

Plate
11-929

CD
*-
100
rt
T*
/q
"d->"
^fc
"
90
80
&
ifc
It
tt
.
c * A
70
60
LU
LL
H
LJJ
O
CC
LLJ
Q_
50
40
30
20
10
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
0.0
2.2
SIEVE
SIZE
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
% SAND
18.6
PERCENT
SPEC,*
PASS?
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
100.0
98.4
97.8
95.2
93.4
92.2
90.6
87.5
79.2
% SILT
% CLAY
79.2
Soil Description
PL=
Atterberq Limits
LL=
Pl=
Coefficients
D85- 0.118
USCS=
Classification
AASHTO
Remarks
Sample No.: B-22

Location: B-22
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date: 12-13-2011

Plate
11-930

j~
-s
10
.
n
. S
-s 5
5 i
*
&
p j ^ c - j ^ n
S
a
t t
S S
w t t
f t
2
1
a t e a
100
90
80
70
o;
LU
\,
60
^vy
-L
^
LU
o
50
sr
^b
^k.
^S
UJ 40
Q.
rs
"s
^~
s,
30
20
xl
-^
10
0
500
100
% COBBLES
0.0
SIEVE
SIZE
1.5 in.
1 in.
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
10
% GRAVEL
48.6
PERCENT
FINER
0.1
SPEC*
PASS?
PERCENT
(X=NO)
0.001
0.01
GRAIN SIZE -mm

%SAND
30.1
% SILT
% CLAY
21.3
Soil Description
Gravel, Some Sand, Some Fines
100.0
76.4
68.1
60.1
57.5
54.8
51.4
43.8
38.6
34.9
32.0
26.3
21.3
Atterberq Limits
PL-
D 8 5= 30.1
D30= 0.206
cu~
uscs=
LL=
Pl=
Coefficients
D60= 12.6
D15=
D50= 4.20
D10=
CQ-
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks

Sample No.: B-22
Location: B-22
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-13-2011
95' - 97'

Plate
11-932

S
is -1
7^
"
i^^ i 1 |
100
Si
5 5 3
sc
^
$> *-.*.
-c
90
" r --\
^.*
80
"C
70
D:
60
LLJ
~z.
LL
~z. 50
LU
O
CC
LU 40
Q_
30
20
10
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% COBBLES
0.0
% GRAVEL
7.3
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
100.0
100.0
96.8
95.0
93.3
92.7
89.5
87.0
84.5
81.2
70.2
64.2
PERCENT
(X=NO)
lin.
3/4 in.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
% SILT
% SAND
28.5
% CLAY
64.2
Soil Description
Fines, Some Sand, Trace Gravel
PL=
Atterberq Limits
LL^
Pl=
Coefficients
D85- 0.503
DSO=
CU-
DGO-
D50=
D-I5Cc=
D 10 ^
Classification
USCS=
AASHTORemarks

Sample No.: B-14
Location: B-14
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
EIev./Depth:
12-13-2011
8' - 10'

Plate
11-934

N
,E
.:
100
90
K c ^
~* *-.
^-*
80
N
~
70
^SV
V.
0
LU 60
2
J_
2 50
LJJ
O
cr
LJJ
Q_
40
30
20
10
i
i
0
500
100
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm

% GRAVEL
% COBBLES
13.3
0.0
% SILT
% SAND
23.9
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC*
PASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
1 in.
3/4 In.
1/2 in.
3/8 in.
1/4 in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
100.0
100.0
93.4
90.2
87.6
86.7
83.9
81.4
79.7
77.5
68.3
62.8
% CLAY
62.8
Soil Description
Fines, Some Sand, Little Gravel
Atterberq Limits
D85: 2.79
Coefficients
D60-
050=
Cc=
uscs=
Classification
AASHTO=
Remarks
Sample No.: B-14

Location: B-14
Source of Sample:
SJB
SERVICES, INC.
Borings
Date:
Elev./Depth:
12-13-2011
15' -17'
Client: Fail-mount Properties

Plate
11-935
APPENDIX F
FILL MATERIAL AND
EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX F
FILL MATERIAL AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Material Recommendations
A.
Structural Fill
Structural Fill should consist of a crusher run stone, free of clay, organics and friable
or deleterious particles. As a minimum, the crusher stone, should meet the
requirements of New York State Department of Transportation, Standard
Specifications, Item 304.12 Type 2 Subbase, with the following gradation
requirements.
Sieve Size
Distribution
2 inch
inch
No. 40
No. 200
B.
Percent Finer
by Weight
100
25-60
5-40
0-10
Subbase Stone
The subbase stone course placed as the aggregate course beneath slab on grade and
pavement construction should conform to the same material requirements as
Structural Fill as stated above.
C.
Suitable Granular Fill

Suitable soil material, well graded from coarse to fine and classified as GW, GP,
GM, SW, SP and SM soils using the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) and having no more than 85- percent by weight material passing the No. 4
sieve, no more than 20- percent by weight material passing the No. 200 sieve and
which is generally free of particles greater than 6 inches, will be acceptable as
Suitable Granular Fill. It should also be free of topsoil, asphalt, concrete rubble,
wood, debris, clay and other deleterious materials. Suitable Granular Fill can be
used as foundation backfill and as subgrade fill to raise site grades beneath slab-ongrade and pavement construction.
Material meeting the requirements of New York State Department of
Transportation, Standard Specifications, Item 203.07 Select Granular Fill is
acceptable for use as Suitable Granular Fill.
F-1
II.
Placement and Compaction Requirements

Structural Fill placed beneath foundations should be compacted to dense stable matrix,
where its total thickness over the indigenous soil subgrades is 1 foot or less, and to a
minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as measured by the modified Proctor
test (ASTM D1557), where its total thickness will exceed 1 foot. All controlled fill placed
beneath slab-on-grade and pavement construction and beneath utilities should be compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as measured by the modified
Proctor test (ASTM D1557). Fill placed in non-loaded grass areas can be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D1557).
Placement of fill should not exceed a maximum loose lift thickness of 6 to 9 inches with the
exception of subgrade undercuts and the subbase courses beneath slab on grade and
pavement construction, which can be placed in a single or initial lift not exceeding 15
inches. The loose lift thickness should be reduced in conjunction with the compaction
equipment used so that the required density is attained.
Fill should have a moisture content within two percent of the optimum moisture content
prior to compaction. Subgrades should be properly drained and protected from moisture and
frost. Placement of fill on frozen subgrades is not acceptable. It is recommended that all
fill placement and compaction be monitored and tested by a representative of Empire GeoServices, Inc.
III.
Quality Assurance Testing

The following minimum laboratory and field quality assurance testing frequencies are
recommended to confirm fill material quality and post placement and compaction
conditions. These minimum frequencies are based on generally uniform material properties
and placement conditions. Should material properties vary or conditions at the time of
placement vary (i.e. moisture content, placement and compaction, procedures or equipment,
etc.) Then additional testing is recommended. Additional testing, which may be necessary,
should be determined by qualified geotechnical personnel, based on evaluation of the actual
fill material and construction conditions.
A.
Laboratory Testing of Material Properties
Moisture content (ASTM D-2216) - 1 test per 4000 cubic yards or no less than 2
tests per each material type.
Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D-422) - 1 test per 4000 cubic yards or no less than
2 tests per each material type.
F-2
B.
Liquid and Plastic Limits (ASTM D-4318) 1 test per 4000 cubic yards or no less
than 2 tests per each material type. Liquid and Plastic Limit testing is necessary
only if appropriate, based on material composition (i.e. clayey or silty soils).
Modified Proctor Moisture Density Relationship (ASTM D-1557) 1 test per

4000 cubic yards or no less than 1 test per each material type. A
maximum/minimum density relationship (ASTM D-4253 and ASTM D-4254)
may be an appropriate substitute for ASTM D-1557 depending on material
gradation.
Field In-Place Moisture/Density Testing (ASTM D-3017 and ASTM D-2922)
Backfilling along trenches and foundation walls - 1 test per 50 lineal feet per lift.
Backfilling Isolated Excavations (i.e. column foundations, manholes, etc.) 1 test

per lift.
Filling in open areas for slab-on-grade and pavement construction - 1 test per
2500 square feet per lift.
F-3
APPENDIX G
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LIMITATIONS
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LIMITATIONS
Empire Geo-Services, Inc. (Empire) has endeavored to meet the generally accepted standard of care for the
services completed, and in doing so is obliged to advise the geotechnical report user of our report limitations.
Empire believes that providing information about the report preparation and limitations is essential to help the
user reduce geotechnical-related delays, cost over-runs, and other problems that can develop during the design
and construction process. Empire would be pleased to answer any questions regarding the following limitations
and use of our report to assist the user in assessing risks and planning for site development and construction.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FACTORS: The conclusions and recommendations provided in our geotechnical
report were prepared based on project specific factors described in the report, such as size, loading, and
intended use of structures; general configuration of structures, roadways, and parking lots; existing and
proposed site grading; and any other pertinent project information. Changes to the project details may alter the
factors considered in development of the report conclusions and recommendations. Accordingly, Empire
cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if we are not consulted regarding any changes to
the project specific factors that were assumed during the report preparation.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS: The site exploration investigated subsurface conditions only at discrete test
locations. Empire has used judgement to infer subsurface conditions between the discrete test locations, and on
this basis the conclusions and recommendations in our geotechnical report were developed. It should be
understood that the overall subsurface conditions inferred by Empire may vary from those revealed during
construction, and these variations may impact on the assumptions made in developing the report conclusions
and recommendations. For this reason, Empire should be retained during construction to confirm that
conditions are as expected, and to refine our conclusions and recommendations in the event that conditions are
encountered that were not disclosed during the site exploration program.
USE OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Unless indicated otherwise, our geotechnical report has been
prepared for the use of our client for specific application to the site and project conditions described in the
report. Without consulting with Empire, our geotechnical report should not be applied by any party to other
sites or for any uses other than those originally intended.
CHANGES IN SITE CONDITIONS: Surface and subsurface conditions are subject to change at a project
site subsequent to preparation of the geotechnical report. Changes may include, but are not limited to, floods,
earthquakes, groundwater fluctuations, and construction activities at the site and/or adjoining properties.
Empire should be informed of any such changes to determine if additional investigative and/or evaluation work
is warranted.
MISINTERPRETATION OF REPORT: The conclusions and recommendations contained in our
geotechnical report are subject to misinterpretation. To limit this possibility, Empire should review project
plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues to confirm that the recommendations contained in our
report have been properly interpreted and applied.
Subsurface exploration logs and other report data are also subject to misinterpretation by others if they are
separated from the geotechnical report. This often occurs when copies of logs are given to contractors during
the bid preparation process. To minimize the potential for misinterpretation, the subsurface logs should not be
separated from our geotechnical report and the use of excerpted or incomplete portions of the report should be
avoided.
OTHER LIMITATIONS: Geotechnical engineering is less exact than other design disciplines, as it is based
partly on judgement and opinion. For this reason, our geotechnical report may include clauses that identify the
limits of Empires responsibility, or that may describe other limitations specific to a project. These clauses are
intended to help all parties recognize their responsibilities and to assist them in assessing risks and decision
making. Empire would be pleased to discuss these clauses and to answer any questions that may arise.

C. Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

C. Geotechnical Evaluation Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ExhibitC

SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 2

CURRENT SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM.................................................. 3

LAYOUT AND SURVEY OF EXPLORATORY LOCATIONS ............................... 3.

MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS ............................................................... 5

FIELD HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING ................................................. 5

TEST PITS ............................................................................................................ 5

GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION AND LOGGING .................................................. 5

LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................. 6

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 7

ASPHALT, TOPSOIL AND FILL SOILS ................................................................ 7

INDIGENOUS SOILS ............................................................................................ 8

GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 13

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPREAD FOUNDATIONS ..................................... 15

RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATIONS ............................. 17

SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOOR DESIGN .................................................................... 18

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR SUBSURFACE WALL DESIGN.............. 19

FOUNDATION DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFING/DAMPROOFING ............ 20

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 21

PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................................ 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 24

CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................................ 29

A parking Lot consisting of 147 parking spaces;

2.20 TEST BORINGS

2.30 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATIONS

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) based on a visual/manual estimation of

Organic content in accordance with ASTM D-2974 Moisture, Ash, and

Natural moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 2216 Standard

Grain size analyses (sieve hydrometer analysis) in general accordance with

Atterberg Limit Tests in general accordance with ASTM D4318-Standard

Rock Core Compressive Strength Testing in general accordance with ASTM

The laboratory test data is presented in Appendix E, and summarized below, in

ft bgs = feet below existing ground surface.

Summary of Piezometric Water Levels in Observation Wells

groundwater could be encountered where existing fill extends below the

coating to help limit potential corrosion action from these surrounding

Floor slabs constructed as slab-on-grade can be designed using a modulus of

(https://geohazards.usgs.gov/secure/designmaps/us/). The accelerations are based

Light Duty Asphalt Concrete Pavement (Automobile Only Parking Areas):

1.5 inches - Top Course

1.5 inches - Top Course

Foundation excavations should be backfilled as soon as possible and prior to

5.90.4 Pile Supported Foundation Construction

SJB SERVICES, INC.

6/12 12/18 18/24

Mount Hope Ave

Grades to trace gravel

Grades to Some Gravel (Moist-Wet)

Driller notes 4" of

G.W. DEPTH See Notes

Brown Clayey SILT, Some Gravel, trace sand

Brown SILT, little fine sand (Wet, Firm, ML)

DRILL RIG TYPE :

ASTM D-1585 Using Hollow Stem Augers

SJB SERVICES, INC.

G.W. DEPTH See Notes

6/12 12/18 18/24

Mount Hope Ave

Brown fine SAND and SILT (Wet, Loose)

Gray SILT, little fine sand (Wet, Very Loose, ML)

Gray Clayey SILT, trace sand (Moist-Wet, Very Soft, ML)

Brown fine SAND, Some Silt, Some Gravel