Document 71xoMBrBwkjV4prYmDvJkEx1E

Region 6 Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division INSPECTION REPORT [ Inspection Date(s)_:___ 'Media: Regulatory Prowam(s) : 10/10/2017 Water Clean Water Act ------ ------------------------ --- ----- -------- Company Name: Facility Name: Facility Physical Location: ---(city, state, zip code) Mailing ad dress: (city, state, zip code) County/Parish: . Facility Contact; - City of New Iberia Sewerage District #1 of Iberia Parish & City of New Iberia -Tete Bayou WWTP <OO Parker Street New Iberia, LA 70560 BOO Sucrose Drive New Iberia, LA 70560 Iberia Parish : Vince Palumbo I 337-359-2362 : Director I Albert J, lewis/ Dove Environmental-Operational Manager I 337-359-2376 FRS Number: Identification/Permit Number: Media Number: NAICS: SIC: 110001253429 LA0065251 I Al#30581 I 221320 4952 Personnel participating in inspection: Michael Williams EPA /6EN-WMH Shane Miller LDEQ Albert J. lewis Dove !Onvlronmental Barry C. Segura Statewide Electrical Inspector Inspector Operation Manager sewer District Rep 281-983-ZlSO 505-366-8402 337-369-2376 337-364-986'1 EPA Lead Inspector Signature/Date Supervisor Signature/Date I I ,,,,.,......Mo'""""~' MICHAEL WILLI AM S <"n"=M-DI'I','E"',"W'tL''M~I">".d'".'C:"u~a'!:"&'~:'x'l"l~":'w"l)" JMichael D. Williams '"'"""~"~""""""'"' . I cr!~,~~w~ Carol Peters Date ' I i ' I '-/11'//7 I Date I I City of New Iberia I Parish- Tete Bayou WWTP (LA0065251) New Iberia, LA Inspection Date 10/10/2017 Section I- Introduction PURPOSE OF THE INSPECTION EPA Region 6 inspector, Michael Williams, arrived at Sewer District #1 of Iberia Parish and City of New Iberia-Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). at 9:25am on October 10, 2017 for an unannounced inspection. LDEQ inspector, Shane Miller were present and assisted with the inspection. We met with Albert J. Lewis, Operations Manager. I presented my credentials to Albert and informed him that this was an EPA lead inspection to determine compliance with the Clean Water Act and the 2005 Consent Decree. The scope of the inspection was with permit LA0065251, the facility operation and maintenance under the Clean Water Act. The information presented in this report is based on the materials and information supplied by the City of New Iberia, Iberia Parish, representatives (the permittee), observation during the inspection and records and reports maintained by the permittee. FACILITY DESCRIPTION Sewer District #1 of Iberia Parish and City of New Iberia-Tete Bayou WWTP is located in New Iberia, LA. The plant is an activated sludge process. The plant consists of one grit removal chamber, bar screen, 4 aeration basins, 2 secondary clarifiers, 2 chlorine chambers, digester, dewatering facility with belt press that also receives solids from the city's other treatment plant. The plant also has an equalization lagoon for wet weather events. The design flow for the plant is 2.5 MGD. The plant is currently under a Consent Decree. Section II- Observations This inspection revealed the following observations: As ofthe day of the inspection, the City of New Iberia appeared to be in compliance with their consent decree. Corrections to record keeping noted during the last inspection were completed. The city has not done any physical work to the equalization pond that has erosion. The equalization ponds were originally built between 2004 thru 2005 to comply with The City of New Iberia consent decree. The erosion has not caused a breech in the pond that would have resulted in a bypass or excursion. Without addressing the issue, it may cause a discharge or bypass during a wet weather event in the future. The City does need to be proactive in addressing the issue to ensure no breech ever occurs. The city has hired Domingue Szabo & Associates INC who evaluated the erosion problem this year. The study also provided options to repair or replace and the potential cost of each (see Appendix 1). The city is currently evaluating each option and no final decision has been concluded. On the day of the inspection one clarifier was out of service. The bearing and center shaft was broken. The unit has been out of service since September 1, 2017. The facility estimated to have the unit back in service towards the end of November 2017. The chlorine chamber was full of solids on the day of the inspection and the same issue was observed during the last inspection. 2 City of New Iberia/ Iberia Parish Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Inspection Date 10/10/2017 Appendix 1 - Domingue Szabo & Associates INC , Equalization Basin Report STUDY & REPORT ON TETE BAYOU WWTP EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE FAILURES Prepared For The City of New Iberia & Iberia Parish Sewerage District No. 1 Prepared By ABCD December, 2017 ^ 12-7-2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS STUDY & REPORT ON TETE BAYOU WWTP EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE FAILURES Title I. Executive Summary II. Introduction III. Scope of Report A. Purpose B. Procedures IV. Observations A. Compilation of Existing Information B. Field Work - Surveys & Geotechnical V. Evaluation of Existing Levee Condition A. Slope Failures - History & Current Conditions B. O & M Issues C. Function and Risks of inaction D. Geotechnical Engineering Report VI. Comparison of Alternatives & Recommendations A. List of Options B. Schematics of Various Solutions C. Discussion of Alternatives D. Concept Level Cost Analyses E. Permits and Regulatory Compliance F. Discussion of Advantages/Disadvantages of Options G. Recommendations VII. Conclusions VIII. Discussion of Cost Estimate of Recommended Option IX. Photographs Engineering Drawings & Exhibits A. Existing Site Plan (from Survey Topo) B. Existing Cross Sections C. Aerial Photo D. Schematic Plan - Option 1 E. Schematic Plan - Option 2 F. Aerial Photo Showing Spool Area G. Typical Levee Repair Section H. Table of Option Comparisons X. Appendix - Geotechnical Engineering Report I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Domingue, Szabo & Associates, Inc. (DS&A hereafter) has contracted with the City of New Iberia, LA (City hereafter) to study and evaluate the failures occurring at the Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Equalization Basin for the purpose of determining options for repairs or reconstruction to correct the current and ongoing problems being experienced with the levees of the Basin. A scope of the study requested is included in the Contract between DSA and City. Note that ownership of the Equalization Basin is a joint ownership arrangement between two government entities - the City of New Iberia and the Iberia Parish Sewerage District No. 1 (IPSD #1, a Department of the Iberia Parish Government). George Glaubrecht and Chris Richard, (DS&A) met with City of New Iberia, Wastewater Department Director Vince Palumbo, and Anita Boudreaux, Executive Director of Iberia Parish Sewerage District No. 1, to discuss existing conditions, need for improvements, and past history of construction and reports related to the problem area. DS&A subsequently met in the field with the City's selected Geotechnical Engineers (Eustis Engineering, represented by Shaun Simon) to discuss the study and report further and request documents resulting from past designs and investigation of the levees due to past failures. DS&A requested and received old plans and specifications, past failure reports, and some (not all documentation was available) construction documentation related to original construction of the Basin and subsequent repair construction undertaken in response to failures in the original Basin levees. The failure report by Site Engineering (not the geotechnical engineering firm for the original construction) briefly summarized findings of that firm based on work they were apparently hired by the Parish to perform in conjunction with observed levee problems that arose sometime after the completion of the original construction. Field and investigative work included DS&A and Eustis Engineering performing a visual site inspection of surface conditions of the levees and the taking of photographs initially. Subsequently, DS&A subcontracted with Paul C. Prince, LLC to perform a topographic survey of the Basin and gather cross section information on the levees for use by the geotechnical engineers in studying and evaluating the observed failures. The topographic and cross section survey information is incorporated into several of the Engineering drawings and exhibits that are part of this report. Analyses of the soils and survey data along with historical information provided by Client were used to develop an opinion on the causes of the recurring failures and to propose options for remedial measures to address the problems being experienced. This Study discusses an option for completely reconstructing the levee features of the Basin and an option for partial reconstruction of the worst areas of the levees in a phased manner. The recommended option to reconstruct the levees completely, while the least risky of options, is also the most costly option. The option of reconstructing or partially reconstructing only portions of the levees would be less costly initially but would be more risky and would carry some of the same risks as earlier repairs which eventually failed. Geotechnical Engineers weren't able to model the failure mechanisms at first using the tested shear strengths. This led them to adjust assumptions such that the soil was in a weakened state and that this was a contributing factor in the failures. Having the shape of the failure zones, survey data, old aerial data, etc. allowed the Geotechnical Engineers to model those failures and back their way into a set of weakened soil parameters. The stability berm was then sized using those parameters so that the entire levee section wouldn't have to be degraded back to original grade. A higher factor of safety was not applied due to any uncertainty. The Geotechnical Engineers were able to model the failures (Factor of Safety of 1.0) using weakened soil parameters and the available data and then they were able to develop a solution to provide for the required factor of safety of 1.4. Unfortunately, the science of these types of earthen structures is somewhat inexact and "factors of safety" provide an indication of the relative assurance of the success of each type of repair or reconstruction. Lower factors of safety indicate higher risk and greater likelihood of future problems. The matter is one of balancing costs with risks. This report recommends the complete reconstruction due to the past experience and likelihood of future failures associated with partial repairs and/or reconstructions. That being said, while the Geotechnical Engineers do not recommend re-use of existing levee materials (even that which was brought in for repairs subsequent to original construction), there may be some compromises which the Owners can make to further reduce costs while increasing risks. During Final Planning, if the Options presented in this report are still beyond budget constraints, the Owners may decide to forego removal of top of levee section in unfailed areas. Geotechnical Engineers are of the opinion that if you place the stability berms in areas that haven't failed, there isn't an immediate need to replace the upper levee material. This is based on a number of assumptions, the most significant being that those upper levee materials are in an unfailed, stable, and sound condition. If those materials are left in place after the berms are installed, there is a risk that the levees experience upper levee failures resulting from erosion type mechanisms. There may be erosion valleys in the face of the levee not seen through the grass. There may be roots or other embedded weak areas. So while there might not be a large type failure the upper levee areas may still need repair. This results in a "fix now or fix later" issue that has significant cost association. DSA is also concerned that there may be a perception issue where the Owners may assume that there will be no more issues once the berms are in place. If these types of repairs are considered for further cost savings, Owners will have to understand that there may be issues if the upper materials are not replaced. Geotechnical Engineers feel that these would be more maintenance type, surficial repairs, than large failures. They would, however, represent additional costs, possibly at inopportune times. If the upper materials don't have any of the above issues (it is difficult to know given the limited testing and scope of this report), the stability berms should solve the problem. The stability berms solve the problem using the soils in a weakened state, so any improvements to a failed section only makes the factor of safety higher. Conceptual phase project cost for the option recommended in this report is estimated at $9.4 Million. Costs can be adjusted by making modifications to the scope of the work and will require further adjustment based on more detailed information as the project scope is better defined in the formal planning and design phases. Once the recommendations or parts of the recommendations of this report are agreed upon or otherwise established by the affected governmental entities (Iberia Parish Sewerage District No. 1 and the City of New Iberia), the Consultant should be instructed to conduct field work and prepare preliminary plans for the construction required to address the general goals outlined as a result of the pre-design meetings. Further meetings and review of those documents should proceed toward the end result of preparing a final approvable set of Construction Contract Documents. The Design Process should not commence until there is agreement on the final scope, project scheduling, and the funding requirements associated with the work anticipated by pre-design agreements. It is important to note that a formal, structured program of inspection and ongoing maintenance of levees is critical to maintaining the integrity of the levees. This will be no different after improvements are constructed. Cutting of grass on the slopes, maintenance of observed erosion issues and operations related to water levels and the speed of drawdowns are all critical to long term performance of the levees. The appropriate government entity (City of New Iberia or Iberia Parish Sewerage District No. 1) should implement a formal inspection and maintenance program to help ensure that these measures are reliably followed on a periodic and ongoing basis. II. INTRODUCTION The observations, information gathering, analyses and resulting report are intended to give the City a general idea of the causes of existing levee problems at the Tete Bayou WWTP Equalization Basin and to explore possible solutions to observed problems. The report is also intended to outline risks and costs associated with possible solutions and to summarize the process for implementing planned improvements with regard to ongoing use of the Basin for its intended purpose while repairs or reconstruction are underway. No formal detailed designs were performed for this report. DS&A relied on copies of plans, specifications, reports and other information on the existing Equalization Basin facility provided by the City of New Iberia; IPSD #1; Freyou, Moore and Assoc., Inc.; Site Engineering, Inc.; Louisiana Testing and Inspection, Inc.; and various other inspection reports and correspondence for an overview of the existing facilities and augmented that information with field data collected by DS&A, Eustis Engineering, and Paul C. Prince, LLC. specifically for this report. Included in the report are engineering drawings and narrative descriptions of possible remedies to the observed or anticipated problems. Detailed plans, specifications and contract documents should be prepared if the City and IPSD #1 decide to proceed with the recommended reconstruction or repairs. The attached drawings are for informational purposes and are intended to convey a general approach to solving problems and addressing the current problems. These drawings are the basis for the concept level construction cost estimates included in this report. More refined details, calculations, and formal documents are required for actual construction. Estimates based on formal drawings will, of course, be more accurate. III. SCOPE OF REPORT A. Purpose A scope of the study requested is included in the Contract between DSA and The City of New Iberia. In general, the purpose of the study is to evaluate the levee failures at the Tete Bayou WWTP Equalization Basin in Iberia Parish for the purpose of determining options for modifications or reconstruction to address the problems currently being experienced with that facility. The following paragraphs discuss the specific scope items in more detail. B. Procedures Investigate existing levee problems: The study contract requires investigation of the levee failures (slope stability) at the existing Equalization Basin at the Tete Bayou WWTP in Iberia Parish, LA. DSA conducted site visits, gathered topographic information using subcontracted field crews and gathered plans, specifications, past reports and construction information on the original facility and subsequent past repairs as available from local government agencies (IPSD #1 and the City of New Iberia Wastewater Dept.). The City of New Iberia furnished planning documents and prior failure reports in addition to photographs and assistance with preliminary site visits. Eustis Engineering, geotechnical engineering consultants contracted by the City of New Iberia, conducted site visits, soil borings and lab analyses which formed the basis of their report - which is attached to this Report as Appendix I. Conduct Field Surveying: DS&A subconsultant, Paul C. Prince, LLC conducted limited topographic reconnaissance and cross section survey information gathering in conjunction with this study due to the fact that certain information important to the analysis of the failures was not available in the information gathered initially since the recent failures were subsequent to the information available. The cross section data was needed by Eustis for the purpose of analyzing slope stability as well as for use in preparing conceptual approaches to reconstructing and/or repairing the levees. Evaluate Environmental Issues: Included in this study are comments on the environmental issues associated with both proposed improvements and possible existing environmental issues that should be addressed as part of the improvement planning process. Possible issues for consideration are stormwater pollution prevention and erosion control requirements and permitting during construction; wetlands disturbance and spoil deposition governed by US Army COE 404 permits; and discussion of other potential environmental impacts of the anticipated improvements. This basin was constructed under consent decree by the US EPA who was joined in that action by the Louisiana DEQ. Phasing of repairs or reconstruction will be required to keep the facility, or portions of it operational during construction in order to maintain the capability of the WWTP to bypass excessive flows during rain events to the Basin in order to avoid overloading the WWTP and causing excursions. Geotechnical Analyses and Proposed Solutions: Computer models of existing levees and proposed solutions were analyzed by Eustis Engineering using GEO-SLOPE International, Ltd.'s program SLOPE/W 20L6, Version 8.L6.L.L3452. See Appendix X for Eustis Engineering Report. Based on proposed solution options presented in the Eustis Report, DSA prepared concept level sketches, X-sections, and cost estimates for the solution options. The Geotechnical Engineering Report explains methodology, analyses, and opinions on the causes of the observed failures. Compare Options: Solution options were evaluated for cost based on life cycle cost - using present worth analyses to estimate the present worth of future operations, maintenance and replacement costs associated with the various options in addition to initial proposed construction, design, and related phasing and operation costs. Intangible advantages and disadvantages of the options are discussed in the body of the report as well as in tabular form (impacts on existing operations, potential for regulatory excursions, logistics, risks of recurring failures, reliability, and functional efficacy, etc.). Make Recommendations: Recommendations contained in this report were made based on quantitative measures such as cost analyses, as well as qualitative judgments regarding problems in achieving the desired end result; funding availability (discussed with Clients); and efficacy (how well or reliably each option will achieve the desired results). IV. OBSERVATIONS A. Compilation of Existing Information DSA requested and received old plans and specifications, past failure reports, and some (not all documentation was available) construction documentation related to original construction of the Basin and subsequent repair construction undertaken in response to failures in the original Basin levees. Original Plans and Specifications for construction of the Basin were prepared by Freyou, Moore & Assoc., Inc. with an original geotechnical engineering report provided by Louisiana Testing and Inspection, Inc. Subsequent failure repair plans were likewise prepared by Freyou, Moore & Assoc., Inc. with a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Site Engineering, Inc. The failure report by Site Engineering (not the geotechnical engineering firm for the original construction) briefly summarized findings of that firm based on work they were apparently hired by the Parish to perform in conjunction with observed levee problems that arose sometime after the completion of the original construction. Other miscellaneous data on testing and inspection during original and repair construction was sparse and incomplete. B. Field Work - Surveys & Geotechnical DSA subsequently met in the field with the City's selected Geotechnical Engineers (Eustis Engineering, represented by Shaun Simon) to discuss the study and report further. Field and investigative work included DS&A and Eustis Engineering performing a visual site inspection of surface conditions of the levees and the taking of photographs initially. Subsequently, DSA subcontracted with Paul C. Prince, LLC to perform a topographic survey of the Basin and gather cross section information on the levees for use by the geotechnical engineers in studying and evaluating the observed failures. The topographic and cross section survey information is incorporated into several of the Engineering drawings and exhibits that are part of this report. Analyses of the soils and survey data along with historical information provided by Client were used to develop an opinion on the causes of the recurring failures and to propose options for remedial measures to address the problems being experienced. V. EVALUATION OF EXISTING LEVEE CONDITION A. Slope Failures - History & Current Conditions The original Equalization Basin was constructed in 2004-2005 by R.J. Broussard Contractors at a cost of $600,000 to $700,000 and consists of approximately 6 acres top area with a perimeter levee of about 2,300 linear feet. The Basin has a capacity of approximately 27 million gallons storage. Around January or February of 2012, Freyou, Moore inspected the levees, presumably on reports of levee failures. In July of 2012, Site Engineering, Inc. issued a report on the levee failures at the Tete Bayou WWTP "Equalization Pond". Engineering estimate for the "step" repair of the levees was $317,000 including planning and construction. In February of 2013, a construction contract was awarded to Southern Constructors, LLC in the amount of $383,000 and the repair project was accepted as complete in October of 2013. [In March of 2013, the City and IPSD #1 entered a supplemental intergovernmental agreement to fund engineering and construction to repair the levee failures.] In June of 2014, Freyou Moore once again inspected the Equalization Basin and found "new cracks" that were outside the area of the recent repair project. Freyou Moore recommended monitoring of the cracks and a long term maintenance program. The request in June or July of 2017 for DSA and Eustis to investigate and report on the most recent failures is the result of a progression of failures over time as the City and IPSD #1 had been monitoring the problem areas on recommendation of Freyou, Moore. B. O&M Issues Continued monitoring and repairing of erosion or minor levee defects will be required. Mowing of side slopes (without scalping or cutting vegetation too short) is good practice for maintaining earthen levees to avoid tree growth in levees and to maintain healthy grass with root systems helpful at controlling surface erosion. Observation and elimination of nuisance animal damage (alligator or nutria holes, etc.) will also be necessary. C. Function and Risks of inaction The repairs recommended in the geotechnical engineering report are necessary to preclude further progression of existing failures and anticipated development of additional failures. The failures on the north end of the basin are particularly severe and could eventually result in breach of the containment levees during high water events. Breach of the basin levees would result in discharge of wastewater to adjacent waterways with all manner of detrimental environmental consequences. While total failure has not occurred over several years after initial observation of the problems, lack of action will almost certainly result in undesirable consequences in time. The recommended repairs will result in a diminished overall capacity of the Equalization Basin due to the fact that the "toe" construction will occupy part of the interior volume of the basin that was once available for storage. Initial estimates are that approximately 5 million gallons of capacity would be lost (from 27 million to 22 million gallons capacity) due to the repair scheme. D. Geotechnical Engineering Report See Appendix X. VI. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS A. List of Options Based on a review of field conditions, prior studies/reports, Eustis Engineering's Geotechnical Report and DSA input regarding possible solutions to the observed levee problems at the subject Equalization Basin, the following options were studied as possible alternatives to solving the levee problems: Option 1- Completely Reconstruct the Levees around the Equalization Basin. This option would require phasing to maintain partial function of the Basin for protection against WWTP excursions during rain events and high plant flows. This option would require significant modifications and working around associated equipment (pumping station, force main, aeration equipment and associated electrical equipment. Subsequent to completion of this option, all levees would be converted to 4H:1V interior side slopes whereas currently, only the south and east levees meet this side slope since they were reconstructed to the flatter slope as part of earlier repairs. The north and west levees are currently approximately 3H:1V interior sideslopes per initial designs and construction. Option 2- Construct repairs or reconstruction to only the north and west levee areas of the Basin currently experiencing significant failures and/or having steeper interior sideslopes. This option would be less costly initially but still problematic for maintaining function of the Basin; however, this option would be more likely to result in significant additional repair costs within the short term future. Such repair costs could be in areas not addressed by the repairs of this option, or even within the areas repaired under this option due to the possibility of adjacent failures affecting work done within this option. B. Schematics of Various Solutions Option 1 - Exhibit D shows a plan indicative of the type of repairs representative of Option #1. Option 2 - Exhibit E shows a plan indicative of the type of repairs representative of Option #2. C. Discussion of Alternatives Option 1- To make long term, more reliable repairs with a less risky factor of safety, Option 1 requires complete removal of the materials used to construct the Equalization Basin Levees and replacement of those materials with select off site materials that would produce more stable levees with a higher factor of safety. Due to space limitations, the geometry (area and exterior side slopes of levees) would be maintained almost identical to the existing levees. The south and west levees that were more recently repaired have a rough side slope inside the basin of 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V). The north and west levees that were not part of recent repairs had internal side slopes of more or less 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V), but would have to be re-shaped to 4H:1V to meet requirements of the geotechnical engineering report for repairs. This option involves significant costs to remove and dispose of existing levee materials and to bring in offsite select materials to create a new levee. The bottom "muck" would have to be replaced by limestone to a certain level in order to accomplish compaction on higher lifts in the "dry". This option would also include significant costs associated with phasing the project to maintain partial function and significant costs associated with removal and reinstallation of equipment (aerators, electrical, etc.). Another cost related to this option is the reconstruction of the part of the Plant perimeter road that would be used as a haul route. It would likely be damaged beyond repair and require reconstruction subsequent to the levee reconstruction project. Option 2- To make short term, less reliable repairs with less long term reliability, Option 2 involves only partial repair of the levees (full repair of only certain stretches of the levee) using the recommended section. This option involves significantly less costs associated with removal and disposal of existing levee materials and borrow from offsite sources to partially repair the existing levees. This option would also include fewer costs associated with removal and reinstallation of equipment (aerators, electrical, etc.). This Option would still require cost for the reconstruction of the part of the Plant perimeter road that would be used as a haul route. While this Option may be attractive from a standpoint of lower initial capital costs, it is quite risky and may result in the City and IPSD #1 being in the same situation again several years after these repairs are made. This Option can be thought of as a continued maintenance through construction and would likely result in similar required projects on a recurring basis with similar times between failures as has been experienced thus far on this facility. This option is a fallback position to be taken only if the large initial capital expenditure to undertake Option #1 cannot be done. In other words, this Option is better than doing nothing, but is far from ideal and would require a commitment of future ongoing funding for maintenance beyond simple grass cutting and erosion control. The maintenance associated with this Option will likely require significant (albeit lower than Option #1) construction costs on an ongoing basis every 5 to 10 years in addition to the ongoing annual expenditures for grass and slope maintenance. This Option would also require much more care and strict control over the timing and rate at which drawdowns are conducted (although this would be good practice with either option). If Option 2 is still not manageable from a budget standpoint, it may be necessary to reduce the scope of Option 2 further to meet budget constraints. This could be done as part of scope definition for the project and would likely involve at a minimum, addressing the north levee which is in the worst condition and which is most likely to fail completely with continued lack of repairs. The west levee, which is not at the proposed 4H:1V internal side slope could be delayed for some time and monitored for signs of distress (it currently shows less slope issues and certainly much less severe slope issues than the north levee). D. Concept Level Cost Analyses The following tables represent concept level cost estimates for each option. Section VI, of this report also includes tables showing present worth analyses of future O&M costs in order to account for life cycle costs associated with each option to offer a fair assessment of each option for comparison purposes. TABLE 1: OPTION 1 - Total Levee Reconstruction COST ESTIMATE Item No. Description Quantity Unit 1 Temporary cofferdam to maintain function 13,000 cu. yds. 2 Temporary Relocation of aerators/electrical 1 lump 3 Temporary Piping modifications to Pump Sta. 1 lump 4 Clearing and grubbing of trees, debris 1 lump 5 Removal and onsite disposal of existing levees 56,000 cu. yds. 6 Removal and offsite disposal of existing levees 16,000 cu. yds. 7 Select Borrow from offsite 83,000 cu. yds. 8 Limestone base under toe 38,016 ton 9 Placement & Compaction of new levees 83,000 cu. yds. 10 Erosion control, seeding, fertilizing, etc. 1 lump 11 Re-install aerators/electrical 1 lump 12 Removal of temporary piping to pump sta. 1 lump 13 Removal of temporary cofferdam & final mucking 1 lump 14 Reconstruction of Plant Drives 1 lump 15 Temporary Sheeting 10,000 sq. ft. 16 Dewatering 1 Lump 17 Mobilization, insurance, bond, staking, misc. 1 Lump SUBTOTAL Contingencies ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Land Acquisition, Easements, Servitudes Legal Fees Permiting, Environmental, Etc. Engineering, Inspection, Testing ESTIMATED TOTAL ROUNDED PROJECT COST Unit Price $15.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $10.00 $116.00 $8.00 $55.00 $11.00 $75,000.00 $70,000.00 $20,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $25.00 $50,000.00 $250,000.00 Extension $195,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $560,000.00 $1,856,000.00 $664,000.00 $2,090,880.00 $913,000.00 $75,000.00 $70,000.00 $20,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $250,000.00 $50,000.00 $250,000.00 $7,393,880.00 $740,000.00 $8,133,880.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $25,000.00 $1,221,000.00 $9,395,000.00 TABLE 2: OPTION 2 - Partial Levee Reconstr./Repair COST ESTIMATE Item No. Description Quantity Unit 1 Temporary cofferdam to maintain function 19,500 cu. yds. 2 Temporary Relocation of aerators/electrical 1 lump 3 Temporary Piping modifications to Pump Sta. 1 lump 4 Clearing and grubbing of trees, debris 1 lump 5 Removal and onsite disposal of existing levees 25,455 cu. yds. 6 Removal and offsite disposal of existing levees 7,273 cu. yds. 7 Select Borrow from offsite 37,727 cu. yds. 8 Limestone base under toe 17,280 ton 9 Placement & Compaction of new levees 37,727 cu. yds. 10 Erosion control, seeding, fertilizing, etc. 1 lump 11 Re-install aerators/electrical 1 lump 12 Removal of temporary piping to pump sta. 1 lump 13 Removal of temporary cofferdam & final mucking 1 lump 14 Reconstruction of Plant Drives 1 lump 15 Temporary Sheeting 5,000 sq. ft. 16 Dewatering 1 Lump 17 Mobilization, insurance, bond, staking, misc. 1 Lump Unit Price $15.00 $20,000.00 $22,000.00 $34,090.91 $10.00 $116.00 $8.00 $55.00 $11.00 $34,000.00 $28,000.00 $18,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $25.00 $25,000.00 $130,000.00 Extension $292,500.00 $20,000.00 $22,000.00 $34,090.91 $254,545.45 $843,636.36 $301,818.18 $950,400.00 $415,000.00 $34,000.00 $28,000.00 $18,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $125,000.00 $25,000.00 $130,000.00 SUBTOTAL Contingencies ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST Land Acquisition, Easements, Servitudes Legal Fees Permiting, Environmental, Etc. Engineering, Inspection, Testing $3,793,990.91 $380,000.00 $4,173,990.91 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $25,000.00 $627,000.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL ROUNDED PROJECT COST $4,841,000.00 Table 3 - Initial Capital Costs Option 1 Option 2 (See Table 1) (See Table 2) $9,395,000 $4,841,000 Item Grass Cutting Spraying Erosion Repairs Removal of branches and debris Limestone Drive Maintenance Sludge/sediment maint. Nuisance animals/aquatic growth 1 Slope Stability Maint. Misc., access, security, etc. Total Table 4 - Annual O & M Costs Unit Unit Option 1 Cost Qty. Cost Lump $6,000 1.00 $6,000 acre $3,000 6.00 $18,000 Lump $5,000 1.00 $5,000 Lump $12,000 1.00 $12,000 Lump $2,000 1.00 $2,000 Lump $1,000 1.00 $1,000 Lump $1,000 1.00 $1,000 Lump $160,000 0.00 $0 Lump $1,000 1.00 $1,000 $46,000 1 - Assumes every 5 years req. approx. $800,000 under option 2. Annual cost = $800,000/5 Option 2 Qty. Cost 1.00 $6,000 6.00 $18,000 1.00 $5,000 1.00 $12,000 1.00 $2,000 1.00 $1,000 1.00 $1,000 1.00 $160,000 1.00 $1,000 $206,000 Table 5 - Future Replacement Costs Option 1 Item Useful Life, Current Capital Years Cost Pumps, Motors, Aerators, etc. 25 $250,000 Equalization Basin 50 $4,697,500 Option 2 Current Capital Cost $250,000 $9,395,000 * 50-year Total * 25-year Total $4,697,500 $250,000 $9,395,000 $250,000 * - Current dollars. The 25-year life items will be replaced after 25 years and again after 50 years. Option Option 1 Option 2 Initial Capital Costs Current=NPV $9,395,000 $4,841,000 Table 6 - Life Cycle Cost Comparison Annual O&M Costs 50-year Annual Cost in Current Dollars Present Value for a Discount Rate of 2% $46,000 $206,000 $1,445,486 $6,473,263 Replacement Costs 25-year 50-year Future Replacement Cost in Current Dollars $250,000 $250,000 Present Value for a Discount Rate of 2% $152,383 $152,383 Future Replacement Cost in Current Dollars $4,697,500 $9,395,000 Present Value for a Discount Rate of 2% $1,745,252 $3,490,504 Total Present Value of all Costs $12,738,121 $14,957,150 Option Option 1 Option 2 Life Cycle Cost (20 Points) Life Cycle Point Cost Score $12,738,121 20.0 $14,957,150 17.0 Reliability & Efficacy (20 Points) Relative Point Ranking Score Good 16 Poor 2 Table 7 - Ranking of Options Schedule Permitting & Environmental Issues (10 Points) (5 Points) Relative Point Relative Point Ranking Score Ranking Score 1 to 2 years 5 Moderate to Easy 3 <1 year 10 Easy 4.5 Land or Servitude Acquisition (5 Points) Relative Point Ranking Score Easy 4.5 Easy 4.5 Total Point Score (60 Points) 48.5 38.0 E. Permits and Regulatory Compliance The following regulatory agencies may require compliance with various local, state, and federal regulations applicable to the work described in the various solution options outlined in this report: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and United States Environmental Protection Agency jointly administer the program established by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 restricting deposition of dredged or fill material in certain areas (primarily wetlands). Wetlands delineations may be required for any options in which such activities may occur. The State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LA DEQ) may have involvement in work of certain options depending on discovery of unanticipated materials during construction (e.g., buried tires or batteries) or in conjunction with their role as US EPA partners in enforcement of federal environmental regulations. LA DEQ may have input on discharges into the Tete Bayou that relate to the Watershed Protection Program. The State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources may be involved in letters of no objection or matters related to their Coastal Restoration initiatives, estuarine conservation efforts, Coastal Use Permitting, and similar natural resource issues related to Tete Bayou. Local permitting for traffic interruption during hauling operations, and similar construction activities would be handled through the appropriate local authorities (Parish or City of New Iberia as applicable). The State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries may be required to issue letters of no objection relative to construction clearing adjacent to the Tete Bayou. F. Discussion of Advantages/Disadvantages of Options The Table included as Exhibit H summarizes both quantitative and qualitative advantages and disadvantages of the options outlined in this report. Life Cycle Cost Analysis The life cycle cost analysis for each option includes the following cost elements: a) Initial Capital Costs b) Annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs c) Facilities and/or equipment replacement costs The development of these costs is described below, followed by a summary of the life cycle costs. Note that using a "discount rate" that takes account of both interest and inflation allows the use of constant, or today's, dollars in the analysis. When using a discount rate, it must be noted that the results are artificial values on the total cost of ownership. The results are not the actual dollars that would be needed; as such, they can only be used for comparison purposes, not for determining actual cost over the life of the option. Initial Capital Costs Initial capital costs of each option are shown in Tables 1 and 2 and summarized in Table 3. These costs are in current dollars (2017). Annual O&M Costs Development of O&M costs for the various options is based on DSA experience with similar facilities and experience of other municipalities that own similar facilities. In some cases, the O&M costs used in this report represent the level of O&M that should be applied (in some instances used for reference, some maintenance is routinely deferred due to lack of funding or inattention) as opposed to what is actually done. Option 1 - Complete Reconstruction of the Equalization Basin operation and maintenance consists generally of grass cutting, spraying, erosion repairs, removal of branches and debris, limestone drive maintenance, long term maintenance of sludge/sediment, nuisance animals, aquatic growth in the Basin and miscellaneous maintenance associated with servitudes, signs and access (security). Option 2 - Partial Repairs to the Equalization Basin operation and maintenance consists generally of the same items as Option 1 (grass cutting, spraying, erosion repairs, removal of branches and debris, limestone drive maintenance, long term maintenance of sludge/sediment, nuisance animals, aquatic growth in the Basin and miscellaneous maintenance associated with servitudes, signs and access), but with additional construction maintenance costs every 5 years or so due to the anticipated ongoing slope stability issues. Replacement Costs Replacement costs are deemed to be equal for both Options, therefore they are equal for comparison purposes. The analysis period was set at 50 years as a reasonable time for expected useful life of the facility. Note that for Option 1, the 50 year replacement cost would be only about half that for Option 2 which would basically require reconstruction from scratch (Option 1 would be almost a complete rebuild currently, so it would cost less to replace in 50 years). These costs are in current dollars. Life Cycle Cost Summary A summary of the life cycle costs is presented in Table 6. The initial capital costs are directly from Table 3. The present value of 50 years of O&M cost was calculated assuming a discount rate of 2 percent, according to the following formula: idiscount = (iinterest - iinflation) (1 + iinflation) , where idiscount = discount interest rate iinterest = interest rate (cost of borrowing, municipal bond rate 5%) iinflation = inflation rate (historically around 3%) The present values of future replacement costs were calculated and summarized in Table 6 (future replacement costs are shown in Table 5), using a discount rate of 2 percent. For each option, the total present value of all of the individual present value costs is also shown in Table 6. Ranking Of Options Table H is a summary comparison of significant issues related to the options. The comparison includes qualitative comments on reliability, efficacy, land issues, environmental, safety, scheduling and several other related issues. Table 7 is a point ranking of alternatives based on the most critical issues. The top row of Table 7 indicates the points assigned to each issue, with higher points indicating higher importance. Reliability and Life Cycle Cost were given the highest point values (20 points each). Permitting and environmental issues were assigned 5 points, as was ongoing functionality and excursion risk. Schedule was assigned a value of 10 points. For each issue and option, the basis of the point score is shown along with the assigned point score. Higher point scores are better than lower point scores. For example, Option 1 has the lowest life cycle cost of the options and it was assigned a score of 20 points. Option 2 has a life cycle cost that is more than Option 1 so it received a score of 17 points (roughly 85.2% of the score of Option 1 since Option 1 life cycle cost is roughly 85.2% that of Option 2). For issues judged based on qualitative comparison, scores were assigned based on judgment of the relative values of the respective qualitative rankings. The maximum possible total score for any option would be 60 points. For each option, the point scores are totaled in the far right column of Table 7, with higher scores being better than lower scores. As shown, Option 1 has the highest point total and is thus the preferred Option. G. Recommendations Evaluation of alternatives presented in this report indicates that Option 1 is the most favorable option in terms of life cycle cost, reliability, and overall cost/benefit ratio. The Iberia Parish Sewerage District No. 1 and the City of New Iberia should review this report, as well as other referenced documents and previous reports, and come to some agreement on the scope, schedule, and funding of a project that would achieve their goals for restoring the levees and long term reliability of their Equalization Basin. DSA is available to discuss the contents of this report and assist in reaching some consensus prior to proceeding further in the process toward correcting or mitigating the levee problems at the subject facility. It is also important that the employees who operate and maintain the facility be included in the discussion at some level. While total agreement on any option by operations and maintenance personnel may be unlikely, their comments may prove useful and may provide valuable insight into issues that might otherwise be overlooked. It is also important that they cooperate in the ongoing maintenance required to make any option successful in the long term. The next step would be to contract with engineers for preparation of project specifications, contract drawings, and bidding documents to allow for competitive bidding of a project for construction of the agreed upon solution or portions thereof. It is important to note that a formal, structured program of inspection and ongoing maintenance of the levees is critical to maintaining the stability of the levees. This will be no different after improvements are constructed. The appropriate government entity (City of New Iberia or IPSD #1, as applicable) should enact policies that require strict adherence to an inspection and maintenance program that will help to avoid growth of small problems into larger, more costly problems if ignored. VII. CONCLUSIONS Evaluation of alternatives presented in this report indicates that Option 1 is the most favorable option in terms of life cycle cost, reliability, and overall cost/benefit. In the event that full funding of Option 1 is not feasible, Option 2 could be pursued with the long term goal of eventually repairing all sections of the levees and consistent budgeting and repairs to avoid more serious degradation of levees similar to that which now exists. Of course, some economies of scale and timing would be sacrificed by phasing the project as such and recurrence of the disruption caused by construction would be undesirable. Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction if funding cannot be made available to do all of the work recommended for Option 1 and would provide some risk protection, if not to the level that Option 1 would provide. While Option 1, the totally reconstructed levee, would provide better and more reliable long term performance of the levees, it would come at a high initial cost along with the need for more costly temporary construction measures in order to maintain functionality. Reliability of such levees is related to the greater stability of the more expensive materials (and associated removal of the less desirable existing materials). Lastly, the potentially catastrophic results of a breach of the levees from an environmental standpoint cannot be overstated. For this reason alone, any decision to go with Option 2 must be carefully weighed with a full commitment to ongoing future repair projects and meticulous attention to ongoing levee maintenance. The planning process for implementing the construction of either Option must begin with a thorough review of this report and pre-design meetings to reach consensus on the path forward. Once the recommendations or parts of the recommendations are agreed upon, a Consultant should be contracted to prepare concept level plans for the facility to address details of the design required to achieve the general goals outlined as a result of the predesign meetings. Further meetings and review of those documents should proceed toward the end of constructing a final approvable Concept Level Document. The Design Process should not commence until there is agreement on the final concept documents, project scheduling and the funding requirements associated with the scope of work anticipated by that document. VIII. DISCUSSION OF COST ESTIMATE OF RECOMMENDED OPTION The cost estimate that follows is based on commencing work on the recommended construction work (Option 1) within 12 months after the date of issuance of this report. Inflation factors and construction cost indices would need to be used to adjust the figures for any time period for which the construction is delayed. DSA is not aware of any reliable way to project future construction costs, especially given the recent volatility in construction markets. The cost information contained in this estimate was prepared using information on other projects with similar work items, discussions with local contractors, and LA DOTD standard item files with information on unit pricing. Where quantities were significantly different from those represented in LA DOTD standard item files, unit prices were adjusted based on our engineering judgment. DSA also relied on cost information from similar past construction projects that our firm has engineered for other municipal clients. Since the engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, his opinions of probable Project Cost and Construction Cost provided herein are made on the basis of his experience and qualifications and represent his best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer familiar with the construction industry; but the engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual Project or Construction Cost will not vary from Opinions of Probable Cost prepared by him. Construction cost for the recommended alternative is $8,134,000 including 10% for contingencies, which is typical at the conceptual stage. Engineering costs for preparing construction documents, assisting with receipt of bids, administering construction, testing and inspection should be budgeted at approximately $1,220,000 (approx. 15%). Engineering costs do not include permitting, right of way acquisition, abstracting, surveying or other services typically considered as additional services or reimbursable expenses. Budget numbers for permitting, legal, and abstracting and servitude concurrence acquisition are included in the estimate at $25,000, $10,000, and $5,000 respectively, but should be verified with the parties anticipated to carry out those tasks. DS&A will meet with the Client to discuss terms for performing the engineering services if a decision is made to proceed with all or part of the recommendations contained in this report. Refer to Table 1 for a summary of these budget costs. IX. PHOTOGRAPHS PHOTOGRAPH 1 - Slope Failure South Levee Looking West PHOTOGRAPH 2 - Slope Failure South Levee Looking East PHOTOGRAPH 3 - Slope Failure East Levee Looking North PHOTOGRAPH 4 - Slope Failure East Levee Looking East PHOTOGRAPH 5 - Slope Failure South Levee Looking East ENGINEERING DRAWINGS & EXHIBITS A. Existing Site Plan (from Survey Topo) B. Existing Cross Sections C. Aerial Photo D. Schematic Plan - Option 1 E. Schematic Plan - Option 2 F. Aerial Photo Showing Spoil Area G. Typical Levee Repair Section H. Table of Option Comparisons EXHIBIT A Existing Site Plan EXHIBIT B Existing Cross Sections EXHIBIT C Aerial Photo EXHIBIT D Schematic Plan | Option 1 EXHIBIT E Schematic Plan | Option 2 EXHIBIT F Aerial Photo Showing Spoil Area EXHIBIT G Typical Levee Repair Section Item 1 2 3 4 5 Criteria Effectiveness Reliability Initial Capital Costs Annual O&M Costs Life Cycle Costs Exhibit H - Comparison of Options Option 1 Complete Reconstruction of Levees Excellent, higher factor of safety Most reliable for long term $9,395,000 $46,000 $12,738,121 Option 2 Partial reconstruction/repair of Levees Moderate, more potential for breaches Lower reliability, continued repairs $4,841,000 $206,000 $14,957,150 6 Right-of-way Availability/Cost/Acquisition Issues Need to get agreement from gas company; likely only one utility owner; low probability of need for expropriation Need to get agreement from gas company; likely only one utility owner; low probability of need for expropriation 7 Scheduling - Time Required to Implement Proposed Improvements 10 Traffic Disruption Issues 12 Noise Issues 13 Safety Issues 16 Permitting considerations a. LA DEQ/US EPA b. State Fire Marshal c. Coastal Zone Management Agency (LA DNR) d. Local Government Permits e. Rights-of-way (LA DOTD , Utility servitudes) f. US Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands) g. LA Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries 1 to 2 years inclusive of planning, utility permission, permitting and construction Minor traffic disruption on Old Jeanerette Hwy. (Hwy. 87) during construction. More hauling with heavy trucks = more damage to plant drives <1 year inclusive of planning, utility permission, permitting and construction Minor traffic disruption on Old Jeanerette Hwy. (Hwy. 87) during construction. Less hauling with heavy trucks = somewhat less damage to plant drives Noise issues only during construction, but longer construction time. No close neighbors Noise issues only during construction, shorter construction time initially, but recurrent over years Less likelihood of Levee breach, environmental contamination of Tete Bayou and adverse affects on nearby properties. COE, LDWF, and other simple permits likely Likely None Unlikely Minor requirements Some interaction with LA DOTD possible, some letter of no objection or other coordination with gas company Possible Likely, but not difficult Higher likelihood of Levee breach, environmental contamination of Tete Bayou and adverse affects on nearby properties. Less permitting than Option 1 likely due to less area affected and less significant impact Likely None Unlikely Minor requirements Some interaction with LA DOTD possible, some letter of no objection or other coordination with gas company Possible Likely, but not difficult Note: The criteria listed are not all of equal importance - (the items are not arranged in any particular order of priority or importance). 1 - "Poor" does not indicate that the improvements are not necessary or not beneficial. In this chart it means that this option alone will not produce the desired improvements in Levee Stability Red text = poor or undesirable Green text = good or desirable orange text = neutral or moderate affect 4806 tables.xls X. APPENDIX - Geotechnical Engineering Report 2l August 20L7 lSINCE 194 EUSTISENGINEERING City of New lberia Wastewater Department 800 Sucrose Drive New lberia, Louisiana 70560 Attention Mr. Vincent S. Palumbo, ll, P.E Ladies and Gentlemen Geotechnical Exploration City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana Eustis Ensineerins Proiect No. 10474 Transmitted is an electronic copy of our engineering report covering a geotechnical exploration for the subject project. Hard copies will be provided upon request. Thank you for asking us to perform these services. Yours very truly, EUSTIS ENGINEERING L.L.C. SHAUN R. SIMON, P.E. SRS:brp/bar '-SLHmAsUON R' SlroL 0. 9!557 PRo$sthtLEiGllEER $l NEW ORLEANS LAFAYETTE BATON ROUGE GULFPORT www.eustiseng.com T. 1 800 966 0157 LAKE CHARLES G EOTECH N ICAL EXPLORATION CITY OF NEW IBERIA TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA EUSTIS ENGINEERING PROJECT NO. L0474 FOR CITY OF NEW IBERIA WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT NEW IBERIA, LOUISIANA By Eustis Engineering L.L.C. Scott, Louisiana 21. AUGUST 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SCOPE. SOIL BORINGS . General Undisturbed Borings Auger Borings LABORATORY TESTS DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site Reconnaissance Stratigraphy Ground Water FOUNDATION ANALYSIS Furnished lnformation Slope Stability Levee Reconstruction Pavement Recommendations Pavement Construction Vibrations GEOTECHN ICAL SERVICES DU RI NG CONSTRUCTION LIMITATIONS FIGURES l THROUGH 5 APPENDICES I THROUGH III City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 PAGE L t 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 9 LI 13 16 t7 L7 G EOTECH N ICAL EXPLORATION CITY OF NEW IBERIA TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA EUSTIS ENGINEERING PROJECT NO. 10474 INTRODUCTION L This report contains the results of a geotechnical exploration performed for the equalization basin levee repairs located at the Tete Bayou wastewater treatment plant in lberia Parish, Louisiana. The exploration was performed in general accordance with Eustis Engineering L.L.C.'s proposal dated 1 November2OL6,which was accepted on 2 November 2016 by Mr. Vincent S. Palumbo, ll, P.E., representing the City of New lberia, the owner of the project. Domingue, Szabo & Associates, lnc., Lafayette, Louisiana, is the civil engineer for the project. SCOPE 2 The scope of the exploration included the drilling of seven undisturbed sample type soil test borings and 14 auger borings to determine subsoil conditions and stratification, and to obtain samples of the various strata encountered. Soil mechanics laboratory tests, performed on samples obtained from the borings, were used to evaluate the physical properties of the various substrata. Based on the soil borings and laboratory tests, analyses were made to evaluate stability of existing levee slopes and develop a solution to minimize future levee failures. Recommendations were also provided regarding aggregate City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 1 of 19 surface pavement components to rehabilitate the access driveway. ln addition, general construction recommendations have been provided regarding site preparation, drainage, and placement and compaction of levee fill materials. SOIL BORINGS General 3 Seven undisturbed soil test borings and 14 auger borings were taken at the project site between 12 and 20 December 20L6. The undisturbed borings, designated as Borings 8-L through B-7, were made through the existing equalization pond levee crown to depths of 50feet. Withintheleveesideslopes,tenaugerborings,designatedasBoringsA-lthrough A-10, were drilled to depths of L0 feet below the existing ground surface. Alongthe access driveway, four shallow auger borings were drilled to 8-ft depths for evaluation of the proposed pavements. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 1. 4. The borings were drilled using a track mounted rotary type drill rig or hand auger equipment. Detailed descriptive logs of the borings made forthis exploration are shown in both tabular and graphicalform in Appendix l. GPS coordinates (latitude and longitude) for the as-drilled boring locations were obtained using a handheld unit and therefore should be considered as approximate. These are shown on the boring logs in Appendix l. Upon completion of the field operations, the borings were backfilled with a cement-grout mix in accordance with current regulatory requirements by the state of Louisiana. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 2 of 19 Undisturbed Borines 5 Samples of cohesive or semi-cohesive subsoils were obtained at close intervals or changes in stratum using a 3-in. diameter thinwall Shelby tube sampling barrel. The samples were immediately extruded from the sampling barrel, inspected, and visually classified by Eustis Engineering's soil technician. Pocket penetrometer tests were performed on the soil samples to give a general indication of their shear strength or consistency. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix I under the column heading "PP." Representative portions were then promptly placed in moisture proof containers and were sealed for preservation of their natural moisture content. Auger Borinqs 6 ln the auger borings, the subgrade soils were sampled directly from the auger blades at close intervals or changes in strata. These samples were sealed in plastic bags to preserve their natural moisture content. Results of these tests are included on logs of the auger borings in Appendix l. LABORATORY TESTS 7 Soil mechanics laboratory tests, consisting of natural water content, unit weight, and either unconfined compression shear (UC) or one-point unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression shear (OB), were performed on samples obtained from the undisturbed borings. ln addition, Atterberg liquid and plastic limits tests were performed on selected representative samples to aid in classification and to give an indication of their relative compressibility. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix l. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 t Page 3 of L9 8 Grain size analyses were also performed on selected samples of cohesionless soils obtained from the borings to determine their particle distribution (PD) curves. The results of these tests are shown on separate sheets following the boring logs in Appendix L DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Site Reconnaissance 9 Prior to the field operations, a representative of Eustis Engineering visited the site to observeexistingconditions. Duringthesitevisit,severalsignificantpondsideslopefailures were seen within the northern and eastern side slopes of the equalization basin. Smaller failures were observed on the southern and eastern slopes nearthe water's edge. Portions of the pond side slopes were heavily covered with vegetation and small trees were established on the northern and western flood side slopes. Stratieraphy 10. Reference to the logs of the undisturbed borings (Borings B-1 through B-7) and auger borings (Borings A-l through A-10)taken within the equalization basin area indicates the levee fill materials generally comprise soft to hard brown, light brown, red, tan, gray, dark gray, light gray, and greenish-gray silty clay and clay to the natural grou nd surface between the approximate 10 and 12-ft depths. These levee fill materials are underlain by medium stiff to very stiff light gray, greenish-gray, light brown, gray, and tan clay to the approximate depths of 25 to 30 feet. These clays were underlain by soft to stiff gray, light gray, greenish-gray, and tan clay, silty clay, and sandy clay to the termination depths of the auger borings and undisturbed borings at the L0-ft and 50-ft depths, respectively. ln City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 4 of 19 Borings B-1 and B-4, this lower cohesive stratum was interspersed by medium compact gray clayey silt deposits between depths of 25 and 33 feet. 11. Reference to the auger boring logs taken along the access driveway (Borings A-ll through A-L4) indicates the near surface soils generally comprise soft to medium stiff gray, dark gray, and tan clay and silty clay extending to termination at depths of 8 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground Water 12. To determine ground water conditions at the time of the field exploration, Boring A-L4 was drilled to a depth of 12 feet without the addition of water. Upon completion of the drilling operations, the hole was observed to be dry. After an observation period of approximately 24 hours, the ground water was observed at the 3.5-ft depth. The depth to ground water will vary with climatic conditions; drainage improvements; water levels in the equalization basin pond, ditches, and Tete Bayou; and other factors. The depth to ground water should be determined by those persons responsible for construction immediately prior to beginning work. FOUNDATION ANALYSIS Furnished lnformation 13 We understand the equalization basin levees at the City of New lberia's Tete Bayou wastewater treatment plant have had multiple failures and repairs since its construction in 2005. The latest repair flattened the slopes from l- vertical on 3 horizontal (1V:3H) to 1V:4H. Presently, there are areas on the basin side levees that have failed. Some of these City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 5 of L9 are large failures extendingfrom nearthe crown to beyond the toe of the slopes on the northern and eastern levees. Smaller failures near the water's edge are evident on the southern and eastern levees. A review of historical aerial photography since construction indicates these larger failures appear to be initiated by smaller failures near the toe that then progress upslope and eventually involve the crest of the levee. We also understand the basin fills quickly during a rainfall event and then may be drained to near empty within a week. Eustis Engineering was asked to evaluate the existing levees for probable failure mechanisms, to determine the likelihood of additional failures for the existing conditions, and to determine a design repair section. Domingue, Szabo & Associates has provided EustisEngineeringwithtopographicandhydrographicsurveydata. Thisdatawasobtained in2OI7 and is included in Appendix ll of this report. Slope Stabilitv 14. Methodoloev. Forensic slope stability analyses were conducted by a two-dimensional limit equilibrium stability analysis of selected trial failure surfaces. These analyses were performed using GEO-SLOPE lnternational, Ltd.'s program SLOPE/W 20L6, Version 8.L6.L.L3452. This program utilizes circular and non-circular surfaces to define the soil failure planes. These surfaces are then divided into slices and the factor of safety is computed by summing forces, summing moments, or both. For these analyses, the interslice forces are typically considered. The factors of safety presented with this report are based on Spencer's Method of Slices. Usingthis method, the recommended minimum factorof safetyis l.4forlongterm, drained (S-Case)analyses. Consideringthesurveydata furnished by Domingue, Szabo & Associates, a cross-section near Boring B-1. was selected as a model case. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 6 of 19 15 ln cases where negative effective stresses were encountered in slices near the ground surface of the slip surface, we inserted a tension crack (2,)to modelthe inability of the soil mass to transmit tensile stresses. We also allowed the crack to be filled with water. The depth at which the tension crack is applied is typically dependent of the developed undrained shear strength, total unit weight, and angle of internal friction. The maximum tension crack depth required to eliminate negatve stresses within the individual slip surface slices in our analyses was applied at the 6.5-ft depth below existing ground surface. 16. Observations. Eustis Engineering has reviewed the previous geotechnical data developed by Louisiana Testing & lnspection, lnc., and Site Engineering, lnc., and the previous construction plans and specifications. We have also reviewed the results of testing performed during construction of the last repair. The geotechnical data obtained for this exploration was evaluated and the current survey data was reviewed. ln addition to these data, we have viewed historical aerial imagery at the site via Google Earth@. These data indicate the slope failures initiate at the toe near the water's edge. These smaller failures then destabilize a larger portion of the slope resulting in a larger failure that in turn destabilizes an even larger portion of the slope until the instability extends up to the crown. This process is known as a progressive failure. lt is our opinion the initial toe failures are a result of the continual saturation of fat clay soils causingthem to weaken. Once the first toe failure occurs, the "softened" soils are at the residual shear strength, and with the lower strength lower the factor of safety of the remaining slope. This progressive weakening of the slope is more severe in the presence of very fat clays (liquid limits in excess of 75l,that are subject to swelling and shrinkage. Tension cracking resulting from shrinkage after long periods of drought can lead to rapid water infiltration on the upper portion of an already weakened slope. Tension cracks filled with water on the upper portion of the slope lead to additional driving forces. ln addition, poor maintenance of the side slopes allowing tree growth provides another path for moisture to seep around tree City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 7 of 19 roots and into the weakened slope. Heavy tree growth also removes moisture from the soil in periods of dry weather resulting in additional cracking. t7 To model the initial toe failure, the above mentioned cross-section near Boring B-2 was considered. We initially considered a short term, undrained (Q-Case) condition using the shear strengths determined by the soil borings and laboratory testing, and concluded that the resulting failure surfaces and factors of safety did not represent the observed failures. Considering the sudden drawdown conditions created by the pond usage, our next evaluation was a sudden drawdown condition using long term, drained (S-Case) soil parameters. While the shape of the failure arcs were more representative of what has been observed in the field, the factors of safety were not consistent with the experienced failures. To model both apparent failure surface geometries and to arrive at a factor of safety of 1.0 (representative of an unstable slope), we considered the fat clay soils at the toe and the fully softened and residual strengths that would be expected based on their plasticity characteristics and clay content. We performed a back calculation by varying the shear strength in these fat clays untilwe obtained a failure surface having a factor of safety of 1.0 with the observed geometry in the field. This back calculation indicated the shear strength of these materials is approximately 2O% greater than their residual strengths. Non-linear shear strength envelopes were estimated from drained residual and fully softened friction angles based on plasticity characteristics and estimated clay fraction as suggested by Stark and Hussain in "Empirical Correlations; Drained Strength for Slope Stability Analyses," ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 139, lssue 6 (2013). The slope stability analyses used to model the progressive failure and back calculate the strengths are presented on Figures 2 and 3. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 8 of i.9 18 Figure 2 is for the initial toe failure. Figure 3 is for the larger failure that almost reaches the crown with a factor of safety of 1 (failure) and that has the shape closest to our visual observations. 1_9 It is our opinion these failures will continue to occur based on the current levee geometry, pond usage, maintenance, and soiltypes present at the levee toe and on the exposed levee slopes. ln order to minimize future levee failures, we recommend the levee be reconstructed and a stability berm be added as shown on Figure 4. The levee reconstruction and stability berm construction should also follow the recommendations given below. These recommendations are summarized on Figure 5. Please note, our analyses and recommendations assume the berm side slopes exist at a 1V:4H. Should portions of the berm not have been reconstructed to these slopes, they will need to be reshaped priorto installation of the stability berm. ln addition, we recommend the side slopes and crown be properly maintained throughout the life of the basin. This should include mowing of grass and prevention of tree growth. An inspection schedule should be set to monitor slope movement, erosion, and maintenance. The inspections should be conducted by the civil and geotechnical engineers of record. Levee Reconstruction 20. Dewaterins of Pond and Preparation of Subgrade. As a first step n the levee repair process, the pond should be completely dewatered. The subgrade on the pond bottom that will be receiving the stability berm should be stripped of all vegetation and other deleterious materials, scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditionedlo!2%of the optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 9 of L9 2I. Stabilitv Berm Fill Material Properties. The select cohesive fill should meet the material requirements of "Selected Soils" in Section 203.06(b) of the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridees (LSSRB), 2006 edton, or be classified as an AASHTO A-4 or A-6 material with the following restrictions. Cohesive structural fill should have a plasticity index (Pl) between 10 and 20, maximum liquid limit (LL) of 40, and maximum silt content of 5O%. Cohesive fill, from either onsite or offsite borrow areas, should also be evaluated for its shrink/swell potential prior to use for levee fill. All select fill should be free of wood, roots, clay lumps, and other deleterious materials, and have a maximum organic content of 5% by weight. 22 Compaction of Stabilitv Berm. Structural fill for the stability berm should be placed in maximum 9-in. loose lifts and moisture conditioned to !2% of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. These lifts should be cut into the existing failed section of the containment berm using approximately 3-ft wide and L-ft high benches on a LV:4H slope to prevent the formation of a weakened pre-existing slide surface. An illustration of the proposed construction is shown on Figure 5. 23 Excavation of Failed Section Above Stability Berm. Once the stability berm has been constructed, the portion of the levee above the top of the berm (el 9.5) that has been involved in the instabilities should be completely excavated above the top of the berm from the existing pond side slope to beyond the existing slide plane. The actual limits of this excavation can be set by identifying the upper head scarp of each slide extending above el 9.5 and by setting the excavation limits to be at or beyond that point. lf multiple head scarps are present, the one furthest upslope should be used for these purposes. Eustis Engineering is available to inspect each of these slides and identifythe head scarp. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 10 of 19 24 The excavation should proceed with a back slope of 1V:3H into the existing levee. Once the entire unstable portion of each slide has been removed, filling should proceed with structural fill placed in maximum 9-in. lifts and moisture conditioned to !2o/o of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698. Each lift should be cut into the existing levee backslope using approximately 3-ft wide and l-ft high benches on a 1V:3H slope to prevent the formation of a weakened pre-existing slide surface. An illustration of the proposed reconstruction is provided on Figure 5. 25. Erosion Control. ln general, we recommend the reconstructed side slopes and stability berm be monitored for erosion and consideration be given to establishing vegetative growth across the entire construction area to minimize erosion and the potential of local sloughing. Erosion channels and embankment degradation can also be minimized by the use of erosion matting or various other erosion protection methods. Erosion control should follow the recommendations presented in Section 720 of the LSSRB. Eustis Engineering can provide further recommendations regarding erosion control should they be required. Pavement Recommendations 26. Traffic. Traffic volumes were not furnished. Therefore, Eustis Engineering has made assumptions necessary to provide flexible surface pavement recommendations. These traffic assumptions should be verified prior to implementation of our recommendations. lf traffic conditions are greater than those presented, Eustis Engineering should be contacted to reevaluate the pavement recommendations contained in this report. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 1L of 19 27. Method of Analvsis. The pavement components and thicknesses were determined using methods presented in the AASHTO Guide for Desisn of Pavement Structures. ln addition, the resilient soil modulus (M') of the subgrade was estimated based on the type of soil, probable drainage conditions, and engineering experience. Aterminal serviceability index (P,)of 2.0 was used for the analyses of flexible pavements. Assumed loading repetitions were converted to equivalent L8-kip single axle loads (Err) using AASHTO equivalency factors for flexible pavements. 28. Asgresate Surface Paving. Aggregate surface pavements are normally designed between a minimum of l-0,000 (Err) and up to a maximum of 100,000 (Err). Equivalent L8-kip single axleloads(Err)wereestimatedforvariousthicknessesof aggregatepavements. Theresults of our analyses are shown in the following table. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR AGGREGATE SURFACE PAVEMENT ANALYSES EQUIVALENT 18-KIP STNGLE AXLE LOADS (E) 10,000 100,000 REQUIRED STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN) 1.49 2.20 AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE THICKNESS (rN TNcHES) 6 9 SAND SUBBASE THICKNESS (rN TNcHES) 72 L2 29 The recommendations above assume all paving materials will conform to the LSSRB. lf the types and thicknesses of pavement components are changed, Eustis Engineering should be consulted to determine the suitability of these materials and the structural number of the pavement. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 12 of 19 Pavement Construction 30. Ground Water Manaqement. The initial step to prepare the site for construction should be to establish adequate temporary and permanent drainage to prevent ponding of water on the subgrade and ensure immediate runoff of rainfall. We recommend the contractor maintain adequate surface drainage away from the pavement areas during construction. This may be accomplished by utilizing existing drainage features, as well as installing ditches and swales, and by setting grades to ensure positive drainage of water away from the pavement area. Sumps and pumps may be required to remove rainfall and ground water from ditches and shallow excavations. Throughout construction, the contractor should exercise caution during inclement weather to ensure subsoil support is not degraded by construction operations. 31. The near surface soils are subject to a reduction in shear strength and excessive settlement if the moisture content of these soils change (naturally or as a result of construction operationsl. Werecommendodequatepermanentdronoge(includngddequotesurface ond subsurfoce feotures os required) be provided to collect ronfoll dwcry from the pdvementareas ofter completion ol constructon. Water should not be ollowed to collect neor the pvement Grades should provide for adequate drainage to prevent saturation and erosion of the sand subbase and surface course materials. 32. Clearins and Strippine. Within the areas of the proposed pavements, the existing ground surface should be stripped to a depth necessary to remove vegetation, stumps, loose topsoil, debris, organic matter, and any other deleterious materials. Stripping should be to the minimum depth necessary to reach firm undisturbed soil. The exact depth of stripping should be determined during construction. The site should not be stripped until construction drainage measures have been provided. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 13 of 19 33 Suberade Preparation. After the clearing and stripping operations, the exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and recompacted. Recompaction should be to 95% of its maximum dry density near optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 698. Any localized depressions or weak areas identified by scarification should be thoroughly cleaned out to the surface of firm undisturbed soil and backfilled with a select cohesive fill material meeting the plasticity and grading requirements for "Stability Berm Fill" previously described, and placed and compacted under the conditions previously recommended for these materials. AII clearng, scarifying, and compcton operotions should be peSormed only durng periods of dry weather. Motorized wheeled equipment should not be allowed within the foundation and pavement areas during periods of inclement weather to prevent rutting of the subgrade. 34. Swales. Special care should be taken to demuck any existing swales or ditches which are to be abandoned and backfilled. Muck excavation should comply with Section 203.04 of the LSSRB, 2006 edtion. These features may also require relocation to provide adequate drainage for the site. Once demucked to the surface of firm undisturbed soil, these features should be backfilled with stability berm fill material placed and compacted under the conditions previously recommended for these materals. 35 Geotextile Fabric. After the subgrade has been prepared as recommended, a geotextile ground stabilization fabric should be provided for material separation between the prepared subgrade and pavement subbase. The geotextile fabric should meet or exceed material requirements contained in Section 10L9 of the LSSRB for Class C geotextiles. Subsequent to clearing and stripping, the fabric should be placed directly on the undisturbed soils in accordance with the manufacturer's construction recommendations. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page L4 of 19 36. Sand Subbase. A select granular material, such as sand (AASHTO A-3), should be used as subbase and/or backfill beneath pavements. The select fill should be free of clay lumps, roots, wood, debris, and other deleterious materials and have a maximum organic content of 5% by weight. Sand fill (AASHTO A-3) should be non-plastic and have no more than 10% by weight of material passing a U.S. Standard No. 200 mesh sieve. This material will expedite construction and drain freely after inclement weather. 37 We recommend the sand be placed in two lifts and a biaxial geogrid be placed on the surface of each lift. The geogrid should be a Tensar BXL200, or equivalent, as shown in Appendix lll. The aggregate surface road will require maintenance in the future to fill ruts. Ruts should be filled with new aggregate rather than regraded. Grading without fill may damage and displace the geogrid. 38. Structural fill (AASHTO A-3) used as subbase or backfill beneath pavements should be compacted to95o/o of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Clayey sand and cohesive type fill should not be used as subbase beneath the aggregate surface pavements. 39. Crushed Stone. The material for the crushed stone aggregate paving should conform to all requirements (Section 1003.04(a) of the LSSRB). The stone base (or surface) course should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 401. 40. Qualitv Control. Prior to transporting structural fill to the site, a sample of the borrow material should be tested to verify its conformance to the specifications. Density tests should be performed on each lift of the compacted crushed stone fill or sand subbase to determine if the contractor has achieved the recommended density. Clearing, filling, and compaction operations should only be accomplished during periods of dry weather. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 15 of 1.9 Wheeled equipment should not be allowed on the subgrade once proofrolling operations are complete and the inspector has accepted the compacted subgrade. Vibrations 4t Construction activities have the potential to generate vibrations that may affect nearby structures, pavements, and underground utilities. Eustis Engineering recommends vibrations be monitored during subsequent construction activities of concern. This monitoring should evaluate peak particle velocities during construction activities generatingvibrations (hauling fill, moving heavy equipment, etc.) at critical structures with a seismograph. The record of peak particle velocities will provide information in assessing potential damage and the need for changes in construction operations. 42. Peak particle velocities of 0.25 in./sec, as measured by the seismograph, are generally regarded as a vibration level uncomfortable to human perception and may densify loose, cohesionless materials. Peak particle velocities in excess of 0.5 in./sec (measured at a structure) may induce damage to sensitive structures or structures in distress. ln some areas, peak particle velocities as low as 0.1 in./sec have been established as allowable limits for historic structures. Allowable sustained peak particle velocities should be established in accordance with the site history and in concert with the owner. ln any case, if peak particle velocities exceed 0.25 in./sec at a pavement, utility, or structure of concern, the operations generating these vibrations should be terminated and construction practices modified. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 16 of 19 G EOTECH N ICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION 43 ln order to provide continuity among the exploration, design, and construction phases, Eustis Engineering should be retained to review plans and specifications developed for the project. EustisEngineeringcanprovideadditionalgeotechnicalserviceswhichmayinclude consultation during design and construction. We can also provide compaction and inplace density determinations on fill materials. We can perform appropriate laboratory tests to determine the gradation and quality of material proposed as structural fill or backfill. Eustis Engineering can also monitor vibrations. 44. Eustis Engineering should be retained to monitorthe geotechnical related work performed by the contractor. This permits the geotechnical engineer that prepared the report to be on hand and quickly evaluate unanticipated conditions, conduct additional tests if required, and when necessary, recommend alternative solutions to problems. This is recommended to avoid major construction cost overruns or contractual disputes on the project. LIMITATIONS 45 Eustis Engineering has provided engineering services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this locality at this time. No warranty or guarantee is expressed or implied. 46 Our report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for the exclusive use of the City of New lberia and Domingue, Szabo & Associates for specific application to the subject site. ln the event of any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed project features, the conclusions and City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 17 of 19 recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified and verified through written correspondence. Should these data be used by anyone other than the City of New lberia and Domingue, Szabo & Associates, the user should contact Eustis Engineering for interpretation of data and to secure any other information which may be pertinent to the project. 47 Recommendations and conclusions contained in this report are to some degree subjective having partial basis in engineering judgment and experience particular to the design engineer. For this reason, this report should not be included in the contract plans and specifications. However, the results of the soil borings and laboratory tests contained in Appendix I of this report may be included in the plans and specifications. The construction contractor will then be obliged to make an independent interpretation of subsoil conditions at the site, and their potential impact on means and methods used to construct the project features in accordance with the plans and specifications. 48. Note, the analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on data obtained from the soil borings. The individual logs of the borings are considered representative of subsurface conditions at their respective locations on the dates completed. No warranty is given the boring logs are representative of subsurface conditionsatotherlocationsortimes. Thenatureandextentofvariationsinsubsurface conditions, between and away from the boring locations, may not become evident until construction. lf such variations then appear, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. 49 Our findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page 18 of L9 Furthermore, our findings and recommendations are based on the assumption soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at the specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil or ground water conditions could exist beyond the exploration points. Variations in soil or ground water may require additional studies, consultation, and possible revisions to our recommendations. 50. This report is issued with the understanding the owner or owner's representative has the responsibility to bring the information and recommendations contained herein to the attention of the engineers for the project so they are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. The owner or owner's representative also has the responsibility to take the necessary steps to see the general contractor and all subcontractors follow such recommendations. The owner or owner's representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. 51. The plans and specifications for the project should be provided to Eustis Engineering for review. This is to ensure the intent of this report is incorporated into the plans and specifications. lf Eustis Engineering is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. 52. The scope of our service does not include an environmental assessment or an exploration for the presence or absence of wetlands and hazardous or toxic materials in the soil; surface water; ground water; or air on, below, or adjacent to the subject property. Furthermore, the scope does not include the exploration or detection of biological pollutants at the site. The term "biological pollutants" includes but is not limited to molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms. City of New lberia Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474 Page L9 of 19 NOT TO SCATE O DENOTES LocATIoNS oF UNDISTURBED so|L BoRINGS DRILLED BETWEEN 12 AND 1,4 DECEMBER 2016 O OTruOTES LOCATIONS OF AUGER BORINGS DRILLED BETWEEN 16 THROUGH 20 DECEMBER 2016 BORING LOCATION PLAN CIW OF NEW IBERIA TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA E E u,9r ls DRAWN BY: J.L.S. CHECKED BY: A.J.B. CADD FILE: LOCATION PLAN.DGN JOB NO.: 10474 DATE: 16 MARCH 2017 FIGURF 1 40 40' t2' 80' 20 @ oo ELT2 EL22 =t-- ll EL2 l! l! 0 z z o k u..l J trt -20 -40 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1.40 160 180 200 220 DISTANCE IN FEET TABIE 1: DESIGN VATUES SOIL NO. 1 DESCRIPTION LEVEE FRICTION ANGLE IN DEGREES{1) NL1 UNIT WEIGHT IN PCF t26 2 CLAY NL2 126 3 CLAY NL3 t26 4 CLAY 5 CLAY NL3 119 Nt3 120 6 CLAY 23 L20 {1) RtfER TO rABl-E 2 FOR NON-UNEAR ft) STRTNGTH DATA. coHEsloN AVG. BASE 0 0 TABLE 2: NON-IINEAR STRENGTH ENVEIOPES NORMAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (PSF} SHEAR STRENGTH (PSF) NL1 NL2 NL3 0 0 o 0 7044 650 485 255 2089 1160 820 450 8354 4090 2700 1460 SLI P DESIGNATION A TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF RESULTS TYPE OF SEARCH MINIMUM COMPUTED FACTOR OF SAFETY MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY BLOCK SPECIFIED 0.69 1.40 SLOPE/W FILE NAME: 10474 - S-CASE GRA CALIBRATED.GSZ SUBFILE NAME BLOCK NOTES: 1, SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES PERFORMED BY SPENCER's METHOD OF SLICES USIN6 SLOPE/W SoFTWARE, VERSTON 8.16.1.13452. 2. SURVEY DATA DEVELOPED BY PAUL C, PRINCE, LLC. 3, NON-LINEAR STRENGTH DATA WAS ESTIMATED FROM DRAINED RESIDUAL AND FULLY SOFTENED FRICTION ANGLES BASED ON PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ESTIMATED .'EMPIRICAL FRACTION AS SUGGESTED BY STARK AND HUSSAIN 2013, CORRELATIONS; DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES," ASCE JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, VOLUME 139, ISSUE 6. CLAY SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES SPENCER'S METHOD, S-CASE EXISTING LEVEE - TOE FAILURE CONDITION CITY OF NEW IBERIA TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA FI EUSTIS i.l -iltFFPjit.: l rr DRAWN BY: J.L.S. CHECKED BY: A.J.B. CADD FILE: S.CASE TOE.DGN JOB NO.: 10474 DATE: 14 AUG 2017 FIGURE 2 40 40' T2' 80' EL22 20 oo o ELL2 z t- A lJ ELZ EL2 LIzIr 0 -v- z. o k tJ J I.IJ -20 -40 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 L40 160 180 200 220 DISTANCE IN FEET TABLE 1: DESIGN VALUES SOIL NO. DESCRIPTION FRICTION ANGLE IN DEGREES{1I UNIT WEIGHT IN PCF 1 LEVEE NL1 125 2 CLAY NL2 126 3 CLAY NL3 126 4 CLAY NL3 119 5 CLAY NL3 120 6 CLAY TO TAELE 2 FOR NON,LINEAR 23 120 STRENGIH DAA. coHEstoN AVG. BASE 0 o TABLE 2: NON-LINEAR STRENGTH ENVETOPES NORMAL EFFECIVE STRESS (PSF) SHEAR STRENGTH (PSF) NL1 NL2 NL3 0 0 0 0 toM 650 485 255 2089 1160 820 450 8354 4090 2700 1460 SLIP DESIGNATION A TABTE 3: SUMMARY Ot RESUTTS TYPE OF SEARCH MINIMUM COMPUTED FACTOR OF SAFETY MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY SUBFILE NAME BLOCK SPECIFIED 1.01 1.40 BLOCK DRY RES +20% SLOPE/W FILE NAME: 10474 - S-CASE GRA CALIBRATED.GSZ NOTES: 1. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES PERFORMED BY SPENCER'S METHOD OF SLICES USING SLOPE/W SOFTWARE, VERSION 8,16.1.13452. 2. SURVEY DATA DEVELOPED BY PAUL C. PRINCE, LLC. 3. NON-LINEAR STRENGTH DATA WAS ESTIMATED FROM DRAINED RESIDUAL AND FULLY SOFTENED FRICTION ANGLES BASED ON PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ESTIMATED ..EMPIRICAL FRACTION AS SUGGESTED BY STARK AND HUSSAIN 2013, CORRETATIONS; DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES,'' ASCE JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, VOLUME 139, ISSUE 6. CLAY SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES SPENCER,S METHOD, S-CASE EXISTING LEVEE - SLOPE FAILURE CONDITION CITY OF NEW IBERIA TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS I BERIA PARISH, LOU ISIANA t EUSTIS DRAWN BY: J.L.S. CHECKED BY: A.J.B. CADD FILE: S-CASE LEVEE.DGN JOB NO.: 10474 DATE: 14 AUG 2017 FIGURE 3 40 40' t2' 50' 20 oo oo z F- IJ.J lr lJ- 0 z z o L k tJ J tJ EL -20 v EL-L -y- _[L EL22 1.5' 1.0' 45' 13' EL 6.5 EL 5.5 -40 -80 -60 -40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 L40 160 180 200 220 DISTANCE IN FEET TABLE 1: DESIGN VATUES SOIL NO. DESCRIPTION FRICTION ANGLE IN DEGREESll) UNIT WEIGHT IN PCF 1 CLAY 23 L20 2 LEVEE NLl 126 3 CLAY NL2 126 4 CLAY NL3 t26 5 CLAY NL3 r19 6 CLAY NL3 r20 7 CLAY 23 L20 (1) REFR TO TABLE 2 FOR NON,LINEAR INL} STRNGTH DATA. TABLE 2: NON.LINEAR STRENGTH ENVELOPES NORMAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (PSF} sHEAR STRENGTH (PSF} NL1 NL2 NL3 0 0 0 0 IO44 650 485 255 2089 1160 820 450 8354 4090 2700 1460 coHEstoN AVG. BASE 0 0 0 0 SLIP DESIGNATION A TABIE 3: SUMMARY OF RESUTTS TYPE OF SEARCH MINIMUM COMPUTED FACTOR OF SAFETY MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY ENTRY EXIT r.4t 1.40 SLOPE/W FILE NAME: 10474 - S-CASE GRA CALIBRATED.GSZ SUBFILE NAME EE A BERM 3 NOTES: 1. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES PERFORMED BY SPENCER'S METHOD OF SLICES USING SLOPE/W SoFTWARE, VERSTON 8.16.1.13452. 2. SURVEY DATA DEVELOPED BY PAUL C. PRINCE, LLC. 3. NON-LINEAR STRENGTH DATA WAS ESTIMATED FROM DRAINED RESIDUAL AND FULLY SOFENED FRICTION ANGLES BASED ON PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ESTIMATED CLAY ..EMPIRICAL FRACTION AS SUGGESTED BY STARK AND HUSSAIN 2013, CORRELATIONS; DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES,' ASCE JOURNAT OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, VOLUME 139, ISSUE 6. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES SPENCER'S METHOD, S-CASE EXISTING LEVEE - SLOPE FAILURE CONDITION CITY OF NEW IBERIA TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA Et FU,9Il: DRAWN BY: J.L.S. CHECKED BY: A.J.B. CADD FILE: S-CASE BERM.DGN IOB NO.: 10474 DATE: 14 AUG 2017 FIGURE 4 40' t2' 50' 15 10' 45' 13 40 LEVEE FILL/N ATURAL SOIL TO BE EXCAVATED AND REPLACED W ITH SUITABLE ENGINEERING FILL -' 20 co o =FIJ- r.l II 0 z z o k lrl J IJ.J -20 EL12 Ft -gq EL -18 - &\<:r V \, EL _V_ EL22 RT BACKSLOPE AT POSITION OF UPPER MOST SLIDE SCARP TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER EL 6.5 STABILITY BERM EL 5.5 EL2 CUT BENCHES INTO EXISTING MATERIAL TO KEYIN NEW FILL -40 -80 60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 1.20 r40 160 180 200 220 DISTANCE IN FEET SEQUENCING: 1. DEWATER POND AND PREPARE SUBGRADE. 2. CONSTRUCT BERM IN LIFTS TO KEYING-IN EACH LIFT TO THE EXISTING CONTAINMENT SLOPE WITH MINIMUM 4-FT WIDE 1.FT DEEP BENCHES. 3. EXCAVATE FAILED SECTION OF LEVEE A5 INDICATED ON FIGURE. 4. RECONSTRUCT LEVEE IN LIFTS BY KEYING-IN EACH LIFT TO THE EXCAVATED BACK SLOPE WITH MINIMUM 3-FT WIDE 1-FT DEEP BENCHES. CONCEPTUAL REPAIR SEQUENCING EXISTING LEVEE - SLOPE FAILURE CONDITION CITY OF NEW IBERIA TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA t EUSTIS : rril.tFFFrtj f: t t. DRAWN BY: J.L.S. CHECKED BY: G.R.A. CADD FILE CRS.DGN JOB NO.: 10474 DATE: 17 AUG 2017 FIGURE 5 APPENDIX I t EUSTIS ENGINEERING 5INCE r?46 LEGEND AND NOTES FOR LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS PP Pocket penetrometer: Resistance in tons per square foot SPT SPLR Standard Penetration Test: Number of blows of a 140-lb drive 2-in. O.D., 1.4-in. l.D. sampler a distance of L foot Values shown have not been corrected. Type of Sampling Shelby SPT Auger hammer dropped 30 inches required to into the soil after first seating it 6 inches Vibracore Geoprobe I No sample n m SYMBOL Clay silt Sand Peat/Humus Shells aa E a tf,fi aa ,.r-.1 Pl,l'll Predominant type shown heavy; modifying type shown light Stone/Gravel ffi usc Unified Soil Classification DENSITY Unit weight in pounds per cubic foot SHEAR TESTS TYPE UC Unconfined compression shear OB Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression shear on one specimen confined at the approximate overburden pressure UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression shear $ Angle of internal friction in degrees c Cohesion in pounds per square foot ATTERBERG LIMITS LL Liquid Limit PL Plastic Limit Pl Plasticity lndex OTHER TESTS CON Consolidation -#200 Percent passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve SV PD k SP Particle size distribution (sieve only) Particle size distribution (sieve and hydrometer) Coefficient of permeability in centimeters per second Swelling pressure in pounds per square foot Other laboratory test results reported on separate figures GENERAL NOTES (1) lf a ground water depth is shown on the boring log, these observations were made at the time of drilling and were measured below the existing ground surface. These observations are shown on the boring logs. However, ground water levels may vary due to seasonal fluctuations and other factors. lf important to construction, the depth to ground water should be determined by those persons responsible for construction immediately prior to beginning work. (2) While the individual logs of borings are considered to be representative of subsurface conditions at their respective locations on the dates shown, it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. EI EUSTIS NCINEERING 5rNCE r946 Scle in PP SPT Feet 0 1.00 5 4.00 3.50 10 2.00 15 1.50 20 1.00 25 0.50 30 1.00 35 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: B-1 Project No: 10474 DatetT2/L2/2Or6 Latitude: 29.99322" Longitude: -9L.75762" Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 50.0 ft S P L Symbol R Visual Classification Medrum st brown & tan srltv clav trace of clay pockets'& lehses [/oots, *o & tan siltv clav w/trace of roots l+,{ljo Bf[g'l'Fliqfft tan sittv crav w/trace Stitt gray.& tan lay wlconcretons & trace of oecayeo wooo usc Sample Depth Water Content Number n Feet % CL r- 2 CL 2 24 3 CL 5 22 4 8 20 CH 5 LL Density Dry wet ne 98 t2t 704 727 110 131 Shear Tests c Type 0 ncf UC 8r4 Atterberg Limits LL PL PI 44 17 27 OB 0 4348 UC 5125 39 19 20 Other Tests -#200 = 97.9%, Po -#200 = 98.1%, PD 6 L4 44 78 u2 UC 1723 I 7 18 % w/trace of silt pockets & concretions 8 23 30 94 L22 UC L487 Medum compact gray clayey slt ML W SoIt.to mdium stift gray sandy clay w/silt pocKets 9 CL 28 27 97 L23 OB 0 866 26233 10 33 36 86 LL6 UC 276 MlNl VANE = 773 P5F 1.00 40 11 38 1-50 45 L2 43 37 84 115 UC 457 1.50 50 NOTES: 13 48 Page 1 of 1 t EUSTIS NG NRING srNcE r94 Scele n PP SPT Feet 0 4.50 5 4.50 1.00 10 4.00 15 3.00 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: B-2 Project No: 10474 Date: latitude: 29.99335" longitude: -9t.757t5" Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 50.0 ft 5 P t Symbol R , Visual Classification soft brown srlty clay (ltll) IIT*?ffiltt slty clay w/silt pockets & tl',tg %3"c.?'"Ti3lY |f, y *^ rt po c kets & ufl F#itrffiv,.33'&{tvr,?13x"" Medum stff to verv stiff Erav & tan clav w/trace of silt pockts & ontretions Sample Depth Wter USC Number in Feet Content % CL r -r cu 2 2 L7 CL 3 5 18 CH 4 8 36 5 CH 6 11 37 t4 Density Dry wet nf net 111 729 Shear Tests Type 0 c Atterberg Limits LL Pt PI UC 4798 41 22 21 85 116 OB 0 1343 86 LL7 UC L747 Other Tests 3.50 20 7 18 44 777 oB o 752 86 23 63 -200 = 99.6%, PD 2.00 25 8 23 1.50 30 1.50 35 1.50 40 2.00 45 2.00 50 NOTES: Soft to stiff gray & tan clay Wsilt pockets CH 9 28 37 82 LLz UC 418 % 10 33 Medum Jtff to stiff grav & tan clay Wslt CH pockets & concretios I MedumJtiff to stjff grav lav w/'slt pockets & trace of co'hc/etiohs 11 38 39 81 tt2 oB 0 658 CH T2 43 % 13 48 41 79 tt2 UC 703 MlNl VAN = 815 P5F Page 1 of 1 ET EUSTIS NG NEERINC SrNC[ 194 Scle in PP SPT Feet 0 4.50 5 4.00 2.00 10 2.00 15 1.50 F NN 2.00 c 20 q ! ) 2.00 o 25 J 30 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: B-3 Project No: 10474 DatetT2/L4/2Ot6 Latitude: Longitude: s P L Symbol R ,% Visual Classification Soft brown silty clay (fill) fl,7iL:'""#'F*'&l1ll, & brown si rtv cr av .vsY"T J'8'l?t""i lf if f Y c t a v wlt ra c" ot lH$t1X frilt" crav w/'ew srt pockets Medium stiff to stff gry clay Sample Depth Water USC Number in Feet o/o Content CL r-r CL 2 2 L7 CL 5 18 CH 4 8 42 5 CH 6 11 L4 50 Density Dry wet 110 r29 LO7 r27 79 113 Shear Tests Type 0 c UC 4507 UC 3134 OB 0 L279 7t 107 UC 770 I I w/concretions. trace of shell frgments, & cirganc matter Soft gray slty clay 7 I CL-ML 9 18 23 46 75 110 UC 796 2A 31 91 L20 OB n 494 Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 50.0 ft Atterberg Limits LL PL PI Other Tests 4s 20 25 2a226 -r2AA =97.L%PD 2.00 35 Stiff gray clay w/trace of slt pockets CH 10 33 2.00 40 1.50 45 1.50 50 NOTES: . 11 38 37 83 113 UC LO23 Medium stiff to stiff gray clay w/few silt CH pocKels I t2 43 13 48 44 7S 108 UC 64r Page 1 of 1 EI EUSTIS ENGiNEERING City of New lberia Tete Bayou Westewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: B-4 Project No: 10474 Date:.t2h4/2)!6 Latitude: Longitude: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 50.0 ft Scale in Feet 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 PP 4.50 3.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 0.50 s P SPT L Symbol Visuel Clssificeton R fP#J'?: Bi"8'JruiI 8l 1$!"fi r [o o" * l lht%[? t'!.v."t31"8L'Xf lfi T )*/""'" Very stiff tan & gray slty clay w/roots Stiff to verv stjfJ red & tan clay w/trace of concretionS (fill) Medium stff to stff ereenish-srav & dark grav clay w/trace of 5lt pockefs I% Medium stff to verv stiff Erv & tan clav w/tew. iilt pockets, ' trace f cncretionsl &'shell frafments Stitf preensh-srev & tan clav w/tew slt pockts & trac-e of shell fraginehts Medium compact gray clayey slt usc Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet % CL r-l ct 2 2 30 CL CH 4 5 20 8 46 CH 11 4L 6 CH 7 !4 18 4t ctl 8 ML 9 23 35 28 31 Density Dry wet 91 119 76 111 79 t12 Shear Tests Type 0 c Atterberg Limits LL PL PI UC L462 37 2r 16 UC 1046 OB 0 823 101 31 70 81 774 UC 947 88 118 UC 1062 92 r20 OB 0 503 Other Tests -#2OO = 99.7% PD -#2OA = 99.1% PD 1.50 35 2.00 40 stff gray clay w/trace of CH 10 33 lll,"'j.n["rr!tr.o tl 38 44 78 rL2 UC 542 1.50 45 F f, 1.50 U 50 NOTES: 72 43 13 4A 4A 73 109 oB 0 679 Page 1 of 1 t EUSTIS NG NEERING SrNCe 191 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 2.50 5 3.00 2.00 10 2.50 15 1.50 F NN 2.00 20 ) 1.50 ) 25 zo e. o 6 30 z F 0.50 6 U U 35 l q F 1.00 N 40 . @ 0.50 =ts z 45 tr f, 1.00 U 50 NOTES: City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: B-5 Project No: 10474 Datett2/t4/2Ot6 [atitude: Longitude: s P L Symbol R , ry' Visual Classification 5o1t tan 6. gray srlty cray [1ril1 Sttt to verv sttt srev & ten clev w/trace of concretibns &-shdll fraEments lfilll !1ilFJU,f"[6['PJ3#i"Bf {liTfi * l[!$t]l ffit" crav w/trace ot srt renses Stiff to very stiff lght brown & gray clay I Mgdum..stiff tp stiff gray & tan clav wrew silt pocKets I % sp3[l[3t t"tt t'av w/trace of clavev sllt USC Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet lo LL CH 2 2 37 CH 3 5 33 CH 4 8 37 CH 5 11 24 CH 6 L4 Density ury wet nf nf 86 tt1 Shear Tests L Type 0 ncf UC 1381 90 119 OB o ZLgL 85 116 UC 1698 97 127 OB 0 1335 7 18 44 77 111 UC 858 8 CL 9 23 28 30 93 12L oB 0 s76 Medium stiff gray clay w/trace of organic CH 10 33 43 79 L72 UC 609 maner I I w/trace of silt pockets 11 38 L2 43 44 77 111 UC 605 13 48 Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 50.0 ft Atterberg Lmits LL PL PI 101 22 79 Other Tests 72 19 53 -fl200 = 99.8% PD 31 18 13 -#2OO = 96-3% PD Page 1 of 1 EI EUSTIS ENGINEERING SrNC[ 194 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 3.00 5 4.00 4.00 10 2.00 15 2.50 1.00 20 1.50 25 0.50 30 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: 8-6 Project No: 10474 Datez t2/L3l2OI6 Iatitude: [ongitude: s P t Symbol R % Visuel Clessification Stttt rown & tan clav wtrace o1 srlt pockets & concretiors (fill) Stiff to verv stiff srav & tan clav w/few concretions. silt ockets. & trae f roots (fiil) ' I w/concretions & silt pockets Stff srav & ten clev w/slt pockets & tra ce-of 'sh e Il f ra gni en'ts Very stiffgrav clay w/trace of roots, silt pockets, & o/gani niatter MeCum stff to stff gray & tan clay w/silt pocKers [r4edium stiff gray silty clay w/clayey silt tenses usc Sample Depth Content Water Number n Feet % LH 2 2 32 CH 3 5 32 4 8 33 CH 5 CH 6 11 39 L4 33 CH 7 18 46 8 23 CL 9 aa 28 Density ury WET nf 87 115 91 t20 86 115 83 115 86 115 75 109 96 L23 Shear Tests Type 0 L UC 1189 OB 0 3269 UC 1688 OB 1646 UC 2370 UC 590 oB 0 891 Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 50.0 ft Atterberg Limits LL PL PI Other Tests 91 24 67 -#200 = 99.8% PD 31 20 11 -#2o0 = 91.9% PD 1.50 U U 35 1.50 40 0.50 45 Medium stiff to stiff srav clav w/silt CH 10 33 pockets, trace of orgnd matte, & roots I % Soft gray clay w/trace of silt pockets 11 38 36 86 1r7 UC 767 CH t2 43 52 70 107 OB o 446 0.50 50 NOTES: 13 48 51 72 108 UC 439 Page 1 of 1 t EUSTIS l-NG NEE,lNC :rNc[ 14 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 4.00 5 4.00 4.50 10 3.00 15 1.00 N N 2.00 20 oJ 2.00 25 J o z . o 1.00 6 30 oz ts 2.00 U U 35 6 J q N 2.00 No 40 o 1.00 J F z 45 ts l 0.50 U 50 NOTES: City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana s P L Symbol R Visual Classification '. , tan Y,?iy.?lrlll EB'" lisr*Jl g f, tl s i I tv c I av Medium stff to hrd brown clav w/siltv clay lenses & trace of roots (fill)' Stiff to very stiff tan & gray clay Y.gH[?i' 3t" g'cl'ft fl ;".' -t" u''' u M light gray & tan clay pockets M & tan clav silt pocke'ts % I Stiff gray & tan clay Wtew silt pockets I ' Medium stiff gray clay wfew silt pockets RIN AND E Boring: B-7 USC Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet % CL r-r CL 2 2 20 ct 3 5 18 CH 4 I 33 CH 5 11 39 CH 6 t4 50 CH 7 18 46 Project No: 10474 Datet L2/L3/2OI6 latitude: Longitude: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 50.0 ft Dnsty Dry wet 105 125 104 L23 Shear Tests Type 0 c Atterberg Limts PL UC 4309 46 2! 25 os 0 3120 Other Tests -#2O0=99.4%PD 87 115 UC 977 83 115 OB 7t 106 UC tTLA 679 75 110 OB 0 81.5 100 26 74 -#200 = 99.4% PD CH 23 35 86 116 UC 822 9 28 CH 10 33 35 87 777 oB 0 1005 11 38 CH t2 43 4L U 113 UC 681 13 48 Page 1 of 1 t qg:ll"s City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-1 Project No: 10474 Date: latitude: 29.99318" longitude: -9I.75772" Elevation: 17.5 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0ft Scale in PP Feet 0 5 P SPT L Symbol Visual Classification R H8fJlffhit'tt brown srrtv crav w/trace ot usc Sample Depth Content Water Number n Feet % CL PB-2 t 17 Density ury wet ncf nf Shear Tests Type 0 n<f L Atterberg Limits LL PL PI Soft to medium stiff srav & brown siltv CL clav w/trice of sand, Tqntletions, orgahic mattei, & roots (pos'sible fill) PB-3 3 22 42 20 22 Other Tests -S200 = 95.7%, PD 5 PB.4 Soft to mqdum stiff tan & gray silty clay CL w/trace ot concreuons PB.5 7 25 PB-6 9 10 15 20 25 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 E EUSTIS ENGINEERING City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-2 Project No: 10474 Datet]^2hg/2OL6 Latitude: 29.99323" Longitude: -9L.75758" Elevation: 18.0 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft Scale in PP Feet 0 5 P SPT L Symbol R Visual Classification USC Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet % Density Dry wet nf Shear Tests Type 0 L Atterberg Limts LL PL PI +?g'31"'J$ 3 6{"lt'lltu''' u w/tra ce CL PB-2 1 22 Other Tests concretions, & PB-3 3 24 to CL 5 PB.4 5 26 4t 20 21 -#200 = 94.8%, PD N N 10 c? 3 o J o z E. 6 o 15 . z F o U U J oNo 20 . 6 ) ts z o tr )U 25 NOTES: , Medium stiff gray clay w/trace of silt pocKets CH PB.5 7 PB.6 9 45 Page 1 of1 t EUSTIS ENG NERING srNc[ 194 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-3 Project No: 10474 Date: Latitude: 29.99328" Longitude: -9L.75762" Elevation: 16.0 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft s P L Symbol R Visual Classification g8tT''#*U*l*'yu'''v w/trace USC Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet % LL r-r PB-2 7 27 Density Dry Wet Shear Tests Type 0 c Atterberg Limits LL PL PI 42 20 22 Other Tests 5 N N 10 q o J o J z E. 6 o 15 z F U u 6Jq N oN 20 . 6 J ts z tr l U 25 NOTES: PB-3 3 , Medum stff tan & gray.lay w/silt, pocKets, trace ol_concret[ons, sano, brganic hatter, & roots (fill) CH PB-4 5 32 , Medum sttt Erv clev w/trece ot silt CH pfSfr.ti,"lS["fr iins,'shr I f rasm e nts, & PB-5 7 PB-6 9 45 5s 15 40 -S200 = 95.4%, PD Page 1 of 1 EI EUSTS ENCINEERING 5tNCe r94 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-4 Project No: 10474 DatetL2lT9/2OL6 latitude: 29.99330' [ongitude: -9t.75710" Elevation: 12.3 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft s P L Symbol R Visual Classification Medium stiff brown & srav sltv clav w/trace. ef concretionsisahd, & orgnic m'atter (fill) USC Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet % CL r- PB.2 1 23 Densty Dry Wet Shear Tests Type 0 C Atterberg Lmts LL PL PI 40 2L 19 Other Tests -# 200 = 98.4%, PD PB-3 3 5 N N 10 o N ! J o) o z . o 6 '15 . z F U' U U J q F N 20 t d =F z o tIs l U 25 NOTES: Medium stffJrAy clay w/trace of COncrellOnS . SllI PocKeIS PB-4 5 CH PB-5 7 38 PB-6 9 104 31 73 Page 1 of 1 FI EUSTIS ENC NCRINC SrNCI r94 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treetment Plant Equalization Basin levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-5 Project No: 10474 Dae:.I2lt9/20!6 latitude: 29.99340" longitude: -91.75723" Elevation: 17.3 Datuml Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft s P L Symbol R Visual Classification & tan siltv clav w/trece or ,j[roffflfl" Sample Depth Water USC Number in Feet Content % CL r-l PB.2 L 22 Density Dry Wet nf Shear Tests Type 0 ncfc Atterberg Limits LL Pt PI Othr Tests CL Yf#iT # [ llEFit?JRy,, ' $'tt ?i lfiv't'v PB.3 3 24 4r 22 19 -#200 = 98,4%, PD 5 PB-4 5 F 10 ititt dark gray clay Wtrace of slt pockets CH PB-5 7 & ros PB-6 I 44 100 35 65 o J o z E. 6 15 t z F u U o. N N 20 . =F z tr l U 25 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 t EUSTIS ENG NEERINC City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-6 Project No: 10474 DatezT2/t6/2Ot7 latitude: 29.99342' longitude: -9t.75728" Elevation: 11.0 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft Scale in PP Feet 5 P SPT L Symbol Visual Classification R vqrv sttl rown & lrght gray.srlty llay wtrace.ol sanfL organrc maHer, . concrelronS Ifilll clay w/trace of slt USC Sample Depth Content Water Number in Feet % LL PB-2 1 77 CH PB-3 3 Density Dry wet Shear Tests Type 0 L Atterberg Lmits tL PL PI 37 22 15 Other Tests -#2OO = 99.2%, ?D 5 N N 10 J oJ o z . o 15 . z ts U U J c? o N 20 . . 6 J % Stiff dark gray clay w/trace of roots PB-4 5 42 CH PB-5 7 PB-6 9 42 100 30 70 25 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 EI EUSTIS ENC NEERING stNc[ 194 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 5 10 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-7 Project No: 10474 Datett2/L9/20!6 Latitude: 29.99403" Longitude: -91.75685" Elevation: 12.8 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft 5 P L Symbol R Visual Classification um ry tom m tc Medium stiff greenish-gray & tan clay usc Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet ot LL U PB-2 1 22 CL PB-3 3 23 CH PB-4 5 PB-5 7 46 PB.6 9 Density Dry Wet Shear Tests Type t c Atterberg Lmts Lt PL PI 38 20 18 32 2t !7 113 22 91 Other Tests -#200 = 95.0%, PD 15 F 20 c? N oJ o o 25 J o z 6 o 30 . z F a U u 35 6 J C? F oNo 40 J F z 45 (9 tr f U 50 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 EI EUSTIS ENGINEERING SrNCE r94 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Westewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, [ouisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-8 Project No: 10474 Datet12l20/2OL6 latitude: [ongitude: s P L Symbol R Visual Clssificton Soft brown slty clay (filll Mediqm stiff.brp.wn sltv clav w/trace of roots (possible filll usc Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet % CL ro-t CL PB-2 1 23 Density Dry wet rf nf Shear Tests Type 0 ncfc 5 N 't0 q 3J o J o z E. o 6 15 . z F h u U ) N 20 . d _6 J z o ts a f U 25 NOTES: , Medium stiff dark gray clay Medum stffgray clay w/silt, trace ot COnCfelonS, SanO Stift gra.y & tan clav w/trace 01 cncreflns CH PB-3 3 37 CH PB.4 5 46 CH PB-5 7 PB-6 9 48 Elevation: 17.0 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft Atterberg Lmits LL PL PI Other Tests 98 31 67 -1200=99.3%PD Page 1 of 1 EI EUSTIS N NLE'IIN iiNa t 'li Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-9 Project No: 10474 Datet t2/t6/2OI6 latitude: 29.99393' Longitude: -91.75800" Elevation: 16.8 Datum: Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft s P L Symbol R Visual Classification Mectrum strll rown sltv clav.wsand, ot concreons, & rganrc matter 11,1fi" Medum stff light.gray B.Jown slty clay wtrace 01 concrellons llil], USC Sample Depth Water Content Number in Feet LL r-r PB.2 1 T7 CL PB-3 3 22 Densty Dry Wet Shear Tests il-T; Atterberg Limts LL PL PI 43 L7 26 Other Tests -#2O0 = 94.2%, PD 5 ffi i}?ii'rT 3:11FJlv A? l" I'ix,''' v CL PB-4 5 N 10 3 oJ z oo 15 z ts U U J N 20 . o ) ts z o tr f, U 25 NOTES: PB.5 7 26 PB-6 9 Page 1 of 1 ET EUSTIS ENC NRINC City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treetment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-10 Project No: 10474 Datez 12/L6/2O77 Latitude: 29.99398" longitude: -9L.75790" Elevation: 17.0 Datum: Water Depth; See Text Total Depth: 10.0 ft Scale in PP Feet 0 S P SPT L Symbol Visual Classification R 50tt tn & lrpht erav srltv clav w/trace ot clay pocketsl cocrtioris, &'rots (fll) Spft to,medium stiff.brown.& erAyilty crav wconcregns rr4ce.gl sano, ( organrc maer (possrte nil, Sample Depth Water USC Number in Feet Content % LL PB-2 7 27 CL PB.3 3 25 Density Dry Wet Shear Tests Type 0 c Atterberg Limits LL PL PI 39 20 19 Other Tests -#2OO = 96.9%, PD 5 10 N Jo Medium stiff gray cly w/trace of slt pocKers PB.4 5 CH PB-5 7 PB-6 9 49 '15 2Q F :) U 25 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 ET EUSTIS ENCINERING srNct 1!4 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING D TEST RESULTS Boring: A-11 Project No: 10474 Datez t2/2O/2O76 latitude: 29.99022' longitude: -91.75892" Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 8.0 ft s P L Symbol R Visual Classification Medum 5tt1 rav & tan clay w/trace 01 roots & shell lFag:ments Sample Depth Water usc Number n Feet Content LH r-t PB-2 1 51 Density Dry Wet nf Shear Tests Type 0 n<f L Atterberg Limits PL 105 27 78 Other Tests w/tracq of silt pockets, roots, & PB-3 concrellons 5 PB-4 5 37 % Soft to medium stiff srav siltv clav w/siltv CL PB-5 7 32 sand oockets & trace-of toncletins 10 15 . z ts U U o J N 20 . _ J ts z o ts l U 25 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 t EUSTIS ENG NRING 5rNCr 194 Scale in PP SPT Feet 0 City of New lberia Tete Bayou Westewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND EST RESULTS Boring: A-Lz Project No: 10474 DatetL2/20/2Ot6 latitude: 29.99123" Longitude: -91.75838" Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 8.0 ft S P L Symbol R , Visual Classification Stiff dark srav clav w/tew shell fraEmentl sift potkets, & trace of organrc mafter Sample Depth Water usc Number in Feet Content % CH rD-I PB.2 t 30 Densty Dry Wet nf nf Shear Tests Type 0 ncfc Atterberg Limts LL PL PI 73 20 53 Other Tests Stiff gray clay Wtrace of concretons CH PB-3 3 5 PB-4 5 43 F N ts 10 c? J o J o z E o 15 z ts a U U 6 J q oN 20 & . 6 J F z o F l U 25 NOTES: PB-5 7 Page 1 of 1 t EUSTIS NC NEERINC 5rNC[ ]94 Scale in PP SPT Feet City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-13 Project No: 10474 Date;72l2Ol2jt6 latitude: 29.99198' Longitude: -9L.75795" Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 8.0 ft s P L Symbol R , Visual Classification Medium slff dark,qrav & gray clay w/trace of silt pocfetd USC Sample Depth Water Contnt Number in Feet % CH r-r PB.2 1 47 Densty Dry Wet Shear Tests Type 0 c Atterberg Limits LL PL PI 108 26 82 Other Tests , Medium stiff-grav & tan clay w/trace of CH PB-3 3 45 concretions &-oranic mattr 5 Soft to medum stff gray clay CH PB.4 5 40 ts c 10 q ! J o J o z 15 . z F U U 6) q N N 20 d t=s z tr f, U 25 NOTES: PB.5 7 Page 1 of 1 FI EUSTIS EN]C NEI NC City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treetment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, louisiana LOG OF BORING AND TEST RESULTS Boring: A-14 Project No: 10474 Date: Latitude: 29.99273" longitude: -9I.75762" Water Depth: See Text Total Depth: 8.0 ft Scale in PP Feet 0 5 P SPT L Symbol Vsual Clssificaton R Sott to medrum strtt srav clav w/roots. trace of slt pockets, & cbncrtins Medium stiflgray.clay w/trace of COnCretlOnS rOOtS Sample Depth Water Content - - Densty USC Number in Feet Dry -[- wet % nr I rr LH PB-2 1 45 CH PB-3 3 46 Shear Tests Atterberg Limits 0 T;:;- ,-il nT;i- 96 29 67 Other Tests 5 N N 10 q N J o o ) % PB.4 5 PB.5 7 46 15 U U 6 q N 20 25 NOTES: Page 1 of 1 Particle Size Distribution Report .E oooooo ooo N$@FFN 100 0 90 10 \ 80 \ 20 70 t 60 IIJ z LL F z 50 trJ o . IJJ 40 fL 30 20 30 l m 40 7 o m z 50 -t c) o 60 v(n m v \ \ 70 80 10 0 I o/" +3" 0.0 100 10 % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coatse Medium Fine 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.0 90 100 % Fines silr Clay 73.6 24.3 LL PL Das Doo D5o Dso DIS DtO Cc Cu 44 t7 o.{\347 0 0204 0.0 168 0.0083 Material Description Mediunr Stiff Brown and Tan Silty Clay W Some Roots. Traces olClay Pockets and Lenses (Brinle) uscs CL AASHTO A-7-6(28) Project No. L0474 Clientr CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NErvV IBERIA CITY OF -TETE BAYOU WASTETVATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-l Depth: 2 Sample Number: 2 Remarks: Specific Gravity was Estimated Tested By: S\ll/V EI EUSTIS ENGINEERING Checked By: CD Figure Particle Size Distribution Report a 100 ooo +t ot@oo 90 \ '10 80 70 tuzl 60 tr l- z 50 uJ o t UJ 40 30 \ 20 \ 30 \ 50 \ 60 70 20 80 10 0 100 10 I % +3" 00 % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coase Medium Fine 0.0 0.0 0. I 0.4 1.4 90 '100 % Fines silr Clay 69.6 28.5 LL PL Das Dso Dso Dso DtS DtO Cc Cu 39 l9 0.047'7 002 l0 0.0 t 6l 0.0058 Material Description Hard Light Brown and Tan Silty Clay W Trace of Concretions (Brinle) USCS CL AASHTO A-6(21) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF -TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B- I Depth: 8 Sample Number: 4 Remarks: Specific Gravity was Estimated Tested By: SWV EI EUSTIS ENI-INEER]NG Checked By: CD Figure .a 100 90 80 70 60 Particle Size Distribution Report ooooo o Q +*+4+ 0 10 \ 20 30 \ 50 50 40 60 30 70 20 80 '10 0 100 10 0.1 Vo +3" _l 0.0 % Gravel % Sand Goase Fine Coarse Medium Fine 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.4 0.01 % Fines silr 17.3 90 100 Glay 823 LL PL Das DOO DSO DgO DtS DtO cc cu 86 23 0 006s Material Description Medium StiflGray and Tan Clay W/ Traces of Silt Pockets and Concretions (Flocculated) USCS CH AASHTO A-7-6173) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 18 Sample Number: 7 Remarks: Specific Gravity was Estimated Tested By: BH & SWV ET EUSTS EllNEfRi\l(i Checked By: CD Figure  100 90 80 70 60 F z 50 UJ O . IIJ 40 30 20 Particle Size Distribution Report t s \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 10 20 30 T m 40 7 c) m z -{ 50 o o u 60 CN m n 70 80 10 90 0 100 I % +3" 0.0 % Gravel % Sand Coase Fine Coarse Medium Fine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 % Fines slt Glay 74.8 22.3 LL PL Dss Doo Dso Do Dt5 Dtg Cc Cu 28 22 0.05 l5 0.0266 0.0202 0.0087 0.0014 Material Description Soft Gray Silty Clay W/ Clayey Silt. Traces of Fine Sand and Concretions USCS CL-ML AASHTO A-4(5) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS- IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-3 Depth: 28 Sample Number: 9 Remarks: Specific Gravity was Estimated Tested By: BH EI EUSTIS ilGlNEER i'.J!' Checked By: CD Figure 100 90 80 70 t 60 uJ z LL F z 50 Lrl o . o_ uJ 40 30 20 Particle Size Distribution Report oooo s rt{t \ \ \ \ \ 0 10 20 30 ! m n c) m z 50 -{ o o 7 0 m v 70 80 10 0 l Vo +3" 0.0 1 % Gravel Coarse Fine 00 00 Coarse 0.0 % Sand Medium 0.1 0.1 Fine 0.2 0.01 % Fines silr 7 5.3 90 100 Glay 24.4 LL PL Das DeO DSO D3O DtS DtO cc cu 37 2l 0.041 I 0.0 t 86 0 0142 0 0073 0.0023 Material Description Medium Stiff and Glay Silty Clay W Clayey Silt and Roots USCS CL AASHTO A-6( l7) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-4 Depth: 5 Sample Number: 3 Remarks: Specifc Gravity was Estimated Tested By: BH & SWV EI EUSTIS ENT;INE'R]G Checked By: CD Figure i 100 90 80 70 t 60 IIJ z E l- z 50 uJ O . uJ 40 fL 30 Particle Size Distribution Report * oFoNooooo< 10 \ 20 30 ! m n o m z 50 -{ o o 60 m n 70 20 80 10 0 l Vo +3" 00 't0 % Gravel Coarse Fine 0.0 0.0 Coarse 0.0 % Sand Medium 0.0 0.1 Fine 0.3 90 100 0.01 0.001 % Fines sitt Clay t4.2 85.5 LL PL DAS Doo Dso Dso Dts Dto cc cu l0t 3l 0 0048 Material Description Medium Stiff Greenish Gray and Dark Gray Clay W Trace of Silt Pockets uscs CH AASHTO A-7-5(84) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CIry OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-4 Depth: I t Sample Number: 5 Remarks: Specific Gravity was Estimated TestedBy: BH&S\'VV t EUSTIS i-iINEERING Ghecked By: CD Figure Particle Size Distribution Report oFoNooo<oo * ++*++t 100 0 90 10 \ 80 20 \ 70 30 t m 60 40 7 \ c) m z 50 50 -{ o o 40 60 v(t m n 30 \ 70 \ 20 80 10 0 .l Vo +3" 0.0 100 '10 % Gravel Coarse Fine 0.0 0.0 Coarse 0.0 % Sand Medium 0.0 0.1 Fine 0.2 90 0.0't % Fines slr 78.3 100 0. Clay 2l.5 LL PL DaS DOO DSO Dso Dts Dto cc cu 72 l9 0.0399 0.o217 0.0174 0.0097 Material Description StiffLight Brown and Gray Clay W Silt Pockets. Traces of Sand. Concretions. Roots and Organic Matter USCS CH AASHTO A-7-6(60) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEV/ATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: I I Sample Number: 5 Remaks: Specific Gravity was Estimated Tested By: BH & SWV t EUSTIS NGINFER]NG Checked By: CD Figure Particle Size Distribution Report .= .= . $ 100 0 90 10 80 20 70 30 1' m 60 40 o m z -.{ 50 50 o \ o \v 40 60 Cr) m 30 \ 70 20 80 10 90 0 '100 o/o +3' _l 0.0 % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Goarse Medium Fine 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 3.7 % Fnes silr Clay 7 5.3 2t.0 LL PL Dgs Dso D5o Dgo Dt5 DIO Cc Cu 3l l8 0.0598 0.047s 0.0381 0.0143 0.00 l6 Material Description Soft Gray Silty Clay W Trace of Clayey Silt Pockets. Sand and Organic Matter USCS CL AASHTO A-6( r2) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU V/ASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 28 Sample Number: 9 Remarks: Specific Gravity was Estimated TestedBy: BH&S\VV t EUSTIS iJINEERi\G Ghecked By: CD Figure . 100 90 80 Particle Size Distribution Report i .aa f 10 \ 20 70 \ 30 60 40 z I 50 50 o o n 40 60 U) m v 30 70 ?o 80 10 0 100 10 o/o +3" _l 0.0 % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0. 1 90 100 % Fines stt Clay 10.4 89.4 LL PL DAS DSO DSO DSq DtS DtO Cc Cu 9l 24 0 0035 Material Description Very Stiff Gray and Tan Clay W/ Concretions. Few Silt Pockets (Fkrcculated) USCS CH AASHTO A-7-6(78) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: 8-6 Depth: 8 Sample Number: 4 Remarks: Specific Gravity was Estimated Tested By: BH & SWV ET EUSTIS FNGINFFR]NI; Checked By: CD Figure 100 90 80 70 . 60 IJJ z LL F z 50 lrJ (J . I.JJ 40 30 20 .a ON- Particle Size Distribution Report ooooo --\ \ \ \ \ \ 0 10 20 30 T m n o m z 50 -{ o o v 60 CI' m 70 80 10 0 I % +3" 0.0 LL PL 3l 20 % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 00 0.0 0.0 0.5 7.6 Das 0.0606 Doo 0.03 t2 Dso 0 0221 Dlo 0.0099 Dts 0.0021 90 100 % Fines silr Clay 69.9 220 Dto cc cu Material Description Soft Glay Silty Clay W Clayey Silt Len. Few Sand & Organic Matter. Trace of Concretions (Brittle) USCS CL AASHTO A-6( r0) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-6 Depth: 28 Sample Number: 9 Remarks: Specific Glavitv was Estimated Tested By: BH & SWV EUSTIS ET rirrilNEERi\G Checked By: CD Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 'c--.\i.-r-^<iF.ENO+@.E-r:N ooo @ON- '100 0 90 10 80 70 . 60 UJ z LL l- z 50 UJ o . t! 40 o- 30 20 \ 30 T' m \ 40 o m z -{ 50 c) o v 60 ct) m 7 70 20 80 10 I o/o +3" 0.0 % Gravel % Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 0.0 0.0 00 0.1 05 90 100 0.001 % Fines silt Clay 75. I 243 LL PL Das Doo Dso DgO DtS DtO Cc cu 46 2I 0.0417 0.0207 0.0 169 0.0087 Material Description Very Stiff Tan and Light Brown Silty Clay W Some Roots and Organic Matter. Few Silt Pockets. Traces USCS CL AASHTO A-7-6(27) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEV/ IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-7 Depth: 2 Sample Number: 2 Remarks: of Sand and Concretions (Brittle) Specific Graviry was Estimated Tested By: BH & SWV t EUSTIS NGINERING Ghecked By: CD Figure Particle Size Distribution Report ooo $ frt+ s 100 0 90 '10 80 20 70 60 uJ z Lr F z 50 uJ O . UJ 40 o- 30 30 -It m n o m z 50 -l o o 60 U) m v 70 20 80 10 0 o/o +3" 0.0 100 10 % Gravel Coase Fine 0.0 0.0 Coarse 0.0 % Sand Medium 0.1 0.1 Fine 0.5 90 100 0.01 0.001 % Fines sitt Clay 98 89.6 LL PL DaS DeO DSO DO DtS DrO cc cu 100 26 0.0039 Material Description Medium Stiff Light Gray and Tan Clay W Some Concretions and Silt Pockets. Traces of Sand and uscs CH AASHTO A-7-6(86) Project No. L0474 Client: CITY OF NEW IBERIA. WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT Project: NEW IBERIA CITY OF - TETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS. IBERIA PARISH. LOUISIANA Source of Sample: B-7 Depth: 18 Sample Number: 7 Remarks: Organic Matter (Flocculated) Specific Gravity was Estimated Tested By: BH & SWV EI EUSTIS I'JGINERING Ghecked By: CD Figure APPENDIX II APPENDIX III 1-?-"t-'t # Ltlr Tensar Tensar lnternational Corporaton 5883 Glenridge Drive, Suite 200 Atlanta, Georgia 30328-5363 Phone: 800-TENSAR-1 wx'*,. t en s ar i tt t etlt a t i on a I - c o n t Product Specification - Biaxial Geogrid 8X1200 Tensar lnternational Corporation reserves the right to change its product specifications at any tme. /f ls fhe responsibility of the specifier and purchaser to ensure that product specifications used for design and procurement purposes are current and consrsfent with the producfs used rn each instance. Product Type: Polymer: Load Transfer Mechanism: Primary Applications: lntegrally Formed Biaxial Geogrid Polypropylene Positive Mechanical lnterlock Spectra System (Base Reinforcement, Subgrade lmprovement) Product Properties lndex rties ' Aperture Dimensio . Minimum Rib Thickness2 . Tensile Strength @ 2% Strain3 . Tensile Strength @ 5% Strain3 . Ultimate Tensile Strength3 Structural lntegrity . Junction Efficiencya . Flexural Stiffnesss . Aperture Stability6 Durability . Resistance to lnstallation DamageT . Resistance to Long Term Degradations . Resistance to UV Degradatione Units mm (in) mm (in) kN/m (lb/ft) kN/m (lb/ft) kN/m (lb/ft) % mg-cm m-N/deg %SC/%SW/%GP /o /o MD Valuesr 25 (1.0) 1.27 (0.05) 6.0 (410) 1 1 .8 (810) 19.2 (1,310) XMD Valuesl 33 (1.3) 1.27 (0.05) e.0 (620) 19.6 (1 ,340) 28.8 (1,970) 93 750,000 0.65 95/93/90 100 100 Dimensions and Delivery The biaxial geogrid shall be delivered to the jobsite in roll form with each roll individually identified and nominally measuring 3.0 meters (9.8 feet) or 4.0 meters (1 3.1 feet) in width and 50.0 meters (164 feet) in length. A typical truckload quantity is 160 to 210 rolls. Notes 1. Unless indicated otherwise, values shown are minimum average roll values determined in accordance with ASTM D4759-02. Brief descriptions of test procedures are given in the following notes. 2. Nominal dimensions. 3. True resistance to elongation when initially subjected to a load determined in accordance with ASTM D6637-01 without deforming test materials under load before measuring such resistance or employing "secant" or "offset" tangent methods of measurement so as to overstate tensile properties. 4. Load transfer capability determined in accordance with GRI-GG2-05 and expressed as a percentage of ultimate tensile strength. 5. Resistance to bending force determined in accordance with ASTM D5732-01, using specimens of width two ribs wide, with transverse ribs cut flush with exterior edges of longitudinal ribs (as a "ladder"), and of length sufficiently long to enable measurement of the overhang dimension. The overall Flexural Stiffness is calculated as the square root of the product of MD and XMD Flexural Stiffness values. 6. Resistance to in-plane rotational movement measured by applying a 20 kg-cm (2 m-N) moment to the central junction of a 9 inch x 9 inch specimen restrained at its perimeter in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Methodology for measurement of Torsional Rigidity. 7. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to mechanical installation stress in clayey sand (SC), well graded sand (SW), and crushed stone classified as poorly graded gravel (GP). The geogrid shall be sampled in accordance with ASTM D5818-06 and load capacity shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D6637-01. 8. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to chemically aggressive environments in accordance with EPA 9090 immersion testing. 9. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to 500 hours of ultraviolet light and aggressive weathering in accordance with ASTM D4355-05. Tensar lnternatonal Corporaton warmnts that at the tme of delvery the geogrd furnished hereunder shall @nform to the specf@ton slated heren. Any other waranty including merchantablty and ftness for a particular purpose, are hereby excluded. lf the geogrd does not meet the specfitons on this page and Tensar s notifed pror to installaton, Tensar will repla the geogrid at no cost to the cuslomer. This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the produc' described above and is not applicable to any products shipped prior to June 1, 2007 17 November 20L7 sNcE 194 EUSTISENGINEERING EI City of New lberia Wastewater Department 800 Sucrose Drive New lberia, Louisiana 70560 Attention Mr. Vincent S. Palumbo, ll, P.E. PN 1-337-369-2362 FN L-337-369-2366 Ema il vpalumbo@citvofnewiberia.com Ladies and Gentlemen Additiona I Geotechnical Engineering Ana lyses City of New lberia Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Equalization Basin Levee Repairs lberia Parish, Louisiana EuslisJngineering Proiect No. 10474 Transmitted are the results of additional geotechnical engineering analyses performed for the subject project. Reference is made to our report entitled "Geotechnical Exploration, City of New lberia, Tete Bayou WastewaterTreatment Plant, Equalization Basin Levee Repairs, lberia Parish, Louisiana, Eustis Engineering Project No. 10474," dated 2l August 2017. We understand consideration is being given to substituting the earthen berms, recommended in our referenced report, with crushed stone to facilitate construction in a potentially wet basin bottom. Eustis Engineering was asked to evaluate the use of crushed stone within the recommended berms. Crushed Stone Stabilitv Berms. ln our referenced report, Eustis Engineering recommended a stability berm be constructed. This was illustrated on Figure 4 of our referenced report and assumed claywould be used as structural fill. Considering the use of crushed stone for constructing the berm, our analyses indicated an acceptable factor of safety would be provided. Our analyses assumed a minimum wet density of 135 pcf is provided by the crushed stone. The results of these analyses are shown on the Enclosure. Based on the current and previous analyses, a composite berm consisting of crushed stone at the bottom and clay on the top will also provide an acceptable factor of safety. Should a clay cover be desired for vegetation growth or maintenance, we recommend a minimum clay cover of 2 feet meeting the material requirements given in our referenced report. Material separation should be provided between the clay and crushed stone. We have assumed an over excavation of 2 feet for removal of soft muck. -1- NEW ORLEANS LAFAYETTE BATON ROUGE GULFPORT www.eustiseng.com T. 1 800 966 01s7 LAKE CHARLES City of New lberia Wastewater Department 17 November 2OL7 Material Separation. Prior to placing the crushed stone, material separation should be provided between the natural subgrade and the crushed stone to prevent infiltration of foreign materials. Material separation is also applicable if a clay cover is desired over crushed stone. Material separation may be provided by a geotextile. Geotextile. The geotextile sepa ration fabric should meet or exceed the material requirements for Class C geotextile pres ented in Section 10L9.01 of the Louisiana Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridees (LSSRB), 2006 edition. The geotextile should be placed directly on the undisturbed soils in accordance with the manufacturer's construction recommendations. All seams in the geotextile should be properly overlapped and secured to provide adequate material separation. The geotextile should also be placed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Crushed stone should conform to the requirements of Section 1003.08(a) of the LSSRB. The crushed stone above the over excavation should generally be placed in lifts of 6 to 8 inches (loose measure) and compacted to95% of its maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. Crushed stone within the over excavation should be bucket tamped until a stable platform has been established and the above compaction criteria can be met. Other Considerations. Recommendations in our referenced report not specifically addressed in this letter remain valid. Should any of our assumptions not be met, Eustis Engineering should be contacted to evaluate the effects on our recommendations. We hope this fulfills your immediate needs for the project. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours very truly, EUSIS ENGINEERING L.L.C. ( SHAUN R. SIMON, P.E. SRS:brp/mrd Enclosure I sHAUil 3lIOl{ Linselrlo. 31552 PRtFSS0lltEN|NER t{ -2- 40 40' 20 @ z t- IJ.J LU U- 0 z z o L k LIJ J lrJ 20 12 EL-L -V- L2' EL22 -40 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 50' 15', 10 45', 13' EL 6.5 EL 5.5 1 EL 20 40 60 80 L00 I20 140 160 180 200 220 DISTANCE IN FEET TABLE 1: DESIGN VATUES sotL NO. DESCRIPTION FRICTION ANGLE IN DGREES{r) UNIT WEIGHT IN PCF 1 LIMESTONE 35 135 2 LEVEE NL1 126 3 CLAY 4 CLAY NL2 126 NL3 t26 5 CLAY 6 CLAY NL3 119 NL3 L20 7 CLAY (L) RTFER TO TABTE 2 tOR NON'Lll.iEAR 23 120 STRENGTH DATA, TABLE Z: NON-LINEAR STRENGTH ENVELOPES NORMAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (PSF) SHEAR STRENGTH (PSF) NL1 NL2 NL3 0 0 0 0 IO44 6s0 485 255 2089 1160 820 450 8354 4090 2700 r460 COHESION AVG BASE 0 0 0 0 SLIP DESIGNATION A TABL 3: SUMMARY OF RESULTS TYPE OF SEARCH MINIMUM COMPUTED FACTOR OF SAFETY MINIMUM REQUIRED FACTOR OF SAFETY ENTRY EXIT 1.49 1.40 SLOPE/W FILE NAME: 10474 - S-CASE GRA CALIBRATED.GSZ SUBFILE NAME EE A BERM 3 NOTES: 1. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES PERFORMED BY SPENCER's METHOD OF STICES USING SLOPE/W SoFTWARE, VERSTON 8.16.1.13452. 2. SURVEY DATA DEVELOPED BY PAUL C. PRINCE, LLC. 3. NON.LINEAR STRENGTH DATA WAS ESTIMATED FROM DRAINED RESIDUAL AND FULLY SOFTENED FRICTION ANGLES BASED ON PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ESTIMATED CLAY FRACTION AS SUGGESTED BY STARK AND HUSSAIN 2013, ''EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS; DRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES,.' ASCE JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, VOLUME 139, ISSUE 6. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES SPENCER'S METHOD, S-CASE DESIGN CONDITION WITH LIMESTONE BERM CITY OF NEW IBERIA IETE BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EQUALIZATION BASIN LEVEE REPAIRS IBERIA PARISH, LOUISIANA E EUSTIS DRAWN BY: J.L.S. CHECKED BY: 4.J.8. CADD FILE: S-CASE LIMBERM.DGN JOB NO.: 10474 DATE: 16 NOV 2017 ENCLOSURE City of New Iberia/ Iberia Parish Tete Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant Inspection Date 10/10/2017 Appendix 2 - Tete Bayou SSO Form