ANNEX VI

Wind Code Evaluation WIND CODE EVALUATION

Caribbean Islands (CARICOM) Evaluation Conducted by Winston H.E. Suite

NAME OF DOCUMENT: Uniform Building Code (CUBiC) Part 2 Section 2

YEAR: 1985

GENERAL REMARKS:

Structural Design Requirements. Wind load. Has been adapted from a document prepared for the International Standards Organisation (ISO). Technical Committee 98. Working Group 2 on Wind Loads.

This section of CUBiC consists of a basic document and five technical Appendices.

“The basic document deals with the various actions of wind which should be considered and the general requirements of the standard” [Foreword]. The appendices are listed as follows:

Appendix 1 - Simplified Design Procedure Appendices - Structural Design Requirement Appendix 2 - Reference Velocity Pressure, qref Appendix 3 - Exposure Factor, Cexp Appendix 4 - Aerodynamic Shape Factor, Appendix 5 - DynamicCshp Response Factor, Cdyn The wind climate has been evaluated from an extensive study of hurricanes in the Caribbean carried out by A.G. Davenport, P.N. Georgiou and D. Surry, A Hurricane Wind Risk Study For the Eastern Caribbean, Jamaica and Belize with special consideration to the influence of Topography. Report for the Pan-Caribbean Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Project (PCDPPP), 1985.

SPECIFIC ITEMS:

1. SCOPE [2.201]

1.1Explicit Concepts and Limitations

“This document describes the action of wind on structures and methods for calculating characteristic values of wind loads for use in designing buildings, towers, chimneys, bridges and other structures as well as their components and

1 appendages. These loads will be suitable for use in conjunction with other ISO Load Standards and with ISO 2394 – General Principles on Reliability for Structures”.

“Structures of an unusual nature, size or complexity may require special engineering study”.

1.2 Performance Objectives

Knowledge of wind and its effects on structures is needed to ensure safe and, at the same time, economic structures.

No more specific performance objectives are expressly listed but the main objectives are to protect human life and to reduce economic loss caused by wind action (tropical storms and hurricanes). Even structures which are seriously damaged by wind action should not collapse endangering the life of the occupants.

2. WIND HAZARD

2.1 Basic Wind Speed

This equation describes the force on a structure as a result of wind action [2.203.1]. W = (qref) (Cexp) (Cshp)

(Cdyn) Reference Velocity Pressure:

[2.204]

qref = reference velocity pressure Cexp = exposure factor Cshp = aerodynamic shape factor Cdyn = dynamic response factor w = wind force per unit area normal to the surface of the structure

[2.204.1] Velocity Pressure q = ½ V2

= air density V = velocity of the wind

Cexp – Exposure Factor which accounts for the variability of velocity pressure at the site of the structure due to: (a) The height above ground level. (b) The roughness of the terrain and (c) In undulating terrain, the shape and slope of the ground contours.

2 The value of the exposure factor may vary with wind direction. w where = the normal load factor Vref w

2.1.1 Height above Ground

[A100] This is listed as less than 15 m above ground see table [A103.1]

2.1.2 Ground Conditions

[A100] Structures should not be situated near a hill crest or head land. - Deflection under wind loading must always be less than 1/500 of the height of structure.

2.1.3 Averaging Period

[A201] This is based on a 10-minute mean velocity pressure.

2.1.4 Return Period

[A201] This is given as once in 50 years. Definition of qref (reference velocity pressure)

2.1.5 Quality of data

The quality of the data is considered very reliable based on an extensive study by A.F. Davenport et al.

2.2 Topography

Exposure Factor Cexp

This factor accounts for the variability of velocity pressure at the site of the structure due to the following:

(a) height above ground level

(b) roughness of the terrain and

(c) in undulating terrain, the shape and slope of the ground contours.

Recommended values of the exposure factor are given in [Appendix 3]. Table [A301.1].

3 (z) A l n (z/z 2 C o ) exp

where A is for different roughness length zo and terrain is given in Table [A301.1].

2 Cexp(z) = B(z/10)   where and B depend on ground roughness given in Table [A301.1].

2.2.1 Escarpments

This issue is discussed under sector dealing with Speed up factor. See [A303], [Table A303.1]

2.2.2 Ridges

[see Table A303.1]

2.2.3 Axisymmetric Hills

[see Table A303.1]

2.2.4 Valleys

Not specifically discussed.

2.3 Height Above Ground

This is contained in [2.2] above.

2.4 Terrain Roughness

(A301) This is aerodynamically described in terms of a roughness length zo which characterises the size and distribution of the obstacles around and over which the wind must blow.

[A400 General] Three Categories of aerodynamic shape factors are discussed.

(i) Aerodynamic shape factor pressure coefficient, acting normal to the surface.

(ii) Aerodynamic factor (force coefficient) acting in the direction of the resulting force.

(iii) Aerodynamic shape factor defining higher order resultant action of the pressure such as movement and torques.

4 3. WIND DESIGN ACTIONS

The wind actions which shall be considered in the design of structures may produce any of the following effects[2.202]:

(a) Excessive force or instability. (b) Excessive deflection. (c) Repeated dynamic forces causing fatigue. (d) Aeroelastic instability.

3.1 Importance Factors

(i) The wind force per unit area is assumed to act statically in a direction normal to the surface of the structure or element except where others were specified e.g. with tangential frictional forces. [2203.2] (ii) Both internal and external forces shall be considered [2.203.2] and [table A104.1].

(iii) Resonance may amplify the responses to the forces on certain wind sensitive structures. Such structures are characterised by their lightness, flexibility and low level of structural damping (see app. 5), [2.207.3].

Importance Factors are related to:

Exposure Factor, Cexp

Aerodynamic Shape Factor, Cshp and

Dynamic Response Factor, Cdyn

These are discussed in great detail in Appendices 2, 3, 4 and 5.

3.2 Scale Effects

3.3 Pressure

Velocity Pressure q = ½ V2

= density of air

V = velocity of the wind

5 The reference velocity pressure is normally the specific value of the velocity pressure for the geographic area in which the structure is located. It refers to standard exposure (roughness, height and topography) see Table A201.1 for reference wind velocity pressures for the different islands in the Caribbean. The aerodynamic shape factor normally refers to the mean value of the pressure.

Enclosed structure will be subjected to internal pressures determined by the size and distribution of openings and by any pressurisation. Allowances should be made for these by combining the aerodynamic shape factors for the external pressures with those for the internal pressures (the resultant).

The combined wind loading on external and internal surfaces should be based on the combined factor as follows:

(Cshp Cdyn)combined = (Cshp Cdyn)external – (Cshp Cdyn)internal

3.4 Dynamic Response Factor, Cdyn

2.207.1 Dynamic response factor accounts for fluctuating pressures.

Resonance may amplify the responses to these forces in certain wind sensitive structures.

For aeroelastic instability performance may be acceptable for wind speed

= w where Vref w = normal load factor and Vref = reference design wind speeds corresponding to qref [2.204].

3.5 Directionality Effects

“The shape factor Cshp is a dimensionless aerodynamic coefficient which expresses the aerodynamic pressure induced on the structure and its elements as a ratio to the velocity pressure (normally qref Cexp) in the incoming flow. Normally the slope factor refers to mean pressures but in some special application – for pressures transferred to the flow.

4. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

4.1 Simplified Procedure [Appendix 1]

Wind Force per unit area = (qref)(Cexp)(Cshp)(Cdyn)

6 [A100. Criteria]

This method can be used for the design of the main structural system if

(a) the structure is less than 15 m in height above ground (b) the structure is not usually exposed for any wind direction, that is, it is not situated near a hill crest or head land (c) the structure is relatively rigid. Deflection under wind loading less than 1/500.H where H = height of structure.

4.1.1 Scope

The simplified method (procedure) is intended for the design of cladding of most normal structures.

4.1.2 Limitation

See (a), (b), (c) above, for conditions of applicability.

4.1.3 Design Procedures

W = (qref)(Cexp) [(Cshp) (Cdyn)]

(q = ½ V2) reference [Table 103.1] [Table 104.1] velocity pressure

4.2 Analytical Procedure (Detailed Method) [209.3]

4.2.1 Scope

[Appendices 3, 4, 5]

4.2.2 Limitation

This method is principally of assistance in assessing the dynamic response of the structure, the influence of unusual exposure and the characteristics of more complex aerodynamic shapes [2.209.3].

Structures sensitive to wind include those that are particularly flexible, slender, lightweight or tall.

7 4.2.3 Design Procedure

This is discussed in some detail and there is variation in reference velocity pressure with [A300] height, terrain, roughness and topography.

2  z  Cexp (z) = l n  etc. A  zo  [Table A301.1]    4.3 Experimental Procedure

Wind tunnel testing is used principally in order to develop dynamic factors, Cdy n.

This is recommended when assessing the influence of unusual exposure and the characteristics of more complex aerodynamic shapes as well as structures sensitive to wind including those that are particularly flexible, slender, lightweight or tall and structures of unusual geometry, which give rise to unexpectedly large responses to wind. It may be necessary to conduct supplementary studies by experts in the field. These tests may include wind tunnel tests. Testing procedures are given in [Appendix 4].

5. INDUCED EFFECTS

5.1 Impact of Flying Object

Not considered. Specific treatment is needed.

5.2 Wind Driven Rain

Not considered. Specific treatment is needed.

6. SAFETY VERIFICATION

Alternative methods of analysis to those recommended in this standard may be permitted provided it can be demonstrated that the level of safety achieved is generally equivalent to that achieved in this standard. Safety considerations are included in Appendix 6.

6.1 Structure

No specific guidance is provided. 8 It is recommended in the estimation of wind loading the specified load will be multiplied by a load factor. This corresponding load factor to a given risk level can be estimated using reliability theory if statistical properties of the variables are known.

The aim is to ensure that the structure does not become unstable at a wind speed marginally higher than the design wind speed.

6.2 Cladding and Non-Structural Elements

[A500] General Remarks on Cdyn

Discussing dynamic action notes, “these forces act on the external surfaces of the structure as a whole or on cladding components ...”

The Code does not deal in any great detail with this issue. This is an area where the Code needs to treat in more detail particularly because of the hurricane occurrence in the region.

7. SMALL RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

The Code does not treat with the issue specifically and intended that this would be dealt with in a subsequent exercise.

[Refer to Trinidad and Tobago Small Building Code http://www.boett.org/sbc Board of Engineering of Trinidad and Tobago].

RECOMMENDATION FOR CODE IMPROVEMENT

This Code was developed in 1985 and needs updating. This exercise must be carried out, particularly in the light of the experience of hurricanes and tropical storms in 1988 (Gilbert), 1989 (Hugo), and1992 (Andrew) in the Caribbean region.

9 Appendix 1

EXPOSURE FACTOR, Cexp (Simplified Method)

Ranges of applicability: Structural design: 0 – 15m Cladding design:0 – 100m

Height Cexp Range m

less than 5 0.9 5 – 10 1.0 10 – 15 1.1 ------15 – 20 1.2 20 – 25 1.3 25 – 35 1.4 35 – 45 1.5 45 – 55 1.6 55 – 65 1.7 65 – 80 1.8 80 – 100 1.9

10 Appendix 2

REFERENCE WIND VELOCITY PRESSURES FOR CARIBBEAN

Wind Pressure Wind Speed kPa m/sec * † Location qref q10 q100 Vref Guyana 0.20 0.05 0.35 18.0 Trinidad-South 0.25 0.05 0.40 20.0 -North 0.40 0.10 0.60 25.5 Tobago 0.47 0.15 0.65 28.0 Grenada 0.60 0.25 0.80 31.5 Barbados 0.70 0.30 0.90 34.2 St. Vincent 0.73 0.35 0.93 35.0 St. Lucia 0.76 0.36 0.95 35.5 Dominica 0.85 0.42 1.06 37.5 Montserrat 0.83 0.40 1.07 37.2 Antigua 0.82 0.39 1.05 37.0 St.Kitts-Nevis 0.83 0.38 1.07 37.2 Jamaica 0.80 0.40 1.00 36.5 Belize-North 0.78 0.38 1.00 36.00 -South 0.55 0.26 0.70 30.5

* It is recommended that 0.25 kPa be taken as a minimum value.

† Calculated from Vref = √(2qref/0.0012)

11 Appendix 3

Relationship Between Reference Velocity Pressure qref And peak Windspeeds over Short Time Intervals In open Terrain

(Intermediate values may be interpolated)

qre Vpeak(metres/sec) – 10 metres f Averaging Time 10kPamin. 10min. 1 hr. 1min (or 3sec “Fastest mile) 0.30 22.4 21 27 33 0.40 25.8 25 31 39 0.50 28.9 27 35 43 0.60 31.6 30 38 47 0.70 34.2 32 41 51 0.80 36.5 35 44 55 0.90 38.7 37 47 58 1.00 40.8 39 50 61 1.10 42.8 41 52 64 1.20 44.7 43 54 67 1.30 46.5 44 56 70 1.40 48.3 46 58 73 1.50 50.0 48 61 75 3 *Assuming air density ρair = 1.20kg/m

Appendix 4 REPRESENTATIVE TERRAINS AND THEIR VELOCITY PROFILE PARAMETERS (profiles matched at 30m)

Terrain Description Logarithmic Power Law Roughness Scale Index Scale Length m Factor Factor z A(zo) α B(zo 1. Rough open sea 0.003o 0.021 0.11 1.4) 2. Open sea 0.03 0.030 0.14 1.0 3. Suburban, 0.3 0.041 0.22 0.5 woodland 4. City centre 3.0 0.058 0.31 0.16

* Recommended values for normal usage

12 Appendix 5

PARAMETERS FOR MAXIMUM SPEED-UP OVER LOW HILLS

k Hill Shape ∆S † a max x < 0 x > 0 2-dimensional 2 H/L 3 1.5 1.5 ridges (or valleys with H – minus) 2-dimensional 0.8 H/L 2.5 1.5 4 escarpment 3-dimensional 1.6H/L 4 1.5 1.5 axisymetrical hills

Note: † for H/L > 0.5, assume H/L =0.5 in formulae

13 ANNEX VII

SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT

FOR

HUGH PARKEY’S BELIZE ADVENTURE ISLAND

SPANISH LOOKOUT CAYE

BELIZE DISTRICT

BELIZE, C. A.

Tunich-Nah Consultants & Engineering Belize, C.A. TEL: 501-225-2036 email: [email protected]

NOVEMBER, 2007

HUGH PARKEY’S BELIZE ADVENTURE ISLAND SPANISH LOOKOUT CAYE

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 GROUND CONDITIONS 7

3 SOIL INVESTIGATION 20

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 29

APPENDICES Appendix I: Probing Records

Appendix II: Plates 1. Probing Operation Borehole No. 1. 2. Probing Operation Borehole No. 2. 3. Probing Operation Borehole No. 8. 4. Probing Operation Borehole No. 11.

Appendix III: Report Preparers

3 1 INTRODUCTION

Belize is located at the northernmost point and on the Caribbean coast of the Central American isthmus. Belize has an area of approximately 8,867 square miles and is bordered by Mexico to the north, Guatemala to the west and south, and the Caribbean Sea to the east.

Belize is a tropical country with an extensive coastal area in the inland part with over 1,000 cayes and 125 miles of Barrier . The cayes are islands and/or mangrove islands, that are found between the mainland and the barrier reef, on the barrier reef, and on or within the barrier reef perimeters of the off shore . The cayes ranges in size from a few hundred feet to 25 miles long and 4 miles wide.

The Spanish Bay Development Project site is located on Spanish Lookout Caye a twin mangrove island, which has an approximate area of 186 acres and is about 8.6 miles southeast of Belize City. Spanish Lookout Caye is considered as one of the islands of the Drowned Cayes which are a labyrinth of mangrove islands inside the .

The project site is located on the north-western side of the Spanish Lookout Caye. See Figure 1.

The subsoil investigation was carried out on the site of the proposed Spanish Bay Development Project. This report describes the site investigation carried out at the site and presents technical recommendations for the design of the structural facilities based on findings, and also of associated hazards such as hurricanes and seismic activity that can be encountered at this site.

The soils investigation for the Spanish Bay Development Project was undertaken by Alberto A. Rosado a Civil / Structural Engineer assisted by two technicians in September 2007.

2 GROUND CONDITIONS

Published information on the general ground conditions around the cayes by C.G. Dixon (1956) states “… the Admiralty charts of the coastal waters show that the sea floor has sharp differences of level. Steep escarpments face the east, while from the top of the escarpments the sea floor slopes down gently towards the mainland. reefs mark the edges of the escarpments, and the most prominent is the barrier reef which extends from north to south parallel to the coast about 15 miles off shore.

The cays themselves are sand cays and there are indications that these are at present being actively eroded.”

Dixon describes the cayes in general to have been formed of sand, however, the cayes inside the barrier reef lagoon are made up of sandy shells and those that fringe the barrier

4 Figure 1: Project Location Map.

5 reef are of broken . These sand formations overlay a compact limestone rock; these rocks are usually hard.

Published information by Stoddart et al (1982) describes the Drowned cays of which Spanish Lookout Caye is included as;

“CAYS OF THE BARRIER REEF LAGOON.

A. The Northern Lagoon

The barrier reef lagoon contains islands of many different types and widely differing sizes. The great majority are mangrove islands, and these have been very little studied...

A. The Northern Lagoon

North of latitude 17o30'N the coastal shelf has an average width of 24 km, and between Belize and the Bulkhead Reef (which extends as a shallow bar from the mainland to Ambergris ) is 2.5-4.5 m deep. The Bulkhead itself carries only 0.5-1.4 m, and encloses the 90 km long Bahia de Chetumal, a shallow embayment with depths of 2-6 m.

The cays of the northern lagoon consist mainly of a series of linear mangrove-sand cays (mangrove islands with a sand ridge on their windward sides) and mangrove cays located 3.5-4 km landward of the barrier reef and separated from it by a depression termed the "reef lagoon" and less than 4.5 m deep. In the southern part of the area, large mangrove cays (Hicks Cays, Hen and Chickens, Peter's Bluff, North Drowned Cay, the Drowned Cays) extend across the shelf towards the mainland.

There are numerous large mangrove islands on the coastal shelf between 17o 30'N and 17o45'N. They include Long Cay (the northernmost of that name), Hicks Cays, Montego and Frenchman's Cays, Hen and Chicken Cays, Rider's Cays, and the northernmost Drowned Cays. Apart from a narrow seaward sand ridge with coconut woodland on Long Cay and on the Drowned Cays …”

“ …those places composed of sand and mud, where the mangrove springs out of the water, and which are in this neighborhood called by the appropriate name of 'drowned cays’….”

“…6. Mangrove cays. On the Belize shelf these are dominated by Rhizophora mangle; and are described as " little more than mud mounds colonized by vegetation". They are found only within the lagoon and not on the barrier reef itself… ”

The Geological Map of Belize revised edition 2005 establishes the landform of the Spanish Lookout Caye as being Quaternary Period sand bars, modern reef, calcareous sand and mud from the Holocene (last 10,000 years) to present. See Figure 2. Deposits of this age are a common occurrence close to ground level, often forming soils that cover, uncomfortably, harder and older rock at depth.

6 Figure 2. Geological Map of Belize

The Quaternary (Pleistocene) rocks and modern(Holocene) sediments along the coast, and under water, are the youngest cycle of deposition in Belize, and are represented largely by shallow-water, limy sediments. A Holocene Sediment Map (Figure 3), by the Rice University, Texas, presents seafloor sediment data that were collected at several locations and analyzed for their texture and composition. The sediment facies (characteristics and features of a sedimentary formation) are differentiated into fourteen types by composition (terrigenous, carbonate, or transitional) and by texture (sands, sandy muds, and muds).

The sediment map characterizes the calcareous sediments on Spanish Lookout Caye as a Halimeda sand.

Ambergris Caye and adjacent Cayes did not exist then as we know them today. Their foundation of Cretaceous and Tertiary limestone formed from the accumulation of shells and reef debris like those being deposited today.

7 Figure 3. Holocene Sediment Map

8 Figure 4. Location of Belize with respect to the North American and Caribbean Tectonic Plates

Belize is located on the Yucatan continental block near the junction of the North American and Caribbean tectonic plates, slabs of the earth's crust that have moved past each other over the last 80 million years along an east-west fracture zone, what is now the Cayman Trench (see Figure 4). Eastward drift of the Caribbean plate resulted in the dominantly structurally controlled, major features of Belize: the Maya Mountains, the offshore atolls surrounded by deep water, and the location of the coral barrier reef.

Along its entire length the modern barrier reef sits atop a prominent fault that separates the shallow platform (coastal zone) to the west from the deeper Caribbean to the east. See Figure 5.

In Belize, earthquake hazard increases steadily from the north of the country to the south as can be observed in Maximum Seismic Intensity Map in Belize, see Figure 6. Earthquakes that affect the country of Belize occur in the Gulf of Honduras which is the plate boundary zone between North America and the Caribbean tectonic plates and specifically from the two active Polochic and Motagua-Swan Island Fault Zones that are located due south of the country of Belize.

South of Chetumal Bay, the continental shelf off Belize is about 15 miles wide, extending south to the latitude of Placentia; then it widens to around 20 to 25 miles from there southward to Amatique Bay. On the southern shelf of Belize, the barrier reef is a nearly continuous line of reefs near the shelf edge. Shelf waters behind the barrier reef become increasingly deeper from the latitude of Belize City southward, i.e., from about 15 feet off Belize City to over 125 feet off Placentia. See Figure 7. Bathymetry Map of Belize.

9 Figure 5. Geological Fault Location Map

10 Mexico

Belize City

Project Location Guatemala Caribbean Sea Caribbean

Magnitude MW < 5 5 < 6 < 7

Figure 6: Maximum Seismic Intensity Map in Belize

11 Figure 7. Bathymetry Map of Belize.

12 The coastal zone of Belize is a complex system that includes the shoreline, in addition to the coastal plains, the lagoons and estuaries, the cayes and atolls, plus the subtidal are within the 12 miles territorial limit and a 200 miles exclusive economic zone.

The continental shelf of Belize can be separated into four regions see Figure 8.

· Coastline · Inner lagoon · Barrier platform · Coral atolls

Figure 8. The Continental Shelf of Belize

Coastline

In general the coastline consists of lagoons, sand-ridge barriers, river deltas and estuaries. To the north of Belize City a lagoon and barrier system is predominant. In the southern part, beach-ridge systems (located in the Sapodilla Lagoon, Southern Lagoon and Dangriga areas), river deltas (Sittee Point) and estuaries, two lagoons (Northern Lagoon and Southern Lagoon) and Barrier island (Placentia Peninsula) are the principal features that characterize the coastline. Mangroves are also abundant.

Inner lagoon

The inner lagoon is the area immediately bordering the mainland, with Belize City demarcating the northern and southern regions. The inner lagoon region situated between the platform flat (barrier reef) and mainland is gently sloping and shallow (seldom deeper than 25 feet) to the north of Belize City and which falls as much as 210 feet deep, to the east of Punta Gorda. In the north, the inner lagoon consists mainly of sediments from river runoff in the nearshore and mud in the offshore, with the presence of a shoal between the mainland and Ambergris Caye. In the south, the inner lagoon consists also of terrigenous sediments in the nearshore and marls in the offshore.

Barrier platform

13 The third region is the barrier platform which is seaward of the inner lagoon. It is the edge of the continental shelf, separated from the mainland by the lagoon; and the three offshore atolls, where Belize barrier reef grows. This barrier reef is the largest in the Caribbean and in the western hemisphere. It is a continuous reef that extends approximately 125 miles from northern Belize to the Sapodilla Cayes in the south. The zonation of the barrier reef is evident as the distribution of several coral types occurs in the specific zones.

In this region there are three primary reef zones: o The lagoon (beach, mangrove, seagrass beds, and patch reefs) o The reef crest o The fore reef.

The lagoon lies between the beach (or coastline) and the reef crest. This shallow area is home to a diverse group of plant and animal life. Mangroves, found in the transitional area between land and water, have the function of protecting the coastline by trapping sediments. The lagoon also includes seagrass beds. In some cases, lagoons contain flat, circular islands of coral surrounded by seagrass and sand, known as patch reefs. As the bottom of the lagoon rises rapidly towards the waters surface the next zone: the reef crest begins. This zone is characterized by a line of waves that break along its edge, with low tides further exposing sections of the reef. On the seaward edge of the reef is the final zone: the fore reef, divided into an upper (gentle slopes extending from 10 ft to 70 ft in depth) and lower (increased depth) section.

Coral atolls

The last region consists of the three coral atolls, which are seaward of the continental shelf. The presence of atolls is unusual. Most atolls are found in the Pacific, where they form on the top of submerged volcanoes. Very few occur in the Caribbean, and they differ in structure. The three in Belize for example are lying on non-volcanic submarine ridges. The three atolls are: Turneffe , Lighthouse Reef and Glovers Reef. Turneffe is the largest of the three offshore atolls and the only one with an extensive cover of mangroves.

A particular hazard that is of concern to the Spanish Lookout Caye are hurricanes and its related effects. Since hurricanes result in major coastal changes over short time periods and they are referred to as catastrophic events because of the extensive damage that is caused and the unpredictable nature of the event. Hurricanes are so destructive because the storm surge, or high tide ahead of the storm, can be very high. They can batter and flood coastal areas. High winds may cause damage to buildings, agricultural crops and forests and can also destroy coral reefs, and shift beaches and sand bars kilometers. The most vulnerable lands are small narrow cays with little vegetation.

Since 1955 (Hurricane Janet), Belize has been hit several times by hurricanes that have caused damages and significant impacts. The hurricane Hattie for example, destroyed Belize City in 1961 and was in part responsible for splitting Caulker Caye, into two parts.

14 Hurricanes have great impact on coastal areas and the cayes are more susceptible to this damage than the mainland. Hurricanes reach the shores of countries, such as Belize, with the help of easterly trade winds.

3 SOIL INVESTIGATION

The soils investigation for the Spanish Bay Expansion Project was undertaken by Alberto A. Rosado a Civil / Structural Engineer assisted by two technicians in September, 2007.

The programme of probing was as follows:

BH # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 September 2007

The probe locations are indicated on the Probe Location Plan. See Figure 9.

Figure 9. Probe Location Plan.

Probes No. BH1, BH2 BH3, BH4, BH5 and BH6 were conducted on the property upon which the planned development is being proposed. A planned development proposal for Spanish Bay was used to locate the probes where the main building structures are being considered. See Figure 10.

15 Figure 10. Spanish Bay Resort Expansion Project

16 The equipment used consisted of a Mackintosh Probe manufactured by Engineering Laboratory Equipment, England. This probe is a method of in situ testing for subsurface soil characteristics in which an instrumental device with a conical tip is pushed into the ground with rods at a constant rate.

The Mackintosh probe consists basically of a 10 pound hammer sliding on a half inch diameter rod dropping through a distance of 12 inches and striking an anvil at the lower end of that rod on the end of which is a hardened steel cone one inch in diameter. The probe is driven by blows of the drop hammer and the number of blows per foot of penetration is recorded. The penetration resistance and soil properties are then correlated to the standard penetration test for cohesive and non-cohesive soils.

Probe BH1 Exploratory investigation of BH1 carried out with the Mackintosh probe revealed organic material (Undecomposed reddish brown fibrous roots) underlain with sandy mud and peat. The water table was eight inches above the natural ground surface. The organic material was of such consistency that a person could walk on the surface without sinking. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than or equal to 20 for the first 17 feet below the natural ground surface. The correlated Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N (blows per foot) were all less than or equal to four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT N value is very loose (Terzaghi 1967). The probing continued up to a depth of 29 feet with blow counts per foot between 20 and 30, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 6 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. At a depth of 29 feet a firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered.

Probe BH2 BH2 revealed organic material (Undecomposed reddish brown fibrous roots) underlain with sand mud and moluscan gravel. The water table was 8 inches above the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 22 for the first 18 feet. The correlated SPT (N) values were all less than or equal to 4. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 28 feet 2 inches with blow counts between 25 and 30 per foot, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 7 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 28 feet 2 inches.

Probe BH3 BH3 revealed organic peat and underlain by sandy mud. The water table was at the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 20 for the first 10 feet. The correlated SPT (N) values were all less than or equal to four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 30 feet with blow counts between 25 and 30 per foot, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 6 which

17 characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 30 feet.

Probe BH4 BH4 revealed organic peat underlain by fine sandy mud. The water table was one foot six inches below the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 20 for the first 13 feet. The correlated SPT (N) values were all less than four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 31 feet with blow counts between 21 and 35, the SPT (N) values were less than or equal to 7 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 31 feet.

Probe BH5 BH5 revealed sandy mud mixed with peat at the top. The water table was one foot five inches above the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 20 for the first sixteen feet. The correlated SPT (N) values were all less than four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 25 feet with blow counts between 22 and 31, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 6 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 25 feet.

Probe BH6 BH6 revealed dredged fill consisting of moluscan gravel on the surface. The water table was 12 inches below the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 20 for the first 17 feet. The correlated SPT (N) values were all less than four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 24 feet 10 inches with blow counts between 21 and 35 per foot, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 7 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 24 feet 10inches.

Probe BH7 BH7 revealed dredged fill consisting of moluscan gravel on the surface. The water table was 12 inches below the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 20 for the first 16 feet. The correlated SPT (N) values were all less than four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 25 feet 7 inches with blow counts between 22 and 33 per foot, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 7 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 25 feet 7 inches.

Probe 8 BH8 revealed compacted dredged fill consisting of moluscan sand and gravel on the surface. The water table was 12 inches below the natural ground surface. The blow

18 counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration ranged from 16 to 60 in the first 5 feet. The correlated SPT (N) value were all less than twelve. The relative density of this sandy soil as it relates to the SPT (N) value is medium dense. The probing continued up to a depth of 25 feet with blow counts ranging between 28 and 35 per foot, the SPT (N) values were less than or equal to 7 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 25 feet.

Probe BH9 BH9 revealed sandy mud and peat at the surface. The water table was 4 inches above the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 22 for the first 11 feet. The correlated SPT (N) value were all less than or equal to four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 22 feet and 2 inches with blow counts between 22 and 34 per foot, the SPT (N) values were less than or equal to 6 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 22 feet and 2 inches.

Probe BH10 BH10 revealed undecomposed organic material mixed with sandy mud and peat at the surface. The water table was 4 inches above the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 20 for the first 11 feet. The SPT (N) value were all less than or equal to four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 22 feet and 2 inches with blow counts between 25 and 34 per foot, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 6 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 24 feet and 2 inches.

Probe BH11 BH11 revealed sandy mud and peat at the surface. The water table was 4 inches above the natural ground surface. The blow counts obtained with the Mackintosh probe per foot of penetration were less than 20 for the first 10 feet. The correlated SPT (N) values were all less than or equal to four. The relative density of this sandy mud as it relates to the SPT (N) value is very loose. The probing continued up to a depth of 24 feet and 2 inches with blow counts between 21 and 35 per foot, the SPT(N) values were less than or equal to 7 which characterizes the sandy soil as loose. A firm bearing strata and/or bedrock level was encountered at 24 feet and 2 inches.

The probing records are presented in the Appendix I.

The project site is located on the north side of the Spanish Lookout Caye. The probes were carried out on mangrove swamps with the exception of probes 6, 7, and 8 which were conducted on a section of the island that had been filled with dredged material.

The surface of the project site was characterized in most instances by thick fibrous mat. Below this mat a peat and a grayish sandy mud could be observed. We also noticed that

19 the fibrous mat provide adequate resistance to walk on without appreciable settlement. The areas filled with dredged material were quite firm.

The relative density of the sand underlying the organic material go from very loose sand to loose sand based on the correlated SPT (N) values obtained.

These values are indicative of an underlying soil of a loose density at depth and of low bearing capacity. The probes indicate that bedrock is at an average depth of 26 feet below the surface level and varying from 22 feet to 31 feet.

The very loose density and low bearing capacity of the sandy mud could be harmfully compressible resulting in undesirable settlement of buildings and other civil infrastructure being contemplated.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The organic material at the surface level can have a major impact on development because of their inherent weakness and loss of strength when loaded, and their high degree of compressibility.

The sandy mud at the project site ranges from very loose to loose at depth exhibiting a low bearing capacity. The water content is above the liquid limit such that the soil approaches the liquid state with loading or disturbance. The very loose density and low bearing capacity of the sandy mud can result in undesirable settlement of building foundations and other civil infrastructure being contemplated at the site.

The sandy mud at the project site is composed basically of Halimeda Sand which comes from minute fragments of calcareous algae (Halimeda 0puntia).

The dredged fill material at the project site showed initial rigidity and strength but was subject to brittle crushing of their constituent calcareous sand upon conducting the probes, resulting in sudden loss of strength or bearing capacity. Light structures can be constructed on these filled areas with little or no appreciable settlement.

A bedrock formation of limestone was formed during the Cretaceous to Pliocene. The surface of the bedrock was found to be irregular and varying from 22 feet to 31 feet

The minute shells of the calcareous algae are crushed when disturbed by pile driving action and the friction on the pile may drop close to zero, thus, the required foundation works for heavy structures to be constructed should be supported by end bearing piles anchored into the bedrock.

The recommended pile to use is prestressed concrete piles since these piles require high- quality concrete, which in turn gives good resistance to driving stresses. The longitudinal reinforcement in these types of piles is designed to resist stresses in lifting and handling. Also, the pile is stressed to prevent the development of hairline cracks. This, together

20 with the high-quality concrete gives a prestressed concrete pile a good durability in a corrosive marine environment.

Alternatively, cast in place piles encased in fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) pipes or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes could be used for the construction of lightly piled structures.

The structural design of the buildings are required to consider hurricane wind forces and accompanying storm surges since the country of Belize is situated in the North East Trade wind belt and the hurricane zone of the North Atlantic. The country lies roughly between Latitudes 16 degrees and 18 degrees North and Longitude 88 degrees and 89 degrees west. Hurricane and tropical storms would normally occur between the months of June and November.

Buildings designed for hurricane winds can also be damaged due to the undermining of foundations by erosion of sand.

A seismic analysis is recommended for the northern part of the country for which the Caribbean Uniform Building Code (CUBIC) / Structural Design Requirements / Earthquake Load is used as a guide to the seismicity of the region including Belize. CUBIC recommends a zonal coefficient (Z) of 0.50 for the northern part of the country which includes the Belize District.

21 5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dixon, C.G., (1956). Geology of Southern British Honduras with notes on adjacent areas. Printed by authority of his Excellency the Governor.

Blyth F.G.H., et al., (1984). A Geology for Engineers, seventh edition. The Bath Press, London

Tomlinson M.J., (1995) Foundation Design and Construction, sixth edition, Longman Group Ltd., London.

Gaythwaite J.W. (2004) Design of Marine Facilities for the Berthing, Mooring and Repair of Vessels, second edition. ASCE Press, Reston, Virginia.

Santiesteban I.A. (2003) Multi-sensor data fusion applied to morphodynamics of coastal environments in Belize. International Institute for Geo-information, Science and Earth Observation.

D. R. Stoddart, F. R. Fosberg and D. L. Spellman (1982), Cays of the Belize Barrier Reef and Lagoon, Atoll Research Bulletin No. 256

Dr. Clif Jordan (2002), Holocene Sediments of the Belize Shelf

K. Terzaghi and R. B. Peck (1967), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, second edition. John Wiley & Sons.

B. Gerwick (2007), Construction of Marine and Offshore Structures, third edition, CRC Press

22 APPENDICES

Appendix I: Probing Records

Appendix II: Plates

1. Probe at BH1. 2. Probe at BH4. 3. Probe at BH6.

Appendix III: Report Preparers

23 Appendix I: Probing Records PROJECT: Spanish Bay Development Project LOCATION: Spanish Lookout Caye, Belize District DATE: September 2007 RECORDED BY: Alberto A. Rosado

Probing BH1

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 6 1 Undecomposed fibrous roots 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 10 2 Sandy mud and moluscan gravel 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 12 2 Sandy mud and peat 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 4 < 1 Sandy mud and moluscan gravel 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 4 < 1 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 6 1 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 11 2 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 5 1 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 10 2 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 13 3 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 15 3 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 14 3 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 18 4 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 16 3 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 16 3 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 19 4 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 20 4 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 24 5 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 22 4 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 22 4 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 28 6 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 26 5 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 24 5 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 25 5 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 25 5 25’- 0” – 26’ - 0” 25 5 26’- 0” – 27’ - 0” 26 5 27’- 0” – 28’ - 0” 30 6 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 30+ > 6 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 29’- 0”

The water level was eight inches above the existing ground surface.

24 Probing BH2

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 7 1 Undecomposed fibrous roots 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 15 3 Sandy mud and moluscan gravel 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 12 2 Sandy mud and peat 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 6 1 Sandy mud and moluscan gravel 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 8 1 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 11 2 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 9 2 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 11 2 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 13 2 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 16 3 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 17 3 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 15 3 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 15 3 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 23 4 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 18 4 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 24 5 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 23 4 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 22 4 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 25 5 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 27 5 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 25 5 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 27 5 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 36 7 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 35 7 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 34 7 25’- 0” – 26’ - 0” 34 7 26’- 0” – 27’ - 0” 35 7 27’- 0” – 28’ - 0” 30 6 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 45+ > 9 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 28’-2”

The water level was eight inches above the existing ground surface.

25 Probing BH3

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 4 1 Undecomposed fibrous roots 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 4 1 Sandy mud and peat 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 10 2 Sandy mud and peat 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 20 4 Sandy mud 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 9 2 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 8 1 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 11 2 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 11 2 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 13 3 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 17 3 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 25 5 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 26 5 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 27 5 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 29 6 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 30 6 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 24 5 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 26 5 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 28 6 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 30 6 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 28 6 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 28 6 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 28 6 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 30 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 26 5 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 24 5 25’- 0” – 26’ - 0” 28 6 26’- 0” – 27’ - 0” 21 4 27’- 0” – 28’ - 0” 22 4 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 25 5 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 30 6 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 31 6 29’- 0” – 30’ - 0” 30+ > 6 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 30’ – 0”

The water level was at the existing ground surface.

26 Probing BH4

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 2 <1 Sandy mud and peat 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 4 <1 Sandy mud and peat 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 8 1 Sandy mud and peat 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 10 2 Sandy mud 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 8 1 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 10 2 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 12 2 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 15 3 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 10 2 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 15 3 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 20 4 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 21 4 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 20 4 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 26 6 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 28 6 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 25 5 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 26 5 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 26 5 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 28 6 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 30 6 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 28 6 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 31 6 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 30 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 28 6 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 25 5 25’- 0” – 26’ - 0” 30 6 26’- 0” – 27’ - 0” 24 5 27’- 0” – 28’ - 0” 24 5 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 28 6 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 31 6 28’- 0” – 29’ - 0” 30 6 29’- 0” – 30’ - 0” 32 6 30’- 0” – 31’ - 0” 35+ 7 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 31’ – 0”

The water level was at one foot six inches below the existing ground surface.

27 Probing BH5

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 5 1 Sandy mud 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 6 1 Sandy mud 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 8 1 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 12 2 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 10 2 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 12 2 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 8 1 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 8 1 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 12 2 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 10 2 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 14 3 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 10 2 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 12 2 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 16 3 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 18 4 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 20 4 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 22 4 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 26 5 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 25 5 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 25 5 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 32 6 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 28 6 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 31 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 32 6 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 31+ > 6 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 25’ – 0 ”

The water level was one foot and five inches above the existing ground surface.

28 Probing BH6

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 12 2 Dredged fill 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 14 3 Dredged fill 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 15 3 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 12 2 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 12 2 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 10 2 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 9 2 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 10 2 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 14 3 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 12 2 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 10 2 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 12 2 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 14 3 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 18 4 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 16 3 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 18 4 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 20 4 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 21 4 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 20 4 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 24 5 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 30 6 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 30 6 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 32 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 34 7 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 35+ > 7 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 24’ – 10 ”

The water level was one foot below the existing ground surface.

29 Probing BH7

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 10 2 Dredged fill 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 12 2 Dredged fill 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 15 3 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 10 2 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 12 2 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 12 2 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 10 2 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 12 2 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 15 3 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 14 3 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 12 2 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 10 2 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 16 3 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 20 4 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 18 4 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 18 4 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 22 4 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 20 4 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 22 4 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 25 5 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 25 5 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 28 6 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 30 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 32 7 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 33+ > 7 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 25’ – 7 ”

The water level was 12 inches below the existing ground level.

30 Probing BH8

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 16 3 Dredged fill 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 28 6 Dredged fill 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 39 8 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 50 10 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 60 12 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 28 6 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 28 6 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 18 4 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 15 3 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 16 3 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 10 2 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 10 2 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 18 4 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 20 4 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 20 4 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 21 4 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 21 4 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 24 5 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 24 5 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 28 5 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 30 5 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 28 6 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 30 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 34 7 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 35+ > 7 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 25’ – 0 ”

The water level was 12 inches below the existing ground level.

31 Probing BH9

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 5 1 Sandy mud and peat 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 5 1 Sandy mud and peat 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 15 3 Sandy mud and peat 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 25 5 Sandy mud 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 10 2 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 10 2 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 12 2 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 13 3 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 15 3 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 20 4 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 22 4 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 28 6 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 30 5 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 28 6 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 30 6 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 28 6 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 25 5 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 25 5 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 30 6 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 25 5 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 25 5 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 26 5 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 28 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 25 5 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 30+ >5 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 24’ – 2”

The water level was four inches above the existing ground surface.

32 Probing BH10

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 6 1 Undecomposed fibrous roots 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 8 1 Peat 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 10 2 Sandy mud and peat 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 20 4 Sandy mud 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 12 2 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 12 2 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 14 3 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 15 3 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 18 4 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 22 4 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 20 4 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 25 5 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 28 6 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 30 6 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 30 6 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 32 6 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 28 6 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 30 6 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 28 6 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 28 6 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 30 6 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 31 6 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 34+ > 6 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 22’ – 2”

The water level was four inches above the existing ground surface.

33 Probing BH11

Depth Blows/foot Correlated S.P.T. Remarks (N) value 0’- 0” – 1’-0” 4 < 1 Undecomposed fibrous roots 1’- 0” – 2’- 0” 6 1 peat 2 - 0” – 3’ - 0” 10 2 Sandy mud and peat 3’- 0” – 4’- 0” 15 3 Sandy mud 4’- 0” – 5’-0” 12 2 5’- 0” – 6’- 0” 15 3 6’- 0” – 7’- 0” 15 3 7’- 0” – 8’- 0” 18 4 8’- 0” – 9’- 0” 20 4 9 - 0” – 10’ - 0” 20 4 10’- 0” – 11’ - 0” 21 4 11’- 0” – 12’ - 0” 25 5 12’- 0” – 13’ - 0” 28 6 13’- 0” – 14’ - 0” 30 6 14’- 0” – 15’ - 0” 30 6 15’- 0” – 16’ - 0” 26 5 16’- 0” – 17’ - 0” 23 4 17’- 0” – 18’ - 0” 24 5 18’- 0” – 19’ - 0” 28 6 19’- 0” – 20’ - 0” 26 5 20’- 0” – 21’ - 0” 23 4 21’- 0” – 22’ - 0” 25 5 22’- 0” – 23’ - 0” 30 6 23’- 0” – 24’ - 0” 32 6 24’- 0” – 25’ - 0” 35+ >7 Probing terminated since bedrock was encountered at 24’ – 2”

The water level was four inches above the existing ground surface.

34 Appendix II: Plates

Plate No. 1: Probe at BH1

35 Plate No. 2: Probe at BH2

Plate No. 3: Probe at BH8

36 Plate No. 4: Probe at BH11

APPENDIX III: REPORT PREPARERS

Jose Garcia, P. Eng. Civil/Sanitary Engineer

Alberto Rosado, P. Eng. Civil/Structural Engineer

37 ANNEX VIII

BESST TREATMENT PLANT SPECIFICATIONS

1 SEWER TREATMENT PLANT SPECIFICATIONS

2 3 4 5 ANNEX XII

EARTH TUB COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY For Composting Organic Wastes

The Earth Tub Commercial Duty Compost System

The Earth Tub is designed specifically for on-site composting of food-wastes. The Earth Tub is a fully enclosed composting vessel featuring power mixing, compost aeration, and biofiltration of all process air. This self-contained unit is ideal for composting at schools, universities, restaurants, hospitals and supermarkets.

- 1 - The Earth Tub Process

Loading

Organic materials such as food scraps, manure or yard waste are loaded through the large hatchway in the cover. Periodically, dry materials such as wood chips, shredded paper or shavings can be added to insure that porosity and moisture levels are ideal for composting.

Mixing

Turn on the auger motor and rotate the cover to shred and mix the new organic material into the active compost. Two revolutions of the rotating cover are required to mix the outside and center of the Earth Tub. The auger will shred and mix a ton or more of compost in 10-15 minutes. During active composting, the Earth Tub should be mixed at least two times per week.

Aerobics and odor control

Maintaining aerobic conditions and controlling temperature are essential for composting and odor control. The aeration system draws air through the compost and forces the exhaust air through

- 2 - our biofiltration air purification system to remove odors. Liquids are collected and disposed to a sanitary sewer or holding tank. The overall cleanliness of the in-vessel design allows the Earth Tub to be placed in commercial settings close to where waste is generated.

Waste reduction

Heat generated in the Earth Tub rapidly breaks down the food scraps. The volume reduction is typically 70% or higher. After 3--4 weeks of active composting, open the discharge doors and the auger pushes the compost out as it rotates past the discharge door. The compost can be cured for 20-40 days for further stabilization.

Key features

 Easy to operate  Rapid process reduces volume quickly  Heavy-duty plastic construction  Minimal need for bulking agent  Short time required for mixing/loading  Temperature controlled system  Insulated for cold weather operation  Thorough compost mixing  Biofilter odor control system

Specifications Tub Vessel Height 48" Overall Height 68" Overall Diameter 90" Foam Insulation R-12 Shipping Weight 450 lbs Volume 3 cubic yards Mixing Auger 12" Diameter Stainless Steel Auger Motor 3 Ph 2.5 hp 230/460V Aeration Blower 80 CFM 100 watt Power Usage ~1080 KWH per year Liquid Drain 1” drain on biofilter Processing Capacity 40-200 ppd*

* Pounds per day of biomass per Earth Tub.

- 3 - ANNEX X

SHEET PILE SPECIFICATION

- 0 - - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 -