Geo Baseline Report

GEOTECHNICAL BASELINE REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE - TUNNEL

PARALLEL THIMBLE SHOAL TUNNEL
PREPARED FOR:
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE AND TUNNEL DISTRICT
PREPARED BY:
OCTOBER 2015
REVISION 1
JACOBS PROJECT NO. C1X29016
4500 Main Street, Suite 310, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 • (757) 486-3664 • FAX (757) 486-1636
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Overview .......................................................................................................1
1.2 Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) Applicability ................................................1
1.3 Purpose of the GBR..................................................................................................2
1.4 Sources of Geotechnical Information ......................................................................2
1.5 Hierarchy of Documents ...........................................................................................2
1.6 Warranty Disclaimer .................................................................................................3
1.7 Design-Builder’s Means and Methods ....................................................................3
1.8 Datum .........................................................................................................................3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TUNNEL OPTIONS ....................................................................4
2.1 Immersed Tube Tunnel (ITT) ...................................................................................4
2.1.1 Cross Section ...................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................................................... 4
2.1.3 Vertical Alignment (Profile) ................................................................................. 4
2.1.4 Construction of the ITT ....................................................................................... 5
2.2 Bored Tunnel .............................................................................................................6
2.2.1 Cross Section ...................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................................................... 6
2.2.3 Vertical Alignment (Profile) ................................................................................. 7
2.2.4 Construction of the Bored Tunnel ...................................................................... 7
2.2.4.1 Enabling Works ................................................................................................ 7
2.2.4.2 Temporary TBM Launching and Receiving Pits............................................ 8
Paralllel Thimble Shoal Tunnel

Geotechnical Baseline Report – Revision 1
Project No. C1X29016
i
3.0 SOURCES OF GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA ................................... 10
3.1 Recent Geotechnical Investigations ......................................................................10
3.2 Historic Data ............................................................................................................10
4.0 PROJECT GEOLOGY................................................................................................ 12
4.1 Geologic Setting ......................................................................................................12
4.2 General Geologic Strata .........................................................................................12
4.2.1 Island Artificial Fill (af) ....................................................................................... 12
4.2.2 Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits (Qfg).......................................................... 13
4.2.3 Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb) ....................................................................... 13
4.2.4 Channel Fill Deposits (QcfU and QcfL) – Fine-Grained .................................. 13
4.2.5 Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs) – Coarse-Grained .............................................. 13
4.2.6 Tabb Formation (Qt) ......................................................................................... 13
4.2.7 Yorktown Formation (Tys) Coarse-Grained.................................................... 14
4.2.8 Yorktown Formation (TyfU and TyfL) Fine-Grained ........................................ 14
4.2.9 Eastover Formation (Te)................................................................................... 14
4.2.10 St. Marys Formation (Tm) .............................................................................. 14
4.3 Area Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................14
4.3.1 Portal Island No. 1 (South of Thimble Shoal Channel) .................................. 15
4.3.2 Portal Island No. 2 (North of Thimble Shoal Channel) .................................. 16
4.3.3 Thimble Shoal Channel .................................................................................... 17
4.4 Groundwater ............................................................................................................18
5.0 PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE ........................................................19
6.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR TUNNEL ................................................................20

ii
6.1 Face Sections.......................................................................................................... 20
6.2 Obstructions ............................................................................................................21
6.2.1 Rock Containment Dikes and Scour Protection of Existing Portal Islands
and Immersed Tube Tunnel ....................................................................................... 22
6.2.1.1 Original Construction (1960s) ....................................................................... 22
6.2.1.2 Parallel Crossing Project (1990s) ................................................................. 23
6.2.1.3 Investigation for Current Parallel Tunnel Project ........................................ 23
6.2.1.4 Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................... 24
6.2.2 Fishing Pier Piles............................................................................................... 24
6.2.3 Foundations for Survey Towers ....................................................................... 25
6.2.4 Foundations for Construction Piers ................................................................. 26
6.2.5 Miscellaneous Debris and Other Bathymetric Features ................................ 26
6.2.6 Utilities, Systems and Storage Tanks ............................................................. 27
6.2.7 Grout Barrier Wall, Mass Grout and Lean Concrete to Fill Voids ................. 28
6.3 Very Soft Soils .........................................................................................................28
6.3.1 Portal Island No. 2 ....................................................................................... 28
6.3.2 Portal Island No. 1 ....................................................................................... 29
6.4 Soil Abrasion ...........................................................................................................30
6.5 Soil Stickiness/Clogging Potential .........................................................................30
6.6 Gas Conditions ........................................................................................................30
6.7 Soil pH...................................................................................................................... 31
7.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR TEMPORARY TBM LAUNCHING AND

RECEIVING PITS AND BELOW-GRADE TUNNEL APPROACH STRUCTURES ......... 32
7.1 Soil Stratigraphy ......................................................................................................32

iii
7.2 Obstructions ............................................................................................................32
7.2.1 Rock Containment Dikes and Scour Protection of Existing Portal Islands
and Immersed Tube Tunnel ....................................................................................... 33
7.2.2 Fishing Pier Piles............................................................................................... 33
7.2.3 Foundations for Survey Towers ....................................................................... 33
7.2.4 Foundations for Construction Piers ................................................................. 34
7.2.5 Miscellaneous Debris and Other Bathymetric Features ................................ 34
7.2.6 Utilities, Systems and Storage Tanks ............................................................. 34
7.2.7 Grout Barrier Wall, Mass Grout and Lean Concrete to Fill Voids ................. 34
7.3 Very Soft Soils .........................................................................................................35
7.4 Soil pH...................................................................................................................... 35
8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 36
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Project Location Map
FIGURE 2A. Boring Plan– At Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project Limits
FIGURE 2B. Boring Location Plan– Southern Half of Tunnel Alignment
FIGURE 2C. Boring Location Plan– Northern Half of Tunnel Alignment
FIGURE 3A. BT- Baseline Soil Profile
FIGURE 3B. BT- Baseline Soil Profile– Near Portal Island No. 1
FIGURE 3C. BT- Baseline Soil Profile– South of Navigation Channel
FIGURE 3D. BT- Baseline Soil Profile– North of Navigation Channel
FIGURE 3E. BT- Baseline Soil Profile– Near Portal Island No. 2
FIGURE 3F. ITT- Baseline Soil Profile
FIGURE 3G. ITT- Baseline Soil Profile– Near Portal Island No. 1
FIGURE 3H. ITT- Baseline Soil Profile– South of Navigation Channel

iv
FIGURE 3I. ITT- Baseline Soil Profile– North of Navigation Channel
FIGURE 3J. ITT- Baseline Soil Profile– Near Portal Island No. 2
FIGURE 4A. Grain Size Distribution for Island Artificial Fill (af)
FIGURE 4B. Grain Size Distribution for Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits (Qfg)
FIGURE 4C. Grain Size Distribution for Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb)
FIGURE 4D. Grain Size Distribution for Fine-Grained Upper Channel Fill Deposits (Qcf U)
FIGURE 4E. Grain Size Distribution for Fine-Grained Lower Channel Fill Deposits (Qcf L)
FIGURE 4F. Grain Size Distribution for Coarse-Grained Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs)
FIGURE 4G. Grain Size Distribution for Tabb Formation (Qt)
FIGURE 4H. Grain Size Distribution for Coarse-Grained Yorktown Formation (Tys)
FIGURE 4I. Grain Size Distribution for Upper Fine-Grained Yorktown Formation (Tyf U)
FIGURE 4J. Grain Size Distribution for Lower Fine-Grained Yorktown Formation (TyfL)
FIGURE 4K. Grain Size Distribution for Eastover Formation (Te)
FIGURE 4L. Grain Size Distribution for St. Marys Formation (Tm)
FIGURE 5A. Baseline limit of scour protection for Portal Island No. 1
FIGURE 5B. Baseline limit of scour protection for Portal Island No. 2
FIGURE 6A. General locations of survey towers for original Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel
Crossing
FIGURE 6B. Photograph of typical survey tower for original Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel
Crossing
FIGURE 7A. Photograph of partially completed Thimble Shoal Channel south island (Portal
Island No. 1) showing the temporary construction pier on the west side of the
island
FIGURE 7B. Section of Thimble Shoal Channel south island (Portal Island No. 1) showing
concrete block of temporary construction pier
FIGURE 7C. Baseline area (location) of abandoned construction pier piles at each portal
island
FIGURE 8. Photograph of typical repair of void on landward side of splash wall using
flowable fill (lean concrete mix)

v
TABLES
TABLE 1. Baseline Soil Properties
TABLE 2. General description of materials used to construct containment dikes and provide
scour protection
TABLE 3. Baseline Soil Abrasion Test (SAT)™ values of soil layers without conditioners
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. As-built drawings for original portal island construction and for scour protection of
original portal islands and immersed tube tunnel
APPENDIX B. Original material specifications for containment dikes for original portal island
construction and for scour protection of original portal islands and immersed tube
tunnel
APPENDIX C. Plan and typical section of portal island widening constructed in the 1990s
APPENDIX D. Bathymetric survey west of existing tunnel
APPENDIX E. As-built drawings for existing fishing pier
APPENDIX F. Original design drawings for finger (construction) piers
APPENDIX G. As-built drawing for splash wall repair at south end of Portal Island No. 1
APPENDIX H. Soil abrasion test results from SINTEF

vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

CBBT Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel
CBBTD Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District
CPT Cone Penetration Test
CSM Cutter Soil Mixing
DSC Differing Site Conditions
GBR Geotechnical Baseline Report
GDR Geotechnical Data Report
HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling
ITS Information Technology Systems
ITT Immersed Tube Tunnel
MLLW Mean Lower Low Water
NB Northbound
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
RFP Request for Proposal
SAT Soil Abrasion Test
SB Southbound
SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition
SINTEF The Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research
TBM Tunnel Boring Machine
USGS United States Geological Survey
VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation

vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
The Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (the “Project”) entails the design and
construction of a new tunnel crossing, located parallel to the existing tunnel crossing, of
the Chesapeake Bay Thimble Shoal Channel between Portal Islands Nos. 1 and 2. The
tunnel will form part of the parallel Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing, which
connects Virginia Beach with Northampton County, VA. The project location map is
presented in Figure 1.
The project Owner is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District (the “District”) and
the District’s Design Manager, responsible for the preparation of the design-build
Request for Proposal (RFP) Documents, is led by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
(“Jacobs”).
The Project includes the following main components:
· A new approximate 1.1 mile long parallel tunnel, constructed as either an

immersed tube tunnel (ITT) or a bored tunnel, designed to carry two lanes of
southbound traffic (the existing tunnel would be converted from bi-directional flow
to carry two lanes of northbound traffic);
· Widening of the existing portal islands, Portal Islands Nos.1 and 2, to
accommodate the new portals and approach structures for the parallel tunnel;
· Extending the existing two-lane southbound trestle spans onto the widened portal
islands;
· Support systems, services and utilities for the new tunnel including: tunnel
ventilation buildings; tunnel ventilation systems and equipment; tunnel and
approach lighting; power for lighting and other tunnel electrical needs; tunnel
drainage; fire detection and alarm; communications (phones and radio system);
fire protection systems; intrusion detection, supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) and information technology systems (ITS); and
· Construction of a new fishing pier and provisions for future amenities on the
portal islands (i.e., restaurant/gift shop, welcome center, etc.).
1.2 Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) Applicability
The RFP Documents allow for the parallel tunnel to be constructed using one of two
options: (a) ITT; or (b) bored tunnel. This GBR applies to the construction of either
option with the limitations presented herein.

1
The GBR applies to the construction of the tunnel itself as well as the construction of the
temporary TBM launching and receiving pits (in the case of the bored tunnel option) and
the construction of the below-grade tunnel approach structures (i.e., cut and cover
tunnels, U-wall section structures and retaining walls).
The GBR does not apply to the construction of the island expansions, facilities (i.e.,
ventilation buildings, etc.), bridge/trestle foundations or any other project element not
specifically indicated above with the exception of the baselines pertaining to
obstructions from existing rock containment dikes and scour protection, as presented in
Section 6.2.1.4, which are applicable to the project as a whole.
It is presumed that construction of the proposed tunnel and approach structures will be
to the west of the existing tunnel and approach structures; the GBR does not apply to
any construction located east of and including the existing tunnel and approach
structures.
1.3 Purpose of the GBR
The purpose of this GBR is to define and document the baseline geotechnical
conditions to be encountered during construction of the specific elements identified in
Section 1.2 above.
1.4 Sources of Geotechnical Information
The GBR should be read in conjunction with the Geotechnical Data Report (GDR),
which contains factual geotechnical data from the field investigations and laboratory
testing completed for this specific project. The reader is also referred to geotechnical
data from previous investigations conducted for the original island and tunnel
construction (1960s) and for the expansion of the portal islands and parallel trestle
construction (1990s); the data from previous investigations is provided for reference
purposes only and is not part of the Contract. The locations of the geotechnical
explorations, both recent and historic, are presented in Figures 2A, 2B and 2C.
Bidders should also review the existing soil samples from recent investigations to
familiarize themselves with the nature of subsurface materials to be encountered on the
project prior to submitting their bids.
1.5 Hierarchy of Documents
The GBR shall take precedence over all other geotechnical documents, including the
GDR, for the portions of the project to which the GBR applies, as identified in
Section 1.2.

2
1.6 Warranty Disclaimer
The baseline values presented in this report were developed from geotechnical
information and data gathered through exploratory borings, laboratory and field tests,
and other relevant factors such as local construction experience. The judgment applied
in the interpolations and extrapolations of this information reflects the view of the District
and Jacobs in establishing the baseline conditions. The geotechnical baseline
conditions presented in this report are not a warranty that these conditions will, in fact,
be encountered. The issuance of the baselines shall not relieve the Design-Builder of
his exclusive responsibility for the adequacy of the subsurface investigation program
with respect to the design and alignment of the permanent works, the design and
implementation of construction means and methods and safety precautions and
programs.
1.7 Design-Builder’s Means and Methods
The behavior of the geologic materials will be influenced by the Design-Builder’s

selected means and methods. Bidders should take the information in this report into
consideration when assessing impacts that the ground and groundwater conditions will
have upon their selected construction operations, means and methods.
1.8 Datum
All elevations quoted in this GBR are referenced to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).

3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TUNNEL OPTIONS
The District and its Design Manager, Jacobs, have prepared conceptual designs of the
tunnel options (i.e., the “conceptual design”) as shown on the Reference Drawings.
This Section of the GBR presents a discussion of the conceptual design, which is used
as a vehicle to highlight some of the more significant design and construction issues
associated with the tunnel options that have been identified to date.
The existence of the conceptual design, which is for reference purposes only, and the
discussion regarding the conceptual design herein shall not diminish the contractual
design responsibility of the Design-Builder in any way; the Design-Builder is solely
responsible for designing the tunnel in accordance with the RFP Documents, and shall
not rely upon the accuracy, adequacy, or constructability of the conceptual design.
2.1 Immersed Tube Tunnel (ITT)
The District and Jacobs, along with its major subconsultant COWI, have prepared a
conceptual design of the ITT option as shown on the Reference Drawings; a brief
description of the ITT option conceptual design and anticipated construction is
presented herein.
2.1.1 Cross Section
The ITT conceptual design includes a reinforced concrete structure as presented on the
Reference Drawings. The cross section is a 44’-0” wide by 27’-0” high box structure
that includes two, 12’-0” wide travel lanes with two, 2’-0” wide shoulders and a 3’-8”
wide pressurized egress corridor with entrances at the roadway level.
2.1.2 Horizontal Alignment
A conceptual horizontal alignment of the ITT option is presented on the References

Drawings. The proposed alignment is located 250 feet west of the existing ITT, along
the line of the existing parallel (southbound) low-level trestle approaches to the portal
islands.
2.1.3 Vertical Alignment (Profile)
A conceptual vertical alignment (profile) of the ITT is presented on the Reference

Drawings. The Conceptual roadway profile descends from the trestle end of each portal
island at a grade of four percent.

4
2.1.4 Construction of the ITT
Construction of the ITT will commence after temporary islands or parts of the island
expansions have been constructed. Construction of the ITT includes the following
general tasks, the sequence of which will vary or alternate depending on the Design-
Builder’s construction plan. Each task is subsequently discussed in more detail.
· Construct the immersed tube tunnel elements;

· Excavate a stable trench to appropriate depth;
· Tow the positively buoyant tunnel elements to the site;
· Lower tunnel elements into the trench; and
· Backfill the trench to the level of the channel as it existed prior to construction.
As shown on the Reference Drawings, the ITT is comprised of multiple individual

elements. These elements will most likely be fabricated of reinforced concrete, in a dry
environment such as a dry dock, a casting basin or a similar facility. ITT elements will
be designed and fabricated to be watertight, including temporary bulkheads at each end
of the ITT element. ITT elements will also be designed to have stability and floatation
characteristics favorable for transport to the site (positive buoyancy), as well immersion
with the addition of temporary ballast (negative buoyancy).
A stable trench will be constructed to a depth appropriate to the proposed alignment.

The trench will be constructed using an excavator with a clam-shell bucket, which will
remove spoil and place it on a barge for disposal at a suitable location. It is anticipated
that the sides of the trench will be sloped. The bottom of the trench will include a
foundation course placed and formed accurately by means of an underwater screeding
frame or a screeding barge. Repeated screeding may be required if silt and sand
accumulations occur.
Elements will be towed to their permanent location in the trench utilizing tug boats, in a
manner that will ensure safety of the element and safety of maritime traffic. At the site,
each element will be transferred to a lay-barge with adequate equipment for adding
temporary ballast and lowering the element into the trench. Since the elements are
positively buoyant during transport from the dry dock to the site, weight must be added
to make the element negatively buoyant for placement. This is accomplished by
pumping water into tanks inside the tunnel in a precisely controlled manner. Negative
buoyancy must not exceed the capacity of the lay barge. Upon lowering, each element
is attached to the previously placed element by means of pneumatic jacks that engage
the primary Gina rubber gasket. After initial engagement, the space between elements
is evacuated by pumping, upon which unbalanced hydrostatic pressure forces a

5
complete compression of the Gina gasket, creating a permanent watertight seal
between elements.
Backfilling of the trench around each element begins with placement of stone locking
backfill, the purpose of which is, as the name suggests, to lock the position of the
element in the transverse direction. Ordinary backfill is placed next, followed by a stone
armor course that will protect the tunnel cover from erosion and accordingly, maintain
the protecting cover throughout the service life of the tunnel.
Many of the major issues associated with the design and construction of the ITT can be
ascertained by review of the available documentation for the existing ITT, such as
construction reports, as-built drawings, etc.
2.2 Bored Tunnel
The bored tunnel conceptual design includes a single-bore, excavated with a

pressurized-face TBM and lined with gasketed, precast concrete segments. This
conceptual design requires a temporary launching pit and a temporary receiving pit at
opposite ends of the bored tunnel alignment, which are assumed to be installed in
advance of island expansion. This conceptual design also requires significant enabling
works for tunnel construction. The enabling works include ground improvements, both
along the tunnel alignment and at launching and receiving pit locations. The enabling
works also include placement of an engineered fill berm along the bored tunnel
alignment to provide adequate cover if not the tunneling medium itself. The individual
elements of work comprising the conceptual design are discussed in the sections that
follow.
2.2.1 Cross Section
A conceptual cross section of the bored tunnel is presented on the Reference Drawings.
The cross section has an inside diameter of 41’-6”, which includes a 4” installation
tolerance. The cross section includes two, 12’-0” wide travel lanes with two, 2’-0” wide
shoulders and a 3’-8” wide pressurized egress corridor with entrances at roadway level.
The cross section also includes jet fans, located in the traveled way, to support the
longitudinal ventilation scheme.
2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment
A conceptual horizontal alignment of the bored tunnel is presented on the Reference

Drawings. The proposed bored tunnel is located 250 feet west of the existing ITT, along
the line of the existing parallel (southbound) low-level trestle approaches to the portal
islands.

6
2.2.3 Vertical Alignment (Profile)
A conceptual vertical alignment (profile) of the bored tunnel is presented on the

Reference Drawings. The conceptual roadway profile descends from the trestle end of
each portal island at the maximum allowable grade of five percent to achieve as much
cover as possible before clearing the limits of the islands.
The location of the transition from open cut approach structure to bored tunnel was
selected to maximize use of the TBM (minimize length of the approach structure) while
maintaining adequate cover for the TBM launch and reception with consideration to the
envisioned ground improvements. The Design-Builder’s final selection for the location
of this transition will also have to consider the design layout of the new ventilation
buildings.
2.2.4 Construction of the Bored Tunnel
Construction of the bored tunnel conceptual design requires enabling works as well as
temporary launching and receiving pits.
2.2.4.1 Enabling Works
With a descent at the maximum allowable grade, the top portion of the tunnel will
“daylight” above the seabed adjacent to both islands (the term “daylight” is a misnomer
in this case since the uncovered portion of the bored tunnel would be in water as
opposed to open air). Accordingly, the conceptual design contemplates the placement
of engineered fill berms at the tunnel end of both portal islands to enable bored
tunneling (i.e., to provide a medium through which to tunnel) and also for buoyancy
considerations. The Design-Builder must remove any existing scour protection, quarry
run rock or debris (i.e., armor stone, rip rap, etc.) from within the proposed footprint of
the engineered fill berms prior to placement of the fill in order to remove objects that
could obstruct bored tunneling or otherwise impede the Design-Builder’s ability to
maintain an adequate pressure at the heading of the TBM. The Design-Builder must
coordinate the construction sequencing of the engineered fill berms and the island
expansions to maintain and protect the existing islands from scour and settlement at all
stages of construction.
The conceptual design also contemplates ground improvement, consisting of either

cutter soil mixing (CSM) or possibly jet grouting, at the northern end of the proposed
bored tunnel alignment (adjacent to the southern end of expanded Portal Island No. 2)
to address the deposits of very soft, highly compressible soils known to exist in the
area. These very soft, highly compressible soils, which include a layer of peat, extend
to a significant depth below the seabed, which may make removal by dredging

7
impractical. Ground improvement of these soils may be necessary to provide adequate
bearing capacity for the weight of the TBM cutterhead, thereby enabling the TBM to
maintain the correct line and grade during construction. Additionally, the ground
improvement of these soils, as contemplated by the conceptual design, is intended to
reduce the potential for consolidation due to fill placement, and for subsequent rebound
due to tunnel excavation (i.e., due to a net unloading of the compressible soil), which
may result in significant movement of the installed tunnel lining in the final condition.
In addition to the ground improvement described above, the conceptual design includes
removal of soils near the seabed surface at both ends of the proposed tunnel alignment
prior to placement of the engineered fill berms. This removal is intended to help
mitigate the risk of encountering obstructions during bored tunneling as well as the risk
posed by very soft soils near the seabed surface at the south end of the alignment.
This proposed over-excavation is similar to what was performed during original
construction of Portal Island No. 1, where approximately the top 15 feet of soil was
dredged/removed prior to island construction.
2.2.4.2 Temporary TBM Launching and Receiving Pits
The conceptual design for the temporary TBM launching and receiving pits consists of
interlocking steel sheet piling, driven in advance of pit excavation. The sheeting is
assumed to be driven from a barge prior to island construction as this will reduce the
length of sheeting required.
Each wall of the temporary pits is assumed to consist of two rows of steel sheeting, with
several feet of spacing between the opposing sheets that form each wall; the space
between the sheets is dredged and then backfilled with tremie concrete to form the
completed temporary wall. This composite wall design is deemed necessary to create a
wall of sufficient section modulus to prevent excessive deformations without the need
for internal cross-lot bracing in the pits, which would otherwise obstruct the
launch/reception of the TBM, or the need for external tie-backs/anchors, which are not
considered practical for the given soil conditions.
The soil mass at the base of the pit, from a few feet below the seabed to the toe of the
sheeting at approximate El. -60 feet, is assumed to be grouted using interlocking jet
grout columns or possibly interlocking CSM panels. The purpose of the grouted soil
mass is to create an impermeable plug against buoyancy upon excavation. Excavation
of the soil within the confines of the steel sheeting is assumed to be performed under a
head of water (i.e., “in the wet”). A tremie concrete working slab is placed after
excavation to formation level.

8
The conceptual design envisions that access for tunneling operations within the pits, as
well as for excavation of the pits themselves, will be provided either by installing
temporary soil berms around the perimeter of the pits (following completion of
temporary wall construction), or by barges and temporary working platforms. The
Design-Builder would have to coordinate the construction sequencing of the soil berms
and the island expansions to maintain and protect the existing islands from scour and
settlement at all stages of construction. The soil berm adjacent to the headwall of the
pit is envisioned to be constructed of an engineered fill through which future tunneling
would occur, as discussed in Section 2.2.4.1 above. In addition, the conceptual design
considers ground improvement (e.g., jet grouting or cutter soil mixing) adjacent to the
headwalls of both the launching and receiving pits, particularly in the virgin soils
beneath the proposed engineered fill berm, to create stable zones for launching and
receiving the TBM, respectively.

9
3.0 SOURCES OF GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA
The subsurface investigation programs for the CBBT encompass a multitude of borings,
Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) and geophysical data spanning a period of almost 60
years since inception. A discussion of both recent geotechnical investigations and
historic data is provided in the following sections.
3.1 Recent Geotechnical Investigations
Between April 2014 and March 2015, thirty-two (32) borings were performed to support
the Project. Eleven (11) of these borings were performed at or adjacent to Portal Island
No. 1, twelve (12) at or adjacent to Portal Island No. 2 and nine (9) were performed
offshore between the two islands along the proposed tunnel alignment, approximately
250 feet west of the existing tunnel. In addition, thirty-eight (38) CPTs were performed
to supplement the borings, as well as a detailed geophysical program which included a
multibeam hydrographic survey, side scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler and multi-channel
seismic reflection survey.
All pertinent data from the recent geotechnical investigation can be found in the
Geotechnical Data Report (GDR).
3.2 Historic Data
Prior to the recent geotechnical investigation, approximately 60 borings had been drilled
since December 1957 near Portal Islands No. 1 and 2 and along the existing Thimble
Shoal tunnel alignment. These borings and related laboratory data can be found in the
following references:
· Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, Foundation Study dated April 3, 1958
· Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, Boring and Laboratory Test Results - South
Sand Island dated October 26, 1960
· Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, Boring and Laboratory Test Results - North
Sand Island dated December 7, 1960
· Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, Boring and Laboratory Test Results –
Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel and Baltimore Channel Tunnel dated March 15,
1961
· Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge, Boring and Laboratory Test Results –
Trestles A, B and C dated April 11, 1961
· Sverdrup Corporation, Geotechnical Report, Parallel Crossing of Chesapeake
Bay dated April 1993
The above references are available to the bidders. The data from previous
investigations is provided for reference purposes only and is not part of the Contract.

10
Bidders are cautioned that some of the historical data may no longer be accurate due to
disturbance or impact of construction activities that have occurred since the
investigations were performed.

11
4.0 PROJECT GEOLOGY
4.1 Geologic Setting
The Project site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. Marine
and estuarine sediments dip toward the east and overlie igneous and metamorphic
bedrock (Taylor et. al. 2008). In general, Holocene marine alluvial deposits overlie soil
formations of the Pliocene Epoch, Tertiary period.
Soil composition changes over short distances at the Project site due to the fluctuation
between estuarine to marine depositional environments during the Pliocene Epoch.
Scour of Holocene alluvial deposits has exposed Pleistocene and older sediments
(Hobbs et. al. 2008). Crystalline basement rock is located at depths of more than 3,000
feet near the project site due to a disruption to the bedrock geology likely resulting from
a meteor or comet impact during the late Eocene Epoch. Refer to the GDR for
additional discussion of the geologic setting.
4.2 General Geologic Strata
The baseline soil profile is presented in Figures 3A through 3E for the bored tunnel
option and in Figures 3F through 3J for the ITT option. The profile is taken along the
proposed tunnel alignment for each option. Baseline soil properties for each of the soil
strata in the profile are presented in Table 1 while grain size distributions are given in
Figures 4A through 4L. A discussion of the various soil layers that comprise the soil
profile is provided in the Sections that follow. Additional information is available in the
GDR.
4.2.1 Island Artificial Fill (af)
The portal islands were constructed using hydraulically placed fill to approximately
El. +30 feet composed of clean sands with fines content generally less than 6 percent
(SP or SP-SM). The hydraulic fill is very loose to medium dense. Armor stone and
gravel size crushed rock filter layers were placed around the island perimeters to
provide scour protection and maintain the island outlines during initial construction.
Section 6.2.1 discusses the placement of armor/revetment stone for the construction of
rock dikes to divert current and tidal flow and for scour protection on the island slopes.

12
4.2.2 Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits (Qfg)
Qfg consists of recent estuarine fine-grained deposits. These deposits are primarily
composed of soft clay (CL, CH) with shell fragments and a slight sulfur odor likely due to
the presence or organic material.
4.2.3 Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb)
Qb consists of Holocene sand deposits. In general, this layer is typically composed of a

loose to medium dense fine sand (SP) with trace to some silt (SM) and occasional clay
seams.
4.2.4 Channel Fill Deposits (QcfU and QcfL) – Fine-Grained
QcfU and QcfL are composed of late Pleistocene soils deposited within incised channels
during high sea level periods. The QcfU is the upper deposit and is composed of soft to
medium stiff clay containing varying amounts of silt, sand, shell fragments, and
occasionally with pockets of organics. The QcfL is the lower deposit and has a similar
composition. Although they are both fine-grained deposits, the primary difference
between the two sub-units is that the lower unit has a higher fines content and a higher
plasticity. The QcfL can therefore be classified as either CL or CH and is medium stiff to
stiff in consistency. Another difference between the Upper and Lower Channel Fill
Deposit layers is that the QcfU is overconsolidated, with overconsolidation ratios (OCR)
typically ranging from three to four. QcfL is generally normally consolidated and at some
locations exhibits an apparent under-consolidation condition. The QcfL deposits
beneath Island No. 2 are underlain by organic material. This organic material may be a
source of pockets of biogenic gas in this area of the project.
4.2.5 Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs) – Coarse-Grained
Qcs is composed of Late Pleistocene sandy silts to silty sands with varying amounts of
clay and shell fragments (SM, SC-SM). This material is generally loose to medium
dense and was deposited within incised channels formed during high sea level periods.
4.2.6 Tabb Formation (Qt)
Qt is composed of Late Pleistocene deposits composed primarily of fine to medium

grained sand with some silt and variable amounts of shell fragments and gravel (SP,
SP-SM or SM). The sand is medium dense to dense and angular to subangular with
varying inclusions of shell fragments throughout. The Qt surface was eroded during
periods of low sea levels. The formation has been completely eroded in the vicinity of
the navigation channel.

13
4.2.7 Yorktown Formation (Tys) Coarse-Grained
The Tys is the upper portion of the Yorktown Formation and was deposited in the
Pliocene Epoch, Tertiary Period. The Tys is primarily composed of medium dense silty
to clayey fine to coarse sands with variable amount of shell fragments and gravel (SM,
SC) with occasional pockets and lenses of silty clays (CL, CH). The formation has
experienced a series of sea level transgressions, i.e. lowering and raising of sea levels,
resulting in a series of erosional and depositional events.
4.2.8 Yorktown Formation (TyfU and TyfL) Fine-Grained
The Tyf is the lower portion of the Yorktown Formation and has been further subdivided
into an upper (TyfU) and a lower (TyfL) unit. This sub-unit of the Yorktown was
deposited during the late Miocene to early Pliocene. The Tyf was subdivided to
demarcate changes in undrained shear strengths based on the geophysical
investigation. The Tyf is composed of very stiff to hard sandy shelly clays. In addition
to the shear strength variation, another difference between the two sublayers is that the
Upper Fine-Grained material has a higher plasticity and higher fines content. The TyfU
classifies as a fat clay (CH) whereas the TyfL can be classified as either fat or lean clay
(CH or CL) depending on the plasticity index. Sand seams are typically encountered in
the TyfL, though TyfU does have small lenses of very fine sand. Both of these sublayers
are overconsolidated with OCR’s typically ranging from three to five.
4.2.9 Eastover Formation (Te)
The Te was deposited during the late Miocene. This formation is composed primarily of
medium dense to dense silty fine sands (SM, SC) with thin seams of cemented low
plasticity silts and clays (CL) and few shell fragments.
4.2.10 St. Marys Formation (Tm)
The Tm was deposited during the late Miocene. The upper portion of this formation is
composed of stiff to very stiff silty clay (CL, CH) transitioning in consistency to a soft to
very soft soil with fine sand lenses below approximate El. -230 feet. During the recent
subsurface investigation, a very stiff to hard layer was generally encountered between
El. -220 feet and -230 feet. The underlying soil was noticeably softer.
4.3 Area Subsurface Conditions
The conceptual tunnel alignment, as shown in the Reference Drawings, has been
projected onto the baseline soil profile in Figures 3A through 3E for the bored tunnel
option and in Figures 3F through 3J for the ITT option. Based on this projection, the
bored tunnel option will be excavated within the Yorktown Formation (Tys, TyfU and

14
TyfL) and the Eastover Formation (Te) as it passes beneath the navigational channel.
Nearer the Portal Islands, however, various overlying strata will be penetrated including
the Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits (Qfg), the Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb), the
Channel Fill Deposits (QcfU, QcfL and Qcs), organic deposits and the Tabb Formation
(Qt). The ITT construction will encounter the shallower strata only, as shown on
Figures 3F through 3J. The consistency and composition of these overlying strata
vary between Portal Island No. 1 and Portal Island No. 2.
4.3.1 Portal Island No. 1 (South of Thimble Shoal Channel)
Beneath the seabed near the proposed expansion of Portal Island No. 1 the Baymouth
Fine-Grained Deposits (Qfg) and Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb) are encountered.
These deposits are typically ten to twenty feet in combined thickness spanning to a
depth of between El. -38 feet and -42 feet.
Below the Baymouth Shoal Deposits the Channel Fill Deposits (QcfU, QcfL and Qcs) are
encountered. At the south end of the Project location, the Upper Channel Fill Deposits
(QcfU) are underlain by the Lower Channel Fill Deposits (QcfL). These predominantly
fine-grained layers span to as deep as El. -87 feet and as shallow as El. -48 feet near
the center of the proposed island expansion where the Lower Channel Fill Deposits
transition to the underlying Tabb Formation (Qt). For this reason, the Lower Channel
Fill Deposits may not be encountered during tunneling operations near Portal Island
No.1. It should also be noted that at the southern limit of the proposed island
expansion, the Baymouth Shoal Deposits appear to have been completely eroded
away, and the Channel Fill Deposits are encountered at the seabed. Artificial fill
(presumably scour protection material from the existing Portal Island No. 1) is present in
this area as indicated by the bathymetric surveys. Near the north portion of the
proposed island expansion, the Coarse-Grained Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs) are
encountered directly beneath the Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb). The Qcs thickens to
the north approaching the channel.
The Channel Fill Deposits are underlain by the Tabb Formation (Qt). This
predominantly fine to medium grained sand material spans to approximately El. -87 feet.
The Tabb Formation is thinnest at the south end of the island and thickens towards the
north end of the island.
The Tabb Formation at the proposed expansion of Portal Island No. 1 is underlain by
the Yorktown Formation (Tys, TyfU and TyfL), Eastover Formation (Te) and St. Marys
Formation (Tm) in descending order of lithology. These strata will be discussed in
greater detail under Section 4.3.3 for the Thimble Shoal Channel.

15
4.3.2 Portal Island No. 2 (North of Thimble Shoal Channel)
Beneath the seabed near the proposed expansion of Portal Island No. 2 multiple strata
are present. At the south edge of the island, the Fine-Grained Baymouth Deposits (Qfg)
are encountered. These soft silts and clays span approximately 8 feet in thickness and
terminate near El. -30 feet. Beneath the seabed near the center of the proposed island
the Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb) are encountered. This fine sand layer contains
trace to some silt and occasional clay seams and is also encountered beneath the Fine-
Grained Baymouth Deposits at the south edge of the proposed island. The Baymouth
Shoal Deposits are up to 30 feet in thickness, and span to a depth of approximate El. -
50 feet. It should be noted that Boring BH I2-4 indicates a relatively thin (approximately
6 feet) seam of organic material seven feet below the seabed within the Baymouth
Shoal layer. However, this organic seam is not indicated in any of the other nearby
borings or CPTs.
At the north edge of the proposed island expansion, artificial fill (af) is encountered at
the seabed. As was the case with Portal Island No. 1, this is presumably scour
protection material from the existing island shown on the bathymetric surveys but not
sampled by the nearby borings.
Beneath El. -50 feet, the Fine-Grained Channel Fill Deposits (QcfU and QcfL) are
encountered. At the north end of the Project site, this layer is directly beneath the
seabed where the Baymouth Shoal Deposits have been eroded away. The Fine-
Grained Channel Fill Deposits are divided into upper and lower layers. The Upper,
QcfU, is composed of lean clay with silt and trace sand and extends to between El. -58
feet and El. -65 feet, dipping and increasing in thickness to the north. The Lower, QcfL,
is 13 to 20 feet thick, also dipping and increasing in thickness to the north, and
terminates near El. -85 feet in the center of the island. The QcfL is a fat clay with many
silt pockets and organic seams. The QcfL in some cases exhibits an apparent under-
consolidation condition (OCR < 1). This low OCR may be attributable to the presence
of biogenic gas in this layer and the underlying organic material.
Beneath the Channel Fill Deposits at Portal Island No. 2 is a very soft organic seam
indicated as a dark brown and black fibrous peat. The thickness of this layer varies
from approximately 3 feet to 7 feet with an average of approximately 5 feet beneath the
proposed island expansion. The bottom of the organic seam dips from approximate
El. -78 feet at the south end of the island to approximate El. -90 feet beneath the Lower
Channel Fill Deposits at the north end of the proposed island expansion. Based on the
recent subsurface investigation, this layer appears to become thinner to the west-
northwest (toward the Chesapeake Bay side of existing Portal Island No. 2).

16
This organic seam is underlain by the Tabb Formation (Qt). This formation has similar
makeup as at Portal Island No. 1 and is characterized as predominantly fine to medium
grained sands with some silt and trace gravel. Its thickness ranges from approximately
8 to 15 feet thick at Portal Island No. 2, terminating near approximate El. -93 feet at the
south end of the proposed island expansion and approximate El. -98 feet at the north
end. The sand layer includes remnants of organic material from the above fibrous peat
layer.
The Tabb Formation at the proposed expansion of Portal Island No. 2 is underlain by
the Yorktown Formation (Tys, TyfU and TyfL), Eastover Formation (Te) and St. Marys
Formation (Tm) in descending order of lithology. These strata will be covered in the
following Section.
4.3.3 Thimble Shoal Channel
The shallow strata near the center of the Thimble Shoal Channel are slightly different
than at the proposed portal island expansions in that the Tabb Formation (Qt) pinches
out from each island towards the center of the channel where the Coarse-Grained
Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs) directly overlie the Yorktown Formation.
Additionally, near Portal Island No. 2, the organic seam encountered beneath the Lower
Fine-Grained Channel Fill Deposits (QcfL) rises towards the seabed and increases in
thickness from the edge of the island to the south towards the channel. This layer
overlies the Coarse-Grained Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs) and is indicated to be as thick
as 11 feet in Boring BH T-8.
The predominantly Coarse-Grained Yorktown Deposits, Tys, are directly beneath the
Tabb Formation at the channel edges and beneath the Coarse-Grained Channel Fill
Deposits in the center of the Thimble Shoal Channel. The Tys is characterized as a
medium dense silty to clayey fine sand with trace shell fragments. Beneath the Portal
Islands the Tys contains more silt and clay sized particles, but in the channel the
particles are coarser with the finer particles in irregular seams and pockets. The Tys is
between 10 and 30 feet in thickness and extends to as deep as El. -112 feet near Portal
Island No. 2.
The Fine-Grained Yorktown Deposits underlie the coarse-grained material and are split
into two layers, the Upper, TyfU, and the Lower, TyfL. The Fine-Grained Yorktown
Deposits are up to 40 feet thick with generally half of the strata classified as TyfU and
half classified as TyfL. Both sublayers are composed of very stiff to hard clay with
pockets of sand and large shells. A notable difference between the two sublayers is

17
that the Upper Fine-Grained material has a higher plasticity and higher fines content as
detailed in Section 4.2.8.
The Eastover Formation, Te, underlies the Yorktown Formation. The Te ranges in
thickness between approximately 50 feet and 70 feet and extends to as deep as
El. -200 feet. The Eastover Formation is comprised of medium dense to dense silty fine
sands with thin seams of cemented low plasticity silts and clays and few shell
fragments.
Several of the Thimble Shoal Channel borings drilled during the recent
subsurface exploration program extend into the St. Marys Formation, Tm. This
formation underlies the Eastover Formation, beginning at El. -195 feet to El. -200 feet,
and is composed of stiff to very stiff silty clays with layers of shell fragments. The stiff to
very stiff silty clay layer transitions to a very soft silty clay beneath approximate El. -230
feet. The deepest borings penetrated to El. -259.4 feet. A very stiff to hard layer was
generally encountered between El. -220 and -230 feet. The underlying soil was
noticeably softer with the change in consistency likely associated with the St. Mary’s
Aquifer and its overlying confining unit (McFarland and Bruce, 2006).
4.4 Groundwater
Groundwater levels at the site are based on fluctuations of the tide. Generally speaking
the water surface ranges from El. +4 feet at high tide to El. -1 feet at low tide. Water
levels were estimated during drilling and later corrected based on tidal data for the
borings performed with the recent subsurface investigation program. Groundwater was
not measured for the six onshore borings at the existing Portal Islands.

18
5.0 PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE
Both the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel, as well the existing Chesapeake Channel
Tunnel to the north, were constructed as ITTs. Accordingly, the previous construction
experience is particularly relevant to the design and construction of the ITT option for
the parallel tunnel. Despite the difference in tunnel type, some aspects of the original
Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel Crossing construction are also relevant to the design
and construction of the bored tunnel option. For example, the Design-Builder is alerted
to the large consolidation settlement that occurred at Portal Island No. 2, which is
discussed in greater detail in Section 6 of this GBR. Other aspects of the previous
construction may be relevant to the proposed construction depending upon the Design-
Builder’s means and methods of construction for the launching and receiving pits (for
the bored tunnel option) as well as for the below-grade tunnel approach structures. For
example, the Design-Builder may find useful the pile driving records for the existing low-
level trestle approach structures, whose foundations typically consist of prestressed
concrete cylinder piles, driven into the bay bottom. The Design-Builder may also find
useful the records from temporary excavation support and dewatering system
installations for the existing underground approach structures (U-wall sections and
retained cuts), which consisted of soldier piles and timber lagging along with well-point
systems supplemented by deep-well dewatering pumps.
For information on the Chesapeake Bay-Bridge Tunnel Crossing construction, both the
original crossing construction that occurred in the 1960s and the parallel crossing
construction that occurred in the 1990s, refer to the construction reports listed in
Section 8 – References.

19
6.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR TUNNEL
This Section of the report presents the tunnel baseline conditions (either bored tunnel
option or ITT option); baseline conditions for the TBM launching and receiving pits
(bored tunnel option) as well as for the below-grade tunnel approach structures are
presented in Section 7. The tunnel baseline conditions address the following: face
sections; obstructions; very soft soils; soil abrasion; soil stickiness/clogging potential;
gas conditions and soil pH.
6.1 Face Sections
The excavated tunnel face will contain either one geologic stratum or a combination of
geological strata at any location along the alignment. The baseline percentages of the
various face sections to be anticipated along the tunnel alignment, but not the specific
locations where each of these sections will occur, shall be established by
superimposing (i.e., horizontally projecting) the Design-Builder’s design tunnel profile
onto the baseline soil profile, presented in Figures 3A through 3E for the bored tunnel
option and in Figures 3F through 3J for the ITT option, with the exceptions stated
below. The baseline soil properties of each geologic stratum in the baseline soil profile
are provided in Table 1.
The baseline soil profile, presented in Figures 3A through 3E for the bored tunnel
option and in Figures 3F through 3J for the ITT option, was prepared for a section that
was cut parallel to, and 250 feet west of, the existing ITT. However, for baseline
purposes the profile is assumed to be applicable, with the exceptions stated herein, to
any tunnel alignment selected by the Design-Builder within a corridor between the
western edge of the existing ITT and a line parallel to, and 250 west of, the western
edge of the existing ITT. In the case of the ITT option, the limit of applicability for the
baseline soil profile can be extended a reasonable distance further westward to
accommodate trench excavation for the ITT construction. For bidder-proposed
alternative alignments that traverse the existing portal islands, the bidders shall assume
the additional height of soil between the ground surface/seabed elevation as shown on
baseline soil profile and the ground surface/seabed elevation along the alternative
alignment is comprised of Island Artificial Fill (af) as described in Section 4.2.1 and
Table 1, with oversized material (scour protection, containment dikes, etc.) as described
in Section 6.2.1.
The baseline soil profile was developed by interpolating between various data points
(i.e., soil borings and cone penetration tests). Strata changes recorded on the boring
logs and/or changes in the CPT tip resistance were used to help interpret transitions
from one formation to the next. The general formation depth was interpreted for each

20
boring reviewed based on the boring classifications and the laboratory test results.
Similar strata breaks on adjacent borings were then used to develop the strata breaks
on the profiles. Accordingly, the profile is not a warranty of conditions to be
encountered.
The following Exceptions apply to the baseline face sections described above:
Exception #1 – Variation of interfaces between adjacent geologic strata
For baseline purposes, the Design-Builder shall assume that the interfaces between
adjacent geological strata indicated in the baseline soil profile, given in Figures 3A
through 3E for the bored tunnel option and in Figures 3F through 3J for the ITT
option, may vary by up to plus or minus five (+/- 5) feet at any location and still be
considered within the baseline. In other words, any boundary between layers shown on
the profiles can vary in elevation by five (5) feet higher or five (5) feet lower from what is
shown and still be considered as within the baseline. By this definition, layers shown to
be less than or equal to ten (10) feet thick on the baseline soil profile might not be
encountered and still be considered as within the baseline.
Exception #2 – Specific locations of face sections are not baselined
The procedure described above to establish the baseline percentages of the various
face sections does not purport to establish specific anticipated locations (i.e., Stationing)
for a given face section. In other words, the specific locations of face sections are not
baselined. The Design-Builder should not rely upon the existence of a particular face
section at a specific location.
Furthermore, the baseline face sections established by the superimposition described

above shall not be contrived to authenticate the presence of full-face firm or slow-
raveling tunneling conditions or other conditions that might allow access to the pressure
chamber of the TBM (for cutterhead inspections, tool changes, etc.) under pressures
that are less than full hydrostatic pressure plus at-rest soil pressure. Refer to the
Supplemental Specifications for minimum TBM requirements and requirements for
compressed air interventions.
6.2 Obstructions
The geologic strata described in Section 4 are not known to contain naturally occurring
material of a size that could not be routinely ingested by the tunnel boring machine
(TBM) as specified(in the case of the bored tunnel option) or could complicate the ITT
construction. Therefore, for baseline purposes, the bidders shall assume that naturally

21
occurring obstructions (i.e., boulders) will not be encountered during tunnel
construction.
Conversely, there are numerous “man-made” obstructions (which are also considered to
include “man-placed” natural materials such as filter stone layers, rip rap stones, quarry
run rock, etc.) that could potentially obstruct the tunnel construction. These anticipated
obstructions, which are presented in the Sections that follow, must be accounted for by
the Design-Builder both in his design and in his selection of his means and methods of
construction.
6.2.1 Rock Containment Dikes and Scour Protection of Existing Portal Islands and
Immersed Tube Tunnel
The existing portal islands were constructed using a series of containment dikes, which
contain over-sized materials. Additionally, the portal islands, as well as the existing ITT,
are covered with various layers of scour protection including heavy rip rap, quarry run
rock and gravel sized crushed rock. The materials that comprise the containment dikes
and the scour protection could potentially obstruct the TBM or otherwise impede the
Design-Builder’s ability to maintain an adequate pressure at the heading of the TBM.
These materials could also complicate excavation for the ITT option.
This Section provides background information and baseline conditions on both the
composition and location of the rock containment dikes and scour protection.
Information from the original construction (1960s), the parallel crossing project (1990s)
and the site investigation for the current parallel tunnel project are provided in Sections
6.2.1.1 through 6.2.1.3, respectively. The assumed baseline conditions are presented
in Section 6.2.1.4.
6.2.1.1 Original Construction (1960s)
Construction of the existing portal islands involved building a pad of hydraulically placed
fill on the bay bottom, then constructing a series of containment dikes and hydraulically
filling the interior in stages. Following and concurrent with island construction,
additional heavy rip rap, quarry run rock and gravel sized crushed rock were placed to
provide scour protection for the islands and the portions of the ITT adjacent to the
islands. As-built drawings for the original portal island construction and for scour
protection of the original portal islands and the ITT are given in Appendix A for
reference purposes.
General descriptions of the materials used to construct the containment dikes for the
original islands and to provide scour protection for the original islands and the ITT are

22
presented in Table 2. The original construction specifications for these materials are
provided in Appendix B.
6.2.1.2 Parallel Crossing Project (1990s)
During the subsequent Parallel Crossing Project constructed in the 1990s, both of the
portal islands leading into the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel were partially widened to
allow the roadway of the parallel crossing trestle to merge with the existing roadway for
access to the tunnel. A plan view of the partial widening performed at Portal Island
No. 1 is given in Appendix C (the partial widening performed at Portal Island No. 2 is
similar) along with a typical cross-section of the portal island widening.
The widening of the islands involved rebuilding the splash wall at the trestle-end of the
western side of each island approximately 25 feet outward from its previous location. In
the vicinity where the splash wall was rebuilt, the existing layer of 10-ton minimum
armor stone (i.e., Heavy Rip Rap - Type “A”, extending from seabed to approximate
El. +20.0 feet as discussed in the previous section) was removed and either stockpiled
for later use or placed as additional armor protection along the east side of Portal Island
No. 2. A new layer of armor stone scour (slope) protection consisting of 5-ton armor
stone was placed in front of the new splash wall, covering the face of the 2 Horizontal: 1
Vertical slope from bay bottom to El. +3.0 feet. At El. +3.0 feet, a 25-foot wide wave
dissipating berm of 5-ton stone was constructed at the toe of the splash wall. At the toe
of the newly placed 5-ton armor stone berm and around the trestle end of the portal
islands, a four-foot thick layer of scour protection stone was placed in an area with a
history of scour vulnerability. The scour protection stone consists of VDOT Dry Riprap,
Class II. The scour protection extends approximately 225 feet in the east/west direction
beyond the top of the armor stone berm and as much as 500 feet along the trestle
alignment in the north/south direction.
6.2.1.3 Investigation for Current Parallel Tunnel Project
As part of the recent site investigation performed for this project, Jacobs’ geotechnical
subconsultant, Fugro Consultants, Inc. (Fugro), performed geophysical ground
investigations in part to help identify the extent of existing island scour protection and
other potential obstructions. The geophysical investigation included a high-resolution
multi-beam bathymetric survey, which provided water depths within the survey area
(with an accuracy of better than one percent of water depth). The bathymetric survey
revealed the location of larger rocks placed as part of the existing scour protection and
identified other potential obstructions in the Project area. The results of the bathymetric
survey for locations west of the existing portal islands are presented in Appendix D.
Refer to the GDR and its appendices for a complete account of bathymetric features

23
identified by the Fugro investigation. Additionally, Jacobs’ cultural resources
subconsultant, Search, performed additional marine remote sensing surveys, which also
revealed potential obstructions to tunneling. The results of these additional surveys
appear in the Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (Search, 2014).
6.2.1.4 Baseline Conditions
The assumed baseline conditions for the location and composition of the containment
dikes for original island construction and the scour protection for the existing portal
islands and the ITT are as follows:
· The location of the containment dikes and scour protection shall be assumed to
fall within the baseline limit of scour protection as indicated on Figures 5A and
5B for Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The baseline limit was
established with consideration to bathymetric data and as-built construction
records.
· The composition of the containment dike and scour protection materials
encountered within the baseline limit of scour protection will include:
o The materials listed in Table 2 (i.e., Heavy Riprap – Type “A”, Quarry Run
Rock – Type “B”, Gravel – Type “A” and Gravel – Type “B”) with properties
as defined by the original material specifications given in Appendix B;
and
o The materials described in Section 6.2.1.2 (i.e., 5-ton armor stone and
VDOT Dry Riprap, Class II).
Baseline quantities are not provided for the materials comprising the containment dikes
and scour protection listed above. The Design-Builder is responsible for moving,
removing, disposing and/or replacing, as required by his proposed design and
construction means and methods, any quantity of the above materials within the
baseline limit of scour protection at no additional cost to the District.
6.2.2 Fishing Pier Piles
An existing fishing pier connects to the northwestern corner of Portal Island No. 1 as
shown on the Reference Drawings. The fishing pier extends in a northwesterly direction
and cuts across the proposed tunnel alignment envisioned by the conceptual design.
The piled foundations for the fishing pier are a potential source of obstructions to the
proposed tunnel construction.
As-built drawings for the fishing pier are provided in Appendix E. The drawings show
the pier is constructed of seven spans at a uniform 75’-0” spacing. This 525 feet of
fishing pier is connected to the portal island by a 127-foot long steel I-beam span,

24
making the total pier length 652 feet. The seven spans are supported by eight concrete
bent caps, each of which is supported by two piles (one at either end of the bent cap).
The piles are 54-inch diameter prestressed concrete cylinder piles (16 cable).
The as-built elevations of the pile tips are not known; however, the cumulative length of
the sixteen piles was originally estimated to be 1,728 feet (i.e., an average pile length of
108 feet) and the top elevation of each pile is shown to be El. +17.50 feet, which gives
an average pile tip elevation of El. -90.5 feet, not accounting for the pile batter.
Accordingly, the piles are assumed to extend well below the proposed tunnel alignment
options shown on the Reference Drawings. Therefore, unless the piles are avoided
(i.e., by driving the TBM between the piles), or unless piles are removed, the excavation
will encounter the piles.
The Design-Builder shall survey the location of existing fishing pier piles, including the
pile batter, prior to finalizing his design tunnel alignment. The Design-Builder shall
either set his alignment to miss the existing fishing pier piles, or account for the removal
of the piles in his bid. (Refer to the Technical Requirements for contractual
requirements for removal of the fishing pier including piles.) For baseline (bidding)
purposes assume the piles are installed at a deviation of five percent from vertical in the
direction perpendicular to the tunnel alignment, towards the tunnel, which will reduce
the available clearance between the piles and the tunnel, especially at greater depths.
6.2.3 Foundations for Survey Towers
Horizontal and vertical control for the original Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing
was established with the aid of nine survey towers located in the bay along and to the
west of the crossing alignment. The general locations of the survey towers, which have
since been removed, are indicated in Figure 6A. A photograph of a typical survey
tower is given in Figure 6B.
An examination of Figure 6A reveals that Tower No. 2 was located in the general
vicinity the proposed parallel tunnel, to the west of Portal Island No. 1. However, closer
examination of the location of Tower No. 2, using the coordinates given in the original
construction records, reveals that this tower is well outside the Project area.

25
6.2.4 Foundations for Construction Piers
Construction piers were constructed on the west side of each portal island to off-load
materials, equipment and workers. A photograph of the construction pier as it existed
during construction of Portal Island No. 1 is given in Figure 7A.
Each construction pier consisted of a permanent concrete block (abutment), which

remains to this day, and a temporary pier extension, extending into the bay. A cross-
section from the as-built drawings, which shows the concrete block that remains at
Portal Island No. 1, is provided in Figure 7B (the concrete block that remains at Portal
Island No. 2 is assumed to be similar). Construction records for the temporary pier
extensions cannot be found. The original design drawings for the construction piers,
which were referred to as “finger piers”, are given in Appendix F, however, it is clear
from the construction photographs that the piers were not constructed as per the
original design drawings.
For baseline purposes, bidders shall assume the temporary pier extensions at each
island were constructed on piled foundations, and that the piles were cut-off at the
seabed elevation (i.e., the as-constructed seabed elevation as opposed to the original
seabed elevation) following island construction. Furthermore, the bidders shall assume
the piles for the pier extension at each island consist of steel sections, driven five feet
into the uppermost Tertiary soil layer or El. -90 feet, whichever is deeper. For baseline
purposes, assume nine such piles exist at each island, and assume these piles will be
located anywhere within an area that is bounded in plan by a length of 126 feet,
measured seaward from the outboard edge of each block along the block centerline,
and a width of 40 feet, centered on and perpendicular to the block centerline. A
depiction of these areas is provided in Figure 7C.
The piles as baselined above would present a major obstruction to tunnel construction,
particularly if encountered during bored tunneling. Accordingly, the Design-Builder shall
either set his alignment to avoid the defined area of the piles or otherwise account for
the removal of the piles in his bid.
6.2.5 Miscellaneous Debris and Other Bathymetric Features
Various events, including historic storms and accidents, have occurred throughout the
construction and operational history of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing.
For example, the original construction records (Sverdrup & Parcel, 1965) describe a
significant storm event that occurred in March of 1962 (i.e., the “Ash Wednesday
Storm”), which damaged the island protection stone of both islands. This event and
others like it have resulted in the deposition and possible burial of random armor stone,

26
construction materials and other miscellaneous debris in the vicinity of proposed
construction. This miscellaneous debris has the potential to obstruct the TBM or
otherwise impede the Design-Builder’s ability to maintain an adequate pressure at the
heading of the TBM if not removed prior to tunneling. These materials could also
complicate excavation for the ITT option.
As part of the recent site investigation performed for this project, Jacobs’ geotechnical
subconsultant, Fugro Consultants, Inc. (Fugro), performed geophysical ground
investigations in part to help identify miscellaneous debris within the Project area. The
geophysical ground investigations included a high-resolution multi-beam bathymetric
survey as well as a side scan sonar survey. Some of the targets identified could
potentially fall within the tunnel alignment proposed by the Design-Builder. The results
of the bathymetric survey for locations west of the existing portal islands are presented
in Appendix D. Refer to the GDR and its appendices for a more detailed account of
miscellaneous debris and other bathymetric features identified by the Fugro
investigation. Additionally, refer to the Cultural Resources Assessment Survey
prepared for the project (Search, 2014), which includes the results of additional marine
remote sensing surveys; although these additional surveys were performed for cultural
resource applications, they also reveal potential obstructions to tunneling.
The Design-Builder shall determine if his proposed tunnel alignment will encounter the
miscellaneous debris as shown and/or identified in Appendix D, the GDR and the
Cultural Resources Assessment Survey. The miscellaneous debris may fall either
inside or outside the baseline limit of scour protection indicated on Figures 5A and 5B.
The Design-Builder in his bid shall account for the removal of this miscellaneous debris
from the path of the proposed tunnel so as to prevent obstruction of tunnel construction.
The Design-Builder shall also refer to the Project Technical Requirements for minimum
requirements regarding dredging or improving the bay bottom prior to the placement of
engineered fill berms as shown in the Reference Drawings and described in Section
2.2.
6.2.6 Utilities, Systems and Storage Tanks
The bidders shall refer to the Reference Information Documents (RID) for the general
locations of existing utilities, systems and underground storage tanks on the existing
portal islands. The bidders shall account for in their bids the cost of relocating or
maintaining and protecting in place, as appropriate, any existing utility, system or
underground storage tank that may potentially interfere with their proposed design or
means and methods of construction. Such items include, but are not limited to, the
following:

27
· Water, power, communication, fiber optics for SCADA and Broadband, sewer,
tunnel drainage piping;
· Water storage tank on Portal Island No. 1;
· Abandoned sewer plant on Portal Island No. 1;
· Diesel fuel tanks on immediate west sides of existing ventilation buildings; and
· Septic tanks and leaching tanks at the north end of Portal Island No. 1 and south
end of Portal Island No. 2.
6.2.7 Grout Barrier Wall, Mass Grout and Lean Concrete to Fill Voids
Construction records indicate that a grout barrier wall was constructed, and mass
grouting was performed, at the south end of Portal Island No. 1 (e.g., refer to Drawing
No. 695441 T-310, which is presented in Appendix G). Additionally, over the years the
District has placed flowable fill (a lean concrete mix) into voids behind the landward side
of the splash walls at scattered locations on all portal islands. (The voids were created
by the washout of island fill material through open joints between splash wall sections.)
A photograph showing an example of a flowable fill repair is presented in Figure 8.
The Design-Builder shall expect to encounter these materials within the confines of the
existing portal islands, on either side of the splash walls. The Design Builder’s means
and methods shall be capable of accommodating these materials at no additional cost
to the District.
6.3 Very Soft Soils
6.3.1 Portal Island No. 2
The project site contains layers of very soft, highly compressible soils that require
special consideration for tunnel construction, especially bored tunnel construction, as
well as for tunnel lining design. This includes the design of the sequence and timing of
engineered fill placement relative to tunnel construction.
As reported in the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing Construction Report

(Sverdrup & Parcel, 1965), pre-construction borings taken at Portal Island No. 2
revealed a layer of highly compressible material (peat) approximately 15 feet thick,
located about 60 feet below the bay bottom. The depth from the bay bottom to the peat
consisted of stratified layers of various soil classifications. Analyses performed at that
time indicated that unless pore pressure was relieved, total settlement on the order of 6
to 8 feet might be anticipated as a result of the island-superimposed load along with the
possibility of displacement of these soft materials during construction. Consequently,
vertical sand drains and deep dewatering well pumps were installed and an additional
surcharge over the building area was placed to accelerate the consolidation of the soft

28
underlying materials within the allocated construction time frame. However, the sand
drain installation was abandoned after severe damage to the Portal Island and
construction equipment due to a record storm (i.e., the “Ash Wednesday Storm”). As a
result of the storm, the sand drain installation on Portal Island No. 2 was not completed
in an area on the north end of the island. This area has experienced significant
settlement over the years and continues to require maintenance.
Based on the results of test borings drilled for the original crossing in the 1960s, the
parallel crossing project in the 1990s and the recent site investigations performed for
the current parallel tunnel project, these same layers of very soft clay and organic
material (peat) underlie the westward expansion of Portal Island No. 2. These layers
also extend southward along the tunnel alignment towards the channel. According to
the conceptual design alignment relative to the baseline soil profile, shown in Figures
3A through 3E for the bored tunnel option and in Figures 3F through 3J for the ITT
option, the invert of the bored tunnel is located in the potentially very soft, highly
compressible soils (i.e., QcfU, QcfL and Organic soil layers) to the south of Portal Island
No. 2.
For baseline purposes, the Design-Builder shall assume that wherever the QcfU, QcfL or
organic soil layers exist below the springline of his proposed bored tunnel profile, as
determined by superimposing the Design-Builder’s proposed tunnel profile on the
baseline soil profile given in Figures 3A through 3E, ground improvement of these
soils will be needed to improve their bearing capacity such that these soils can
adequately support the weight of the TBM cutterhead and allow the TBM to maintain
line and grade. The Design-Builder shall also refer to the Project Technical
Requirements for minimum requirements regarding dredging or improving the bay
bottom prior to the placement of engineered fill berms as shown in the Reference
Drawings and described in Section 2.2.
6.3.2 Portal Island No. 1
Subsurface profiles developed from the borings drilled near the west side of Portal
Island No. 1, both prior to construction of the original crossing in the 1960s and the
parallel crossing in the 1990s, suggest that the proposed island expansion will be
underlain by about 15 feet of very soft soils including clayey silt, silty clay, and fine
sandy silt characterized by “weight of rod” results from Standard Penetration Tests.
These layers will also extend northward along the tunnel alignment. In contrast to
Portal Island No. 2, the soft soil layers exist immediately below the seabed and it is
feasible to consider removal of these layers (by dredging) to reduce the potential for
bearing capacity issues with the TBM cutterhead. The Design-Builder shall refer to the
Project Technical Requirements for minimum requirements regarding dredging or

29
improving the bay bottom prior to placement of engineered fill berms as shown in the
Reference Drawings and described in Section 2.2.4.
6.4 Soil Abrasion
The abrasion potential of the various soil strata that may be encountered by bored
tunneling was investigated by means of soil abrasion testing using the Soil Abrasion
Test™ (SAT™) developed by SINTEF and the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU) as described in Jakobsen et al. (2013). The SATs™ were
conducted by SINTEF at their laboratory testing facilities in Norway. The results of the
testing are provided in Appendix H of this GBR.
Baseline SAT™ values of various soil strata (i.e., natural soil, without conditioners) are
presented in Table 3. The baselines were developed based upon the SAT™ results.
Lower SAT™ values are less abrasive than higher SAT™ values. As per Jakobsen et
al. (2013), a soil with an SAT™ less than or equal to 7 is classified as a “low” abrasive
material, a soil with an SAT™ between 7 and 22 is classified as a “medium” abrasive
material and a soil with an SAT™ of greater than or equal to 22 is classified as being a
“high” abrasive material. These qualifiers notwithstanding, it is actual values of the
SAT™ that are baselined.
6.5 Soil Stickiness/Clogging Potential
Although some natural deposited soils do have greater clogging potential than others,
whether or not a soil will ultimately cause clogging of the TBM is dependent upon the
means and methods of the Design-Builder (i.e., equipment selection, soil conditioning,
tunneling processes, etc.). Accordingly, baselines for soil stickiness/clogging potential
are not provided herein. The Design-Builder is solely responsible for determining how
the soils, given the baseline soil properties as defined in Section 4, will respond to the
means and methods selected and implemented by the Design-Builder.
6.6 Gas Conditions
The site investigation revealed evidence of the presence of biogenic gas originating
from the organic layer at the north end of the alignment (Fugro, 2014). The evidence
was in the form of “diffused reflectors” in the geophysical data (i.e., seismic reflection
survey) as well as “gas blisters” in the fat clay approximately 20 to 60 feet below the
seabed in the vicinity of Portal Island No. 2. Furthermore, the areas where the
geophysical data indicated the presence of gas generally matched the areas where
apparent under-consolidation, low undrained shear strength and low unit weights were
noted. Conversely, no gas releases were recorded during the boring program.

30
Biogenic gas is known to include hazardous gases such as methane (CH4), hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) and carbon monoxide (CO).
For baseline purposes, underground work associated with the bored tunnel option is
considered to be “potentially gassy” in accordance with OSHA regulations (i.e., 29 CFR
1926.800 Subpart S).
6.7 Soil pH
Soil pH testing was conducted on 19 samples from the following soil strata: Qb, Qcs, Qt,
Tys, TyfU and TyfL. The test results range from 7.2 to 10.9. For baseline purposes,
assume soil pH will typically range between 7.5 and 9.0, but may occasionally approach
a minimum of 7.0 and a maximum of 11.0.

31
7.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR TEMPORARY TBM LAUNCHING
AND RECEIVING PITS AND BELOW-GRADE TUNNEL
APPROACH STRUCTURES
This Section of the report presents the baseline conditions for the temporary TBM
launching and receiving pits (bored tunnel option) as well as for the construction of the
below-grade tunnel approach structures. The baseline conditions address the following:
soil stratigraphy; obstructions; very soft soils; and soil pH.
7.1 Soil Stratigraphy
The excavations for the launching and receiving pits (bored tunnel option) and the
below-grade tunnel approach structures will encounter either one geologic stratum (soil
group) or multiple geological strata (soil groups) at any location within the excavations.
The existence and baseline percentages of the various geologic strata to be anticipated
for each excavation shall be established by superimposing (i.e., horizontally projecting)
the Design-Builder’s design excavation profile onto the baseline soil profile, previously
presented in Figures 3A through 3E for the bored tunnel option and in Figures 3F
through 3J for the ITT option, with the exception stated below. The baseline soil
properties of each geologic stratum (soil group) in the baseline soil profile were
previously summarized in Table 1.
The following Exception applies to the baseline soil stratigraphy described above:
Exception #1 – Variation of interfaces between adjacent geologic strata
For baseline purposes, the Design-Builder shall assume that the interfaces between
adjacent geological strata indicated in the baseline soil profile, given in Figures 3A
through 3E for the bored tunnel option and in Figures 3F through 3J for the ITT
option, may vary by up to plus or minus five (+/- 5) feet at any location and still be
considered within the baseline. In other words, any boundary between layers shown on
the profiles can vary in elevation by five (5) feet higher or five (5) feet lower from what is
shown and still be considered as within the baseline. By this definition, layers shown to
be less than or equal to ten (10) feet thick on the baseline soil profile might not be
encountered and still be considered as within the baseline.
7.2 Obstructions
The geologic strata (soil groups) described in Section 4 are not known to contain
naturally occurring material of a size that could not be routinely excavated with
conventional marine excavation equipment or obstruct the installation of vertical
support-of-excavation walls. Therefore, for baseline purposes, the bidders may assume

32
that naturally occurring obstructions (i.e., boulders) will not be encountered during
installations/excavations for either the launching and receiving pits or the below-grade
tunnel approach structures.
Conversely, there are numerous “man-made” obstructions (which are also considered to
include “man-placed” natural materials such as rip rap stones, quarry run rock, etc.) that
could potentially obstruct the pit and approach structure installations/excavations.
These anticipated obstructions, which are presented in the Sections that follow, must be
accounted for by the Design-Builder both in his design and in his selection of his means
and methods of construction including the sequence of construction. It is expected the
Design-Builder will clear man-made obstructions located within the footprint of the
proposed excavation to suit his support-of-excavation means and methods.
7.2.1 Rock Containment Dikes and Scour Protection of Existing Portal Islands and
Immersed Tube Tunnel
The existing portal islands were constructed using a series of containment dikes, which
contain over-sized materials. Additionally, the portal islands, as well as the existing ITT,
are covered with various layers of scour protection including heavy rip rap, quarry run
rock and gravel sized crushed rock. The materials that comprise the containment dikes
and the scour protection could potentially obstruct the installation of vertical excavation
support walls and cause difficulty for the excavation of the launching and receiving pits
and the below-grade tunnel approach structures.
Background information and baseline conditions on both the composition and location of
the rock containment dikes and scour protection were previously provided in Section
6.2.1 for the tunnel. The discussion and baseline conditions provided in Section 6.2.1
are equally applicable to the launching and receiving pit construction as well as to the
construction of the below-grade tunnel approach structures.
7.2.2 Fishing Pier Piles
Refer to Section 6.2.2 for background information and baseline conditions regarding
the existing fishing pier that connects to the northwestern corner of Portal Island No. 1.
The discussion and baseline conditions are equally applicable to the launching and
receiving pit construction as well as to the construction of the below-grade tunnel
approach structures.
7.2.3 Foundations for Survey Towers
the possibility of encountering remaining foundations for survey towers that were

33
previously installed to provide control for the original crossing construction in the 1960s.
The discussion and baseline conditions are equally applicable to the launching and
receiving pit construction as well as to the construction of the below-grade tunnel
7.2.4 Foundations for Construction Piers
the possibility of encountering remaining foundations for construction pier extensions
that were previously installed to provide construction access to the west side of the
portal islands. The discussion and baseline conditions are equally applicable to the
launching and receiving pit construction as well as to the construction of the below-
grade tunnel approach structures.
7.2.5 Miscellaneous Debris and Other Bathymetric Features
miscellaneous debris and other bathymetric features. This miscellaneous debris could
potentially obstruct the installation of vertical excavation support walls and cause
difficulty for the excavation of the launching and receiving pits and the below-grade
tunnel approach structures. The discussion and baseline conditions presented in
Section 6.2.5 are equally applicable to the launching and receiving pits as well as the
below-grade tunnel approach structures.
The Design-Builder shall determine if his proposed pit and approach structure
installations/excavations will encounter the debris as noted herein and identified in the
GDR. The Design-Builder in his bid shall account for the removal of this miscellaneous
debris.
7.2.6 Utilities, Systems and Storage Tanks
utilities, systems and storage tanks. The discussion and baseline conditions are equally
applicable to the launching and receiving pit construction as well as the construction of
the below-grade tunnel approach structures.
7.2.7 Grout Barrier Wall, Mass Grout and Lean Concrete to Fill Voids
Refer to Section 6.2.7 for background information and baselines regarding grout barrier
walls, mass grouting and lean concrete repairs to fill voids within the existing portal
islands. The discussion and baseline conditions are equally applicable to the launching
and receiving pit construction as well as the construction of the below-grade tunnel

34
7.3 Very Soft Soils
The project site contains layers of very soft, highly compressible soils that require
consideration for design and construction of the launching and receiving pits as well as
the below-grade tunnel approach structures including the design of the sequence and
timing of fill placement and the maintenance and protection of existing structures. A
description of the very soft soils was provided in Section 6.3.
7.4 Soil pH
Refer to Section 6.7 for baselines for soil pH.

35
8.0 REFERENCES
1. American Society of Civil Engineers (2007), “Geotechnical Baseline Reports for

Construction – Suggested Guidelines”.
2. Brown, P. M., Miller, J. A., and Swain, F. M., (1972), “Structural and Stratigraphic
Framework, and Spatial Distribution of Permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain,
North Carolina to New York” United States Geological Survey Professional Paper
796, Plates 1 and 31.
3. Fugro Consultants, Inc. (2014), “Geotechnical and Geophysical Field Data Report -
Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel – New Thimble Shoal Tunnel – Chesapeake
Bay, Offshore Virginia”, September 2014.
4. Fugro Consultants, Inc. (2014), “Geotechnical Site Characterization – Chesapeake

Bay Bridge and Tunnel – New Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project – Chesapeake Bay,
Offshore Virginia”, October 2014.
5. Gohn, G. S., Sandford, W. E., Powars, D.S, Horton Jr., J.W., Edwards, L.E., Morin,
R.H., and Self-Trail, J. M., (2007), “Site report for USGS test holes drilled at Cape
Charles, North Hampton County Virginia, in 2004” United States Geological Survey
Open File report 2007-1094, Figure 1, p. 2.
6. Hobbs, C.H., Krantz D.E., & Wikel, G.L., (2008), “Coastal Processes and Offshore
Geology”, The Geology of Virginia, pp. 3-17.
7. Hollman, F.S. and Thewes, M., (2013), “Assessment method for clay clogging and
disintegration of fines in mechanized tunnelling", Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 37 (2013) 96-106.
8. Jacobs (2015), “Geotechnical Data Report, Chesapeake Bay Bridge - Tunnel,

Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel”, June 2015.
9. Jacobs (2011), “Thimble Shoal Parallel Tunnel Conceptual Study and Conceptual
Construction Cost Estimate”, February 2011.
10. Jakobsen, P. D., Bruland, A., and Dahl, F., (2013), “Review and assessment of the
NTNU/SINTEF Soil Abrasion Test (SAT™) for determination of abrasiveness of soil
and soft ground” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 37 (2013) 107-
114.
11. McFarland, E.R., and Bruce, T.S., (2006), “The Virginia Coastal Plain Hydrogeologic
Framework”, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1731, p. 8-95.

36
12. Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge (1958), “Foundation Study, Chesapeake Bay
Bridge – Tunnel Crossing”, April 3, 1958.
13. Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge (Oct 1960), “Boring and Laboratory Test Results
Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel. - South Sand Island Thimble Shoal Channel”,
October 26, 1960.
14. Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge (Dec 1960), “Boring and Laboratory Test
Results Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel North Sand Island Thimble Shoal
Channel”, December 7, 1960.
15. Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge (1961), “Boring and Laboratory Test Results
Chesapeake Bay Bridge & Tunnel Thimble Shoal Channel Tunnel and Baltimore
Channel Tunnel”, March 15, 1961.
16. Moran, Proctor, Mueser & Rutledge (1961), “Boring and Laboratory Test Results -
Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel, Trestles A, B and C”, April 19, 1961.
17. Search (2014), “Cultural Resource Assessment Survey”, October 2014.
18. Sverdrup Civil, Inc. (2000), “Parallel Crossing of Chesapeake Bay Construction
Report”, May 2000.
19. Sverdrup Corporation (1991), “Conceptual Engineering Report, Parallel Crossing of

Chesapeake Bay” December 1991.
20. Sverdrup Corporation (1993), “Geotechnical Report, Parallel Crossing of

Chesapeake Bay”, April 1993.
21. Sverdrup & Parcel (1965), “Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing Construction
Report – January 1965”, Volumes 1 and 2, January 1965.
22. Taylor, L.A., Eakins B.W. et al. (2008), “Digital Elevation Model of Virginia Beach,
Virginia, Data Sources and Analysis”, NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS
NGDC-7, p. 2.
23. Thewes, M., (1999), “Adhesion of clays during tunnelling with slurry shields”,
Dissertation, vol.21, Berichte aus Bodenmechanik und Grundbau der Bergischen
University Wuppertal, Department of Civil Engineering.
24. Thewes, M. and Burger, W., (2005), “Clogging of TBM drives in clay – identification
and mitigation of risks”, Proceedings ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, Istanbul,
Turkey, pp. 737-742

37
FIGURES
LITTLE CREEK HARBOR
NORTHAMPTON BLVD./ROUTE 13 CHESAPEAKE BAY
SOUTH APPROACH ROADS
N
SOUTH TOLL PLAZA
PORTAL ISLAND NO. 1

RESTAURANT, GIFT SHOP
AND FISHING PIER
D
SOUTHBOUND PROJECT
O
O
TRESTLE A
L
LOCATION
B
B
E
PORTAL ISLAND NO. 2
INDEPENDENCE BLVD. SOUTHBOUND TRESTLE B
NORTHBOUND TRESTLE A
THIMBLE SHOAL TUNNEL
PORTAL ISLAND NO. 3
LYNNHAVEN INLET NORTHBOUND

TRESTLE B
SHORE DR.
9
PORTAL ISLAND NO. 4
MILE POST
DESIGNATION, TYP.
SOUTHBOUND TRESTLE C
CHESAPEAKE TUNNEL
SOUTHBOUND
NORTH CHANNEL BRIDGE
NORTHBOUND TRESTLE C
SOUTHBOUND TRESTLE D
NORTHBOUND NORTH CHANNEL BRIDGE

FISHERMAN ISLAND
ATLANTIC AVE./ROUTE 60
NORTHBOUND TRESTLE D
CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH ROUTE 13/LANKFORD HIGHWAY
CHESAPEAKE BAY
BRIDGE-TUNNEL DISTRICT NORTHAMPTON
NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND ADMINISTRATION CENTER COUNTY
FISHERMAN ISLAND CAUSEWAY
NORTH TOLL PLAZA
NORTH APPROACH ROADS
ATLANTIC OCEAN
NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND

TRESTLE E, FISHERMAN
INLET BRIDGE AND TRESTLE F
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

CAPE CHARLES, VIRGINIA 23310-0111
PARALLEL TUNNEL
TO
1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 LUCIUS J. KELLAM, JR. BRIDGE-TUNNEL

MILES 0 MILES MILES MILES
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE AND TUNNEL
LOCATION PLAN
1"=2.0 MILES
SCALE: 1" = 2.0 MILES FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED PTST B L
STATIONING
275+00
280+00
285+00
290+00
295+00
300+00
305+00
310+00
315+00
320+00
325+00
330+00
335+00
340+00
345+00
350+00
355+00
360+00
C
L CHANNEL
STA. 317+72.48
N
PORTAL ISLAND NO. 1 PORTAL ISLAND NO. 2
PROPOSED SPLASH
WALL (TYP.) PROPOSED SPLASH
PROPOSED LIMITS OF NEW PROPOSED LIMITS OF NEW
WALL (TYP.)
EXPANDED PORTAL ISLAND BH I1-7 EXPANDED PORTAL ISLAND
BH I1-3 BH I1-5
PROPOSED TUNNEL BH I2-6
BH I2-8
BH I2-3
ALIGNMENT BH I2-2A
BH I2-1A BH I2-5
BHT-5 BH I2-7 BH I2-9
BHT-4
BH I1-4 BH I1-6 BHT-6 BHT-7 BH T-2
BHT-8 BHT-9
BH I2-2
BH I1-2
I2-1 BH I2-4 I2-2
I1-2 BH I2-1 M30
M17 M84
M10 M13 BH I1-8 BH T-3 M27
M8 BH T-1 M21 IL2-1
C2 BHI1-10 BHI2-10
TRESTLE A C3 B2 C4 M28 TRESTLE B
M19 M29 BHI2-11
BHI1-9 BHI1-11 M25
IL1-1 BHI2-12
M9 B1 M18 M22
M14 EXISTING THIMBLE SHOAL TUNNEL B3 C5
M7 M11 M24
M16 M26
M20 M23
an.dgn
g 2A pl
5000)\fi
1000’
THIMBLE SHOAL CHANNEL
FIGURE 2B FIGURE 2C
i
calBasel
P:\C1X29016\700cadd\711GEOT\Geotechni ne Report (W BS
NOTES:
1. BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. SEE BORING PLAN FIGURES 2B AND 2C FOR

LEGEND BATHYMETRY CONTOURS.
RECENT GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS (2014/2015) 3. CPT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON FIGURES 2B AND 2C. CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE AND TUNNEL DISTRICT
4. IMAGERY COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH, SIO, NOAA,
HISTORIC BORINGS (1957-1960, 1992)
USN, NGA AND GEBCO.
PARALLEL TUNNEL
TO
LUCIUS J. KELLAM, JR. BRIDGE-TUNNEL
600 0 600 1200
FIGURE 2A
BORING PLAN
AT THIMBLE SHOAL TUNNEL
PROJECT LIMITS
PROPOSED PTST B L
STATIONING
275+00
280+00
285+00
290+00
295+00
300+00
305+00
310+00
315+00
N
-3
0
0
-3
C
L CHANNEL
0
STA. 317+72.48
-50
-4
BH I1-7
2C
PROPOSED LIMITS OF NEW
FIG U R E
CPT I1-3
EXPANDED PORTAL ISLAND
BH I1-5 CPT I1-8

BH I1-3
CPT I1-2 CPT I1-5
CPT I1-9
CPT I1-4 PROPOSED TUNNEL
CPT I1-7 ALIGNMENT
BH I1-1 CPT I1-1 BH I1-6
M A TCH LIN E
BH I1-4 CPT I1-10A CPT T-4 CPT T-9
BH I1-2 CPT I1-6A CPT T-3 BH T-6
BH T-4 CPT T-8
CPT T-1A
CPT T-5 CPT T-7
BH T-1
I1-2 CPT I1-10 CPT T-1 BH T-5
CPT I1-6 CPT T-6
CPT T-2
M17 BH I1-8
M13
M10
M8 BH I1-10
BH I1-9 BH I1-11
C2
IL1-1
B1 C3 EXISTING THIMBLE SHOAL TUNNEL
M9 PORTAL ISLAND NO. 1
M18
M7
M11 M14
M16
0
0
0
-4 0
0
-5
-5
-
-5
-2
-3
0
0
500’
LEGEND
RECENT GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS (2014/2015)

NOTE:
1. BORING AND CPT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.

CPT LOCATIONS (2014)
PARALLEL TUNNEL
-20 BATHYMETRY CONTOURS (APRIL 2014)
600 0 600
FIGURE 2B
BORING LOCATION PLAN
SOUTHERN HALF OF TUNNEL ALIGNMENT
PROPOSED PTST B L
STATIONING
320+00
325+00
330+00
335+00
340+00
345+00
350+00
355+00
360+00
N
-20
-20
C
L CHANNEL
STA. 317+72.48
-50
-30
-40
-50
2B
FIG U R E
PROPOSED LIMITS OF NEW

EXPANDED PORTAL ISLAND
CPT I2-6
BH I2-8
CPT I2-1 BH I2-3 BH I2-6
BH I2-1A CPT I2-3 CPT I2-5

BH I2-9
PROPOSED TUNNEL BH I2-7
BH I2-2A BH I2-5
ALIGNMENT
CPT I2-2 CPT I2-4A CPT I2-8
CPT T-14
M A TCH LIN E
BH T-7 BH T-2 CPT T-12 BH I2-2

CPT T-10 BH T-8 CPT T-17 I2-2
CPT T-15 CPT T-16 BH T-9 BH I2-4
CPT T-13
BH T-3
I2-1 CPT I2-4
CPT T-11
M30
CPT T-13A M84
BH I2-1
M21
B2 BH I2-10 M27 IL2-1
BH I2-11 BH I2-12
M29 M28
M25
EXISTING THIMBLE SHOAL TUNNEL C4 M19

M22 B3 C5
PORTAL ISLAND NO. 2
M24
M26
M23
M20
0
-3
0
-50
-4
500’
LEGEND
RECENT GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS (2014/2015) NOTE:

1. BORING AND CPT LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.

CPT LOCATIONS (2014)

PARALLEL TUNNEL

-20 BATHYMETRY CONTOURS (APRIL 2014)
600 0 600
FIGURE 2C
BORING LOCATION PLAN
NORTHERN HALF OF TUNNEL ALIGNMENT
APPROX. LIMITS OF EXPANDED ISLAND APPROX. LIMITS OF EXPANDED ISLAND
AT APPROX. ELEV. +30' AT APPROX. ELEV. +30'
40 40
0.00% 0.00%
30 30
20 20
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER EL. 0.00'

10 10
0 0
%
-
5.00%
CONCEPTUAL TOP OF STRUCTURE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION) Qcf
U 50
.0
-10 -10
GROUND SURFACE /
af Qfg CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION) BHI2-2A SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1)
-20 BHI2-4 -20
BHI2-5
BHI1-4 Qfg
BHI1-5
BHI1-6
BHI1-7
Qcs Qb CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION) Qfg
BHT-3
-30
BHI1-3 Qb BHI1-8 1000'- 0" Qcf BHT-9 BHI2-9 af -30
BHT-4
L Qb
-40 NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL -40
BHI1-2 -
5 BHT-2
.0 BHT-8
BHI1-1 Qcf
U 0% BHT-5 BHT-6
BHT-1 BHT-7
-50 Qb Qb -50
QcfL Qb
-60 Qb Qcf
U -60
-70 -70
Qt Qt Qcs Qcs QcfL

Qcs Qcs
-80
Qt Organics -80
-90
-
5.0 0% Qt -90
Tys 0% Tys 50
. Qt
-100 Tys Tys -100
-110
Tys
Tyf TyfU
-110
U
Tyf
U
Tyf
U Tyf
FEET)
-120 U -120
Tyf Tyf Tyf

ON (
-130
L
-0.50% 0.50%
L L Tyf
L
-130
Tyf
ELEVATI
L
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
Te Te Te Te Te
-170 -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
Tm Tm Tm Tm
-230 -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260 -260
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365
PROPOSED PTST BLSTATIONING (HUNDRED FEET)
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS
O TH ER SYM BO LS
PRIM ARY SO IL CO M PO N EN TS
GRAVEL
ORGANICS
SECO N D ARY SO IL CO M PO N EN TS
SAND FILL
COBBLES
SILT - HIGHLY PLASTIC

GRAVEL
SILT -NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC SAND
CLAY - HIGHLY PLASTIC

CLAY - NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC SILT -NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC
Stratigraphic Units CLAY - HIGHLY PLASTIC
Artificial Fill Predominately

Tabb Formation
af Coarse-Grained including Qt CLAY - NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC
Scour Protection
Yorktown Formation
Qfg Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits Tys
Predominately Coarse-Grained COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
NOTES:
Baymouth Shoal Deposits Tyf Yorktown Formation CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE AND TUNNEL DISTRICT
Qb U
1. GROUND SURFACE/SEABED ELEVATION SHOWN IS FOR THE CONCEPTUAL REFERENCE DESIGN
Predominately Coarse-Grained Predominately Fine-Grained
TyfL CAPE CHARLES, VIRGINIA 23310-0111
ALIGNMENT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET WEST OF THE EXISTING TUNNEL CENTERLINE.
Qcf
U Channel Fill Deposits Eastover Formation THE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH THE GROUND SURFACE/SEABED ELEVATION
Predominately Fine-Grained
Te
Predominately Coarse-Grained
PARALLEL TUNNEL
Qcf
L
FOR HIS PROPOSED ALIGNMENT USING THE GROUND SURFACE CONTOURS DETERMINED BY
TO
BATHYMETRIC SURVEY AS PRESENTED IN APPENDIX D. IT IS THE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR'S
Channel Fill Deposits RESPONSIBLITY TO VERIFY THE DISTRICT FURNISHED SURVEY DATA.
Qcs Tm St. Marys Formation
Organics
FIGURE 3A
BT - BASELINE SOIL PROFILE
APPROX. LIMITS OF EXPANDED ISLAND
AT APPROX. ELEV. +30'
40 40
0.00%
30 30
CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE

20 (BORED TUNNEL OPTION) 20
10 10
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER EL. 0.00' -
5. CONCEPTUAL TOP OF STRUCTURE
00% (BORED TUNNEL OPTION)
0 0
-10 -10
GROUND SURFACE /
CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE
-20
af SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1)
(BORED TUNNEL OPTION)
-20
BHI1-4 Qfg
BHI1-5
BHI1-6
BHI1-7
Qcs
-30 -30
BHI1-3
Qb BHI1-8
-40 -40
BHI1-2
-
BHI1-1 Qcf
U
5.00%
-50 -50
-60
QcfL -60
-70 -70
Qt
-80 -80
GURE 3C
-90 -90
Tys
-100 -100
-110
Tyf
U
-110
NE FI
FEET)
-120 -120
Tyf
ON (
-130 -130
L
M ATCHLI
ELEVATI
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
-170
Te -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
Tm
-230 -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260 -260
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
Stratigraphic Units
Tabb Formation
af Coarse-Grained including Qt COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Scour Protection
Yorktown Formation
Predominately Coarse-Grained CAPE CHARLES, VIRGINIA 23310-0111
NOTES:
Baymouth Shoal Deposits Tyf Yorktown Formation PARALLEL TUNNEL
Qb U
Predominately Coarse-Grained Predominately Fine-Grained TO
TyfL
Qcf
Te
Qcf Predominately Fine-Grained Predominately Coarse-Grained FOR HIS PROPOSED ALIGNMENT USING THE GROUND SURFACE CONTOURS DETERMINED BY
L

Qcs Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3B
NEAR PORTAL ISLAND NO. 1
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
Qfg
-20 -20
CONCEPTUAL TOP OF STRUCTURE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION)
Qb
-30 -30
GROUND SURFACE / CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION) 1000'- 0"
BHT-4 SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1) CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION) NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL
-40 -40
BHT-6
BHT-5 BHT-1
-50 -50
Qb
-60 Qb -60
-70
Qcs -70
Qt Qcs
-80 -80
GURE 3B
GURE 3D
-90 -90
-
5.00%
-100 Tys -100
FEET)
-110 -110
Tyf
NE FI
NE FI
U
ON (
-120 -120
ELEVATI
-130 -130
M ATCHLI
M ATCHLI
-
0.5
Tyf
L
0%
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
-170
Te -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
-230
Tm -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260
295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318
Stratigraphic Units
Tabb Formation
Qfg Qt COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits
Yorktown Formation
Baymouth Shoal Deposits Tys
Qb Predominately Coarse-Grained CAPE CHARLES, VIRGINIA 23310-0111
NOTES:
Tyf
U Yorktown Formation PARALLEL TUNNEL
Qcf
U Channel Fill Deposits 1. GROUND SURFACE/SEABED ELEVATION SHOWN IS FOR THE CONCEPTUAL REFERENCE DESIGN
TyfL Predominately Fine-Grained TO
Qcf Predominately Fine-Grained ALIGNMENT LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET WEST OF THE EXISTING TUNNEL CENTERLINE.
L
Eastover Formation THE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH THE GROUND SURFACE/SEABED ELEVATION
Te
Channel Fill Deposits Predominately Coarse-Grained FOR HIS PROPOSED ALIGNMENT USING THE GROUND SURFACE CONTOURS DETERMINED BY
Qcs
Predominately Coarse-Grained BATHYMETRIC SURVEY AS PRESENTED IN APPENDIX D. IT IS THE DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR'S
RESPONSIBLITY TO VERIFY THE DISTRICT FURNISHED SURVEY DATA.
Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3C
SOUTH OF NAVIGATION CHANNEL
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Qcf
U
-10 -10
-20 -20
CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION)
CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION)

-30 BHT-3 -30
BHT-9
1000'- 0" GROUND SURFACE /
NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL
SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1) Qcf
L
-40 -40
BHT-2 BHT-8
BHT-7
-50 Qb Qb -50
-60 -60
-70 -70
Qcs Qcs
-80 -80
Qt
GURE 3E
GURE 3C
-90 Qt -90
%
Tys 50
.0
-100 -100
Tys
FEET)
-110 -110
NE FI
NE FI
Tyf
ON (
-120
U Tyf
U -120
ELEVATI
Tyf Tyf
M ATCHLI
L L
M ATCHLI
-130 -130
05
.0%
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
Te Te
-170 -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
-230
Tm -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260
318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
Stratigraphic Units PROPOSED PTST BLSTATIONING (HUNDRED FEET)
Tabb Formation
Qfg Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits Qt COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Yorktown Formation
NOTES:
Tyf
Qcf
L
Te
Qcs
Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3D
Organics
NORTH OF NAVIGATION CHANNEL
40 40
0.00%
30 30
CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION)
CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (BORED TUNNEL OPTION)

20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
0
.0% GROUND SURFACE /
5
BHI2-2A SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1)
-20 BHI2-4
-20
BHI2-5
Qfg
-30 BHI2-9 af -30
Qb
-40 -40
-50 -50
-60 Qcf
U -60
-70 -70
QcfL
-80 Organics -80
GURE 3D
-90 -90
Qt
-100 -100
Tys
FEET)
NE FI
-110 -110
ON (
TyfU
ELEVATI
-120 -120
M ATCHLI
-130
Tyf
L
-130
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
-170
Te -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
-230
Tm -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260 -260
342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365

Tabb Formation
Scour Protection
Yorktown Formation
NOTES:
Qb U
TyfL
Qcf
Te
L

Qcs Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3E
Organics
APPROX. LIMITS OF EXPANDED ISLAND APPROX. LIMITS OF EXPANDED ISLAND
AT APPROX. ELEV. +30' AT APPROX. ELEV. +30'
40 40
30 30
20 20

10 10
0 0
%
Qcs CONCEPTUAL TOP OF STRUCTURE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION) Qcf
U 4
-.00
-10 -10
- GROUND SURFACE /
af 4.00% Qfg CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION) BHI2-2A SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1)
-20 BHI2-4 -20
BHI2-5
BHI1-4 Qfg
BHI1-5
BHI1-6
BHI1-7
Qb CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION) Qcf
L Qfg
BHT-3
-30
BHI1-3 Qb BHI1-8 1000'- 0" BHT-9 BHI2-9 af -30
BHT-4
Qb
-40 -40
BHI1-2 BHT-2 BHT-8
BHI1-1 Qcf
U BHT-5 BHT-6
BHT-1 BHT-7
-50 Qb Qb -50
QcfL Qb
-60 Qb Qcf
U -60
-70 -70
Qt Qt Qcs Qcs QcfL

Qcs Qcs
-80
Qt Organics -80
-90 Qt -90
Tys Tys Qt
-100 Tys -
0.50% 05
.0%
Tys -100
-110
Tys
Tyf TyfU
-110
U
Tyf
U
Tyf
U Tyf
FEET)
-120 U -120
Tyf Tyf Tyf

ON (
-130
L L L Tyf
L
-130
Tyf
ELEVATI
L
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
Te Te Te Te Te
-170 -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
Tm Tm Tm Tm
-230 -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260 -260
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS
O TH ER SYM BO LS
PRIM ARY SO IL CO M PO N EN TS
GRAVEL
ORGANICS
SECO N D ARY SO IL CO M PO N EN TS
SAND FILL
COBBLES

GRAVEL
SILT -NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC SAND
CLAY - HIGHLY PLASTIC

CLAY - NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC SILT -NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC
Stratigraphic Units CLAY - HIGHLY PLASTIC

Tabb Formation
af Coarse-Grained including Qt CLAY - NON-PLASTIC TO
MEDIUM PLASTIC
Scour Protection
Yorktown Formation
Predominately Coarse-Grained COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
NOTES:
Baymouth Shoal Deposits Tyf Yorktown Formation CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE AND TUNNEL DISTRICT
Qb U
Predominately Coarse-Grained Predominately Fine-Grained
TyfL CAPE CHARLES, VIRGINIA 23310-0111
Qcf
Predominately Fine-Grained
Te
PARALLEL TUNNEL
Qcf
L
FOR HIS PROPOSED ALIGNMENT USING THE GROUND SURFACE CONTOURS DETERMINED BY
TO
Qcs Tm St. Marys Formation
Organics
FIGURE 3F
ITT - BASELINE SOIL PROFILE
40 40
CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE

(ITT TUNNEL OPTION)
30 30
20 20
CONCEPTUAL TOP OF STRUCTURE
(ITT TUNNEL OPTION)
10 10
CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM
OF STRUCTURE
(ITT TUNNEL OPTION)
0 0
-10 -10
GROUND SURFACE /
-
4
-20
af SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1) .00%
-20
BHI1-4 Qfg
BHI1-5
BHI1-6
BHI1-7
Qcs
-30 -30
BHI1-3
Qb BHI1-8
-40 -40
BHI1-2
BHI1-1 Qcf
U
-50 -50
-60
QcfL -60
-70 -70
Qt
-80 -80
GURE 3H
-90 -90
Tys
-100 -100
-110
Tyf
U
-110
NE FI
FEET)
-120 -120
Tyf
ON (
-130 -130
L
M ATCHLI
ELEVATI
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
-170
Te -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
Tm
-230 -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260 -260
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295
Stratigraphic Units
Tabb Formation
Scour Protection
Yorktown Formation
NOTES:
Qb U
TyfL
Qcf
Te
L

Qcs Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3G
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
Qfg
-20 -20
CONCEPTUAL TOP OF STRUCTURE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION)
Qb
-30 -30
GROUND SURFACE / CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION) 1000'- 0"
BHT-4 SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1) CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION) NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL
-40 -40
BHT-6
BHT-5 BHT-1
-50 -50
Qb
-60 Qb -60
-70
Qcs -70
Qt Qcs
-80 -80
GURE 3I
GURE 3G
-90 -90
-100 Tys -0.50% -100

FEET)
-110 -110
NE FI
Tyf
NE FI
U
ON (
-120 -120
ELEVATI
-130 -130
M ATCHLI
M ATCHLI
Tyf
L
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
-170
Te -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
-230
Tm -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260
295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318
Stratigraphic Units
Tabb Formation
Qfg Qt COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits
Yorktown Formation
NOTES:
Tyf
Qcf
L
Te
Qcs
Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3H
SOUTH OF NAVIGATION CHANNEL
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Qcf
U
-10 -10
-20 -20
CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION)
Qcf
L
CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION)
-30 BHT-3 -30
BHT-9
1000'- 0" GROUND SURFACE /
SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1)
-40 -40
BHT-2 BHT-8
BHT-7
-50 Qb Qb -50
-60 -60
-70 -70
Qcs Qcs
-80 -80
Qt
GURE 3J
GURE 3H
-90 Qt -90
Tys
-100 -0.50% -100
Tys
FEET)
-110 -110
NE FI
NE FI
Tyf
ON (
-120
U Tyf
U -120
ELEVATI
Tyf Tyf
M ATCHLI
L
M ATCHLI
-130 L -130
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
Te Te
-170 -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
-230
Tm -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260
318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
Tabb Formation
Qfg Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits Qt COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Yorktown Formation
NOTES:
Tyf
Qcf
L
Te
Qcs
Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3I
Organics
NORTH OF NAVIGATION CHANNEL
40 40
30 30
CONCEPTUAL ROAD SURFACE PROFILE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION)
CONCEPTUAL BOTTOM OF STRUCTURE (ITT TUNNEL OPTION)

20 20
10 10
0 0
.00%
-10 Qfg 4
-
-10
GROUND SURFACE /
BHI2-2A SEABED ELEVATION (SEE NOTE 1)
-20 BHI2-4
-20
BHI2-5
-30 BHI2-9 af -30
Qb
-40 -40
-50 -50
-60 Qcf
U -60
-70 -70
QcfL
Organics
GURE 3I
-80 -80
-90 -90
Qt
-100 -100
Tys
FEET)
NE FI
-110 -110
ON (
TyfU
ELEVATI
-120 -120
M ATCHLI
-130
Tyf
L
-130
-140 -140
-150 -150
-160 -160
-170
Te -170
-180 -180
-190 -190
-200 -200
-210 -210
-220 -220
-230
Tm -230
-240 -240
-250 -250
-260 -260
342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365

Tabb Formation
Scour Protection
Yorktown Formation
NOTES:
Qb U
TyfL
Qcf
Te
L

Qcs Tm St. Marys Formation FIGURE 3J
Organics
US Standard Sieve Size (inches) US Standard Sieve Number Hydrometer Analysis
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 98 94 79 48 21 11 7 5
25% Quartile 100 98 96 87 69 33 12 8 6
Median 100 99 98 91 71 36 15 9 7
75% Quartile 100 100 99 94 75 39 18 10 7
Maximum 100 100 99 98 80 40 22 14 7
FIGURE 4A. Grain Size Distribution for Island Artificial Fill (af)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 100 99 99 98 97 88 31 6 5 4 3
25% Quartile 100 100 100 100 99 99 92 48 14 10 8 5
Median 100 100 100 100 100 99 93 57 19 14 11 7
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 99 93 72 33 24 18 13
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 99 95 74 51 38 30 20
FIGURE 4B. Grain Size Distribution for Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits (Qfg)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 98 96 90 82 64 39 20 9 7 3
25% Quartile 100 100 100 99 97 89 62 39 20 13 8
Median 100 100 100 100 99 97 91 73 47 36 13
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 96 85 43 26
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 83 43
FIGURE 4C. Grain Size Distribution for Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 100 98 88 67 45 34 28 23 20 16 12 8
25% Quartile 100 100 100 98 97 79 66 53 42 33 23 17 12
Median 100 100 100 100 99 94 81 72 58 36 26 20 14
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 99 99 97 86 72 39 26 20 14
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 97 50 34 24 17
FIGURE 4D. Grain Size Distribution for Fine-Grained Upper Channel Fill Deposits (Qcf U)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 99 99 94 80 54 35 28 25 19 15 12 7
25% Quartile 100 100 100 99 97 89 82 78 75 61 44 31 21
Median 100 100 100 100 99 98 98 96 91 86 70 52 34
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 98 98 96 91 74 50
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 87 63
FIGURE 4E. Grain Size Distribution for Fine-Grained Lower Channel Fill Deposits (Qcf L)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 99 97 93 69 59 43 37 28 22 20 16 13 8 1
25% Quartile 100 100 100 100 97 86 79 67 49 37 26 20 18 16 9
Median 100 100 100 100 99 95 91 84 65 49 34 24 22 18 12
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 98 96 89 79 63 40 30 27 25 14
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 93 86 77 67 50 38 26
FIGURE 4F. Grain Size Distribution for Coarse-Grained Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 93 88 70 31 8 4 2 2 1 1
25% Quartile 100 97 97 96 88 69 29 14 8 6 4
Median 100 100 100 99 97 85 63 23 13 9 7
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 99 96 83 54 22 17 12
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 72 61 51
FIGURE 4G. Grain Size Distribution for Tabb Formation (Qt)

3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 90 78 62 49 39 29 18 11 8 6 5 4 3 2
25% Quartile 100 100 100 100 99 89 71 53 40 36 32 30 22 16 7
Median 100 100 100 100 100 98 87 75 60 50 41 32 25 20 12
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 98 93 77 55 35 30 23 17
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 86 59 45 35 27 19
FIGURE 4H. Grain Size Distribution for Coarse-Grained Yorktown Formation (Tys)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 98 98 97 83 52 44 42 38 36 33 26 17
25% Quartile 100 100 100 99 91 82 76 68 62 49 37 28 19
Median 100 100 100 100 100 99 94 90 85 77 64 47 31
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 96 90 72 60 38
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 84 71 42
FIGURE 4I. Grain Size Distribution for Upper Fine-Grained Yorktown Formation (Tyf U)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 100 99 95 92 89 88 86 77 53 27 16 13 9 5
25% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 90 67 55 34 26 22 14
Median 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 78 64 50 33 25 18
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 81 73 56 39 30 20
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 91 83 70 56 47 33
FIGURE 4J. Grain Size Distribution for Lower Fine-Grained Yorktown Formation (Tyf L)
3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 96 93 91 86 80 73 62 45 23 16 13 9 7 5 3
25% Quartile 100 99 99 99 99 98 97 89 44 29 21 14 10 8 5
Median 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 95 81 53 27 15 13 10 7
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 91 62 30 21 17 12 9
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 71 42 23 20 18 13
FIGURE 4K. Grain Size Distribution for Eastover Formation (Te)

3 1.5 3/4 3/8 #4 10 #20 #40 #100 # 200
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
Percent Finer
50 50
Maximum
75% Quartile
40 40
Median
30 25% Quartile 30
Minimum
20 20
10 10
0 0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
Percent Passing
Size (mm) 19 12.7 9.5 4.75 2 0.85 0.425 0.25 0.15 0.105 0.074 0.04 0.02 0.008 0.002
Minimum 100 99 98 98 98 97 95 66 34 24 22 21 19 14 5
25% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 98 98 89 64 44 27 23 22 15 10
Median 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 92 78 63 47 30 27 18 13
75% Quartile 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 95 82 73 63 35 32 23 15
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 90 71 44 35 30 21
FIGURE 4L. Grain Size Distribution for St. Marys Formation (Tm)
Baseline Limit of Scour Protection:
-34
Point Easting Northing
-28
01-A 12179703.739 3518405.597
-26
02-A 12179380.102 3518494.168
-36
03-A 12179397.858 3519076.239

04-A 12179895.882 3519890.803
05-A 12180006.384 3520259.926
-34
06-A 12180113.446 3520417.255
07-A 12180206.329 3520490.419
03-A
08-A 12180262.664 3520588.970
!
?
-42 09-A 12180312.936 3520762.492
02-A 10-A 12180431.887 3520949.046
-46 11-A 12180463.882 3521071.680
!
-48
?
12-A 12180711.430 3521620.552
-4
8
04-A 13-A 12180789.156 3521881.143
-50
-40
05-A
-32 14-A 12180855.550 3521864.437
!
?
-30
!
?
06-A
-24
-50
!
?
-22
-56
-10 -14
-1 -18 -20 07-A
-38
01-A
8
-3 08-A
-5
-40 0 09-A
8
!
?
-48
6
6
-52
-1
-1
!
?
-38
!
?
!
?
-36
010-A 011-A
-54
-44
-36 -38 -50
!
?
!
?
-16
012-A
0
-50 -46 013-A

-2
-48
!
?
!
? !
-54 US-13 014-A
-50
-54
-14
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-T
-10 -16 UNNEL
-14 -42
0
-5
-52
-18 -40 -50
6
-5
-16 -44
-32
-52
-34
-18
-46 -18 -16 -38 -42

-48 -20
-24
-48
-22
-56
2
-5
4
-26 -28 -5 -48
-50
-52
Existing Alignment Note:
Refer to Section 1.2 for information regarding the limit of GBR applicability.
Baseline Limit of Scour Protection
©
Limit of GBR Applicability

Area Bounded by the Baseline Limit of Scour Protection
and the Limit of GBR Applicability
Date: 10/27/2015
FIGURE 5A. Baseline limit of scour
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Feet protection for Portal Island No. 1
Source: VGIN Aerial Imagry, ESRI
Baseline Limit of Scour Protection:
Point Easting Northing
01-B 12181435.016 3523789.662
02-B 12181374.640 3523806.535
-20 03-B 12181491.139 3524189.653
04-B 12181519.271 3524774.214
05-B 12181581.198 3525580.706
-22
06-B 12181947.105 3526813.251
-52 07-B 12181970.701 3526862.256
-48
-50
08-B 12182204.899 3527332.289
-40
-34
-46
09-B 12182358.190 3527296.462
-30
-44
-30 -32
-40
-36
-46 05-B
-46
-36
!
?
06-B 07-B
-48
!
?
!
?
4
04-B
-4
-46 -34 -32 -22
-14 -40 08-B
!
?
8
-28 -16 -18
-4
-26 -24 -12 -14
!
?
02-B
52
03-B -10
-54 -
-1
-16
0
!
-10
? !
-10
01-B
!
?
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-T 09-B

?
UNNEL US-13
-38
!
?
-38 -18
-50 -46 -56 -58
-38 -38 -42
-14 -40
-16
-40 -40
-48
-52
-2
-14 -12
0
-16 -18 -16 -16 -54
-14
-28
-46
-42
-34
Existing Alignment Note:

Refer to Section 1.2 for information regarding the limit of GBR applicability.
Baseline Limit of Scour Protection
©
Limit of GBR Applicability

Area Bounded by the Baseline Limit of Scour Protection
and the Limit of GBR Applicability
Date: 10/27/2015
FIGURE 5B. Baseline limit of scour
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Feet protection for Portal Island No. 2
FIGURE 6A. General locations of survey towers for original Chesapeake Bay-Bridge
Tunnel Crossing (Source: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing Construction
Report, 1965)
FIGURE 6B. Photograph of typical survey tower for original Chesapeake Bay-Bridge
Tunnel Crossing (Source: Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Crossing Construction
Report, 1965)
FIGURE 7A. Photograph of partially completed Thimble Shoal Channel south island
(Portal Island No. 1) showing the temporary construction pier on the west side of the
island (a similar situation exists at Portal Island No. 2).
FIGURE 7B. Section of Thimble Shoal Channel south island (Portal Island No. 1)
showing concrete block of temporary construction pier (a similar situation exists at
Portal Island No. 2)
FIGURE 7C. Baseline area (location) of abandoned construction pier piles at each portal island. Refer to text
of GBR for additional baseline assumptions on pile quanitites, depths, composition, etc.
FIGURE 8. Photograph of typical repair of void on landward side of splash wall using
flowable fill (lean concrete mix)
TABLES
TABLE 1. Baseline Soil Properties
Total Unit Weight Effective Angle of Undrained Shear

Water Content (%)1 Liquid Limit1 Plasticity Index1
(pcf) Internal Friction, Φ' 2 Strength (psf)2
Stratum USCS Classification

Base- Base- Base-
Overall Base- Overall Overall
line Min Max line Min Max Min Max line Max Max
Average line Range Average Average
Range Range Range
af 3 SP, SP-SM 105 - 125 115 11 25 18 - 23 - - - - - - 30 34 - -

Qfg CL, CH 105 - 125 115 25 85 30 - 55 30 100 50 - 85 20 70 30 - 60 - 250 600
Qb SP, SM 110 - 130 120 10 45 20 - 30 - - - - - - 30 40 - -
QcfU CL 105 - 125 115 20 95 25 - 40 15 50 25 - 35 5 30 5 - 15 - - 500 1,000
QcfL CL, CH 90 - 110 100 15 90 55 - 80 30 120 55 - 100 10 85 30 - 70 - - 750 1,500
Qcs SM, SC-SM 105 - 125 115 20 50 25 - 30 - - - - - - 28 34 - -
Qt SP, SP-SM, SM 110 - 130 120 10 55 15 - 30 - - - - - - 33 40 - -
Organics OH, Peat (Pt) 65 - 85 75 55 230 80 - 150 85 125 90 - 120 50 90 60 - 85 - - 300 1000
Tys (fine grained) CL, CH 105 - 125 115 20 65 25 - 40 20 95 40 - 65 5 70 20 - 50 - - 1,000 4,000
Tys (coarse grained) SM, SC 110 - 130 120 15 45 25 - 35 - - - - - - 30 36 - -
TyfU CH 110 - 130 120 10 55 30 - 50 40 105 55 - 85 25 70 35 - 65 - - 2,000 5,000
TyfL CL, CH 110 - 130 120 20 50 25 - 40 35 85 45 - 65 15 65 25 - 45 - - 3,000 6,000
Te CL, SM, SC 115 - 135 125 15 45 25 - 30 25 35 30 - 35 5 15 10 - 15 32 36 - -
Notes:
1. For baseline purposes, bidders shall assume the water content, liquid limit and plasticity index for each stratum will typically fall within
the Baseline Range as indicated. However, bidders' selected means and methods shall be capable of handling, without modification, the
minimum and maximum values stated.
2. For considerations related to TBM productivity, machine tooling and ease of excavation, the maximum values of effective angle of
internal friction and undrained shear strength are applicable. For considerations related to earth pressures, face pressures, bearing
capacity and trench stability, the overall averages are applicable.
3. Baselines for artificial fill consider the hydraulically placed sand only; the baselines do not consider the oversized material (i.e.,
containment dikes material, scour protection material, etc.).
TABLE 2. General description of materials used to construct containment dikes and
provide scour protection
Applicable section of
original material
Material designation General description
specifications
(see Appendix B)
Heavy Rip Rap - Type “A” 10 ton minimum SP-26 A
500 pounds to 2,000
Quarry Run Rock – Type “B” SP-25 A
pounds
¾” to 6” with random
Gravel – Type “A” SP-24 A
material to 400 pounds
¾” to 6” with random
Gravel – Type “B” SP-24 A
material to 2,000 pounds
TABLE 3. Baseline Soil Abrasion Test (SAT)™ values of soil strata without conditioners
Soil layer Test Results Baseline SAT™

Baymouth Shoal Deposits,
12.5 15
Qb
Channel Fill Deposits –
Predominately Coarse- 12, 20 20
Grained, Qcs
Tabb Formation, Qt 7, 8 10
Yorktown Formation -
Coarse and Fine-Grained, 16, 24.5 25
Tys
Yorktown Formation –
Predominately Fine-Grained, 14.5 15
TyfU
Yorktown Formation –
Predominately Fine-Grained, 14.5 15
TyfL
Eastover Formation, Te 26.5, 31, 32.5 32
APPENDIX A
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS FOR ORIGINAL PORTAL ISLAND CONSTRUCTION AND FOR

SCOUR PROTECTION OF ORIGINAL PORTAL ISLANDS AND IMMERSED TUBE TUNNEL
Figure A1. As-built drawing for original island construction and scour protection (Sections for the Baltimore Channel Islands are not applicable to this Project)
Figure A2. As-built drawing for original immersed tube tunnel protection - plans
Figure A3. As-built drawing for original immersed tube tunnel protection - sections (Note: Refer to Figure A1 for legend of material symbols)
APPENDIX B
ORIGINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTAINMENT DIKES FOR ORIGINAL

PORTAL ISLAND CONSTRUCTION AND FOR SCOUR PROTECTION OF ORIGINAL
PORTAL ISLANDS AND IMMERSED TUBE TUNNEL
APPENDIX C
PLAN AND TYPICAL SECTION OF PORTAL ISLAND WIDENING CONSTRUCTED IN THE

1990’S
Figure C1. Plan - Portal Island No. 1 widening constructed in the 1990s (widening of Portal Island No. 2 similar)
Figure C2. Typical section of portal island widening constructed in the 1990s
APPENDIX D
BATHYMETRIC SURVEY WEST OF EXISTING TUNNEL

-38
8
-2
-48
-36 -34
-32
0
-5
-30
-26
-24
-56
-22
-1
-52 -54
8 -20 -18
-40
-16
-52 -10 -16
-5
8
-10
-14
-40 -50
-38
-50
-42 -36 -38
UNNEL
US-13 CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-T
0
-2
-44 -46
-54
-54
-56
-18 -16
-48 -16
-18
-18
-50
-20
-52
-22
-46 -24
-48
-28
-30
2
-3
¯
¯
©
Existing Alignment
1 2 3 4 5
Contours
APPENDIX D:
Date: 4/17/2015
Feet
Bathymetric Survey West of Existing Tunnel
1
0 150 300 450 600
Sheet Sheetof1 of55
-48
8
-2
-44
-24
-22
-18 -20
-22
-36 -38
-30
0
-5
-16 -48
-48
-46 -42
-14
0
-5
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-TUNNEL US-13
-50
-14 -18 -42
-16
-20
-24 -32 -40
6
-34
-1
-56
-52
-48
4
-5
-50
-26
-28
¯
¯
©
Existing Alignment
1 2 3 4 5
Contours
APPENDIX D:
Date: 4/17/2015
Feet
2
0 150 300 450 600
Sheet Sheetof2 of55
-54 -56
-54
-48
-54
-56
-56
-48
-4
-48
-46
6
-5
2
-56
-48
-56
-52
-56
0
-5
-42
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-TUNNEL US-13

-44
-46
-58
-54
-52 -50
-48
-50
-46
-48
-46
-54
-46
¯
¯
©
Existing Alignment
1 2 3 4 5
Contours
APPENDIX D:
Date: 4/17/2015
Feet
3
0 150 300 450 600
Sheet Sheetof3 of55
-50
-34
-32
-52
-22
-30
-40
-44
-48
-48
-46
-28 -14
-26 -16 0
-1
-38
-46
0
-18
-1
6
-12
-4
-46
-22
-38
-52 CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-TUNNEL US-13
-16
-50
-14
-18
-36
-20
-48
-1
8
-16 -12
-14
-2
4
-28
-42
-46
-46
¯
¯
©
Existing Alignment
1 2 3 4 5
Contours
APPENDIX D:
Date: 4/17/2015
Feet
4
0 150 300 450 600
Sheet Sheetof4 of55
-20
-36
-26
-22 -34
-32
-28
-30
-30
-28
-40
-22
0
-14
-52
-5
-20
-18
-10
-16 -12 -14
-10 -10
-10 -16
-46
0
-1
-56 -58
-54
-44 -48 -42
CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE-TUNNEL US-13 -38 -40
-38
-40
-40
-52
-54
-1
8
-16 -14
-16 -12 -16
-14 -18
-2
4
-34
¯
¯
©
Existing Alignment
1 2 3 4 5
Contours
APPENDIX D:
Date: 4/17/2015
Feet
5
0 150 300 450 600
Sheet Sheetof5 of55
APPENDIX E
AS-BUILT DRAWINGS FOR EXISTING FISHING PIER

APPENDIX F
ORIGINAL DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR FINGER (CONSTRUCTION) PIERS

APPENDIX G
AS-BUILT DRAWING FOR SPLASH WALL REPAIR AT SOUTH END OF

PORTAL ISLAND NO. 1
APPENDIX H
SOIL ABRASION TEST RESULTS FROM SINTEF

15024IG - Restricted
Test report
Soil Abrasion Test™

Project: Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel District (Owner) – Geotechnical
Investigations for the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel
Author
Joakim Eggen
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure

Infrastructure
2015-04-23
Table of contents
1 Test results SAT™ .......................................................................................................................... 3
2 SAT™ results presented as bar graph .............................................................................................. 4
3 Classification of SAT™ .................................................................................................................... 4
4 Comments and remarks on SAT™ testing and test results ............................................................... 5
5 Photographs of the SAT™ test method, equipment and methodology ............................................. 8
6 Photographs of the received soil samples prior to preparation ....................................................... 9
PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. VERSION

102009979-3 15024IG 1 2 of 15
1 Test results SAT™
Sample No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(given by SINTEF)
Sample ID BHT-4, SC-3, BHT-5B, SC-7, BHT-5B, SC-13, BHT-6A, SC-10, BHT-6B, SC-4, BHT-6B, SC-8, BHT-6C, SC-1,
(given by the Client) 15–20 ft 32–35 ft 52–55 ft 45–50 ft 85–90 ft 110 – 115 ft 140–145ft
SAT™ Test 1 10 21 16 24 25 30 33
SAT™ Test 2 14 19 16 25 23 32 32
SAT™ Mean [mg] 12.0 20.0 16.0 24.5 24.0 31.0 32.5
Percentage of the total sample
100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 98 % 100 % 100 %
< 4.0 mm after preparation
100 % 93 % 100 % 100 % 93 % 100 % 100 %
Sample No.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(given by SINTEF)
Sample ID BHT-7, ST-5, BHT-7, ST-10, BHT-7B, ST-16, BHT-7B, SC-14, BHT-8A, SC-2, BHT-8A, SC-8, BHT-9, SC-3,
(given by the Client) 30–32.5 ft 55–57.5 ft 85–87.5 ft 130–135 ft 5–10 ft 35–40 ft 21–26 ft
SAT™ Test 1 8 16 14 27 15 8 24
SAT™ Test 2 8 13 15 26 10 6 27
SAT™ Mean [mg] 8.0 14.5 14.5 26.5 12.5 7.0 25.5
100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %
63 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 99 % 50 % 100 %

102009979-3 15024IG 1 3 of 15
2 SAT™ results presented as bar graph
3 Classification of SAT™
Table 1. Classification of soil abrasivity according to Drevland Jakobsen. P., et al. "Review and assessment of the
NTNU/SINTEF Soil Abrasion Test (SAT™) for determination of abrasiveness of soil and soft ground". TUST 37 (2013),
107 -114.
Category – SAT™
Cutter steel abrasion [weight loss mg]
Low ≤ 7.0
Medium 7.1 – 21.9
High ≥ 22

102009979-3 15024IG 1 4 of 15
4 Comments and remarks on SAT™ testing and test results
The abrasivity of the received soil samples was tested by use of the Soil Abrasion Test™ (SAT™). The Soil
Abrasion Test is a further development of the Abrasion Value (AV) and Abrasion Value Cutter Steel (AVS)
tests for rock. Compared to the AVS test, which is performed by use of crushed rock powder < 1 mm, a
sieved and remixed soil sample with grain size < 4 mm is used in the SAT™ test. During development, the
initial SAT test was performed with an upper grain size limit of 1 mm (Nilsen et al., Tunnels and Tunneling
International 2006, March, April, May). However through modification of the original test pieces, as shown
in Figure 1 and 2, this was later increased to 4 mm (Nilsen et al. RETC 2007).
Figure 1. The original SAT (left) and modified (right) SAT™ test pieces.
Figure 2. Photo showing two original AVS/SAT (to the left) and two SAT™ test pieces (to the right).
The percentages of sample material < 4.0 mm and < 1.0 mm which are given in the table on page 3 are
subsequent to preparation according to the procedure. The percentages provide information on the properties
of the prepared abrasion powder, but they should not be regarded as representative grain size distribution for
the received sample material.
The samples were tested on the sieved portion < 4.0 mm by use of SAT pieces (see Figure 2).
The tested samples have a portion of particles < 4.0 mm after preparation, which constitutes > 75 % of the
received sample volume. The SAT values for these samples can hence be regarded as representative for the
in-situ material.

102009979-3 15024IG 1 5 of 15
The SAT™ is as previously mentioned based on the AVS test which is used to determine the abrasiveness of
rock. The classification (see Table 2) based on the so far 1747 recorded test results from this test is hence
useful also for describing/evaluating the abrasiveness of soils.
Table 2. Classification of rock abrasivity or the ability to induce wear on cutter ring steel according to
Dahl.F., et al. TUST 28 (2012) 150 -158.
Category – AVS Cumulative percentage
cutter steel abrasion [weight loss mg]
Extremely low ≤ 1.0 0–5%
Very low 1.1 – 3.9 5 – 15 %
Low 4.0 – 12.9 15 – 35 %
Medium 13.0 – 25.9 35 – 65 %
High 26.0 – 35.9 65 – 85 %
Very high 36.0 – 43.9 85 – 95 %
Extremely high ≥ 44.0 95 – 100 %
A summary of rock samples tested by use of AVS and soil samples tested by use of SAT™ is shown in
Figure 2.
Cumulative distribution of AVS and SAT results

100 %
90 %
Cumulative percentage
80 %
70 %
AVS
60 % SAT
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
AVS/SAT
Figure 2. Cumulative distribution of AVS and SAT™ results.

102009979-3 15024IG 1 6 of 15
Based on rock testing, the content of quartz and other hard minerals like garnet and epidote have a major
impact on the abrasion on the test pieces, but grain shape, grain size and grain binding may also contribute
substantially.
In Table 3, AVS results for some sedimentary rocks tested at SINTEF are shown, illustrating that there is a
considerable difference in AVS values between the softest (i.e. limestone) and hardest (i.e. quartzite) rocks.
As also shown, the AVS value may vary significantly within one type of rock.
Table 3. AVS values for some sedimentary rock samples tested at SINTEF
Rock type Number of samples AVS
[weight loss mg]
Limestone 17 0.2 – 1.4
Shale 17 0.4 – 10
Siltstone 4 0.4 – 44
Sandstone 36 0.4 – 52
Quartzite 20 17 – 63
“Steel against steel” testing (running the test without abrasion powder) show no measurable abrasion on the
test pieces.

102009979-3 15024IG 1 7 of 15
5 Photographs of the SAT™ test method, equipment and methodology
Test equipment used to determine Abrasion Value Cutter Steel (AVS) and Soil Abrasion Test (SAT™).
Part of a cutter ring, a 10 mm slice taken from the same ring, and two prepared AVS test pieces which are
cut out of the centre of the 10 mm slice. The SAT™ test pieces are prepared in the same manner as the
AVS test pieces, apart from the slice which is 40 mm wide for SAT™.

102009979-3 15024IG 1 8 of 15
6 Photographs of the received soil samples prior to preparation
Sample No. 1, marked BHT-4, SC-3, 15-20 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving with
steel balls. Of the total sample volume, 100 % was < 4.0 mm after preparation.
Sample No. 2, marked BHT-5, SC-7, 32-35 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving with
steel balls. Of the total sample volume, 100 % was < 4.0 mm after preparation.
102009979-3 15024IG 1 9 of 15
Sample No. 3, marked "BHT-5B, SC-13, 52-55 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving
with steel balls. Of the total sample volume, 100 % was < 4.0 mm after preparation.
Sample No. 4, marked "BHT-6A, SC-10, 45-50 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving

102009979-3 15024IG 1 10 of 15
'

102009979-3 15024IG 1 11 of 15
Sample No. 7, marked "BHT-6C, SC-1, 140-145 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving
Sample No. 8, marked "BHT-7, ST-5, 30-32.5 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving

102009979-3 15024IG 1 12 of 15
Sample No. 9, marked "BHT-7, ST-10, 55-57.5 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving
Sample No. 10, marked "BHT-7B, ST-16, 85-87.5 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and
sieving with steel balls. Of the total sample volume, 100 % was < 4.0 mm after preparation.

102009979-3 15024IG 1 13 of 15
Sample No. 11, marked "BHT-7B, SC-24, 130-135 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and
sieving with steel balls. Of the total sample volume, 100 % was < 4.0 mm after preparation.

102009979-3 15024IG 1 14 of 15
Sample No. 14, marked "BHT-9, SC-3, 21-26 ft. SAT powder was prepared by soft hammer and sieving

102009979-3 15024IG 1 15 of 15
.
Technology for a better society

www.sintef.no

Geo Baseline Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Geo Baseline Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GEOTECHNICAL BASELINE REPORT

CHESAPEAKE BAY BRIDGE - TUNNEL

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Overview .......................................................................................................1

1.2 Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) Applicability ................................................1

1.3 Purpose of the GBR..................................................................................................2

1.4 Sources of Geotechnical Information ......................................................................2

1.5 Hierarchy of Documents ...........................................................................................2

1.6 Warranty Disclaimer .................................................................................................3

1.7 Design-Builder’s Means and Methods ....................................................................3

1.8 Datum .........................................................................................................................3

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TUNNEL OPTIONS ....................................................................4

2.1 Immersed Tube Tunnel (ITT) ...................................................................................4

2.1.1 Cross Section ...................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................................................... 4

2.1.3 Vertical Alignment (Profile) ................................................................................. 4

2.1.4 Construction of the ITT ....................................................................................... 5

2.2 Bored Tunnel .............................................................................................................6

2.2.1 Cross Section ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Horizontal Alignment ........................................................................................... 6

2.2.3 Vertical Alignment (Profile) ................................................................................. 7

2.2.4 Construction of the Bored Tunnel ...................................................................... 7

2.2.4.1 Enabling Works ................................................................................................ 7

2.2.4.2 Temporary TBM Launching and Receiving Pits............................................ 8

Paralllel Thimble Shoal Tunnel

3.1 Recent Geotechnical Investigations ......................................................................10

3.2 Historic Data ............................................................................................................10

4.0 PROJECT GEOLOGY................................................................................................ 12

4.1 Geologic Setting ......................................................................................................12

4.2 General Geologic Strata .........................................................................................12

4.2.1 Island Artificial Fill (af) ....................................................................................... 12

4.2.2 Baymouth Fine-Grained Deposits (Qfg).......................................................... 13

4.2.3 Baymouth Shoal Deposits (Qb) ....................................................................... 13

4.2.4 Channel Fill Deposits (QcfU and QcfL) – Fine-Grained .................................. 13

4.2.5 Channel Fill Deposits (Qcs) – Coarse-Grained .............................................. 13

4.2.6 Tabb Formation (Qt) ......................................................................................... 13

4.2.7 Yorktown Formation (Tys) Coarse-Grained.................................................... 14

4.2.8 Yorktown Formation (TyfU and TyfL) Fine-Grained ........................................ 14

4.2.9 Eastover Formation (Te)................................................................................... 14

4.2.10 St. Marys Formation (Tm) .............................................................................. 14

4.3 Area Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................14

4.3.1 Portal Island No. 1 (South of Thimble Shoal Channel) .................................. 15

4.3.2 Portal Island No. 2 (North of Thimble Shoal Channel) .................................. 16

4.3.3 Thimble Shoal Channel .................................................................................... 17

4.4 Groundwater ............................................................................................................18

5.0 PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE ........................................................19

6.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR TUNNEL ................................................................20

Paralllel Thimble Shoal Tunnel

6.2 Obstructions ............................................................................................................21

6.2.1.1 Original Construction (1960s) ....................................................................... 22

6.2.1.2 Parallel Crossing Project (1990s) ................................................................. 23

6.2.1.3 Investigation for Current Parallel Tunnel Project ........................................ 23

6.2.1.4 Baseline Conditions ....................................................................................... 24

6.2.2 Fishing Pier Piles............................................................................................... 24

6.2.3 Foundations for Survey Towers ....................................................................... 25

6.2.4 Foundations for Construction Piers ................................................................. 26

6.2.5 Miscellaneous Debris and Other Bathymetric Features ................................ 26

6.2.6 Utilities, Systems and Storage Tanks ............................................................. 27

6.3 Very Soft Soils .........................................................................................................28

6.3.1 Portal Island No. 2 ....................................................................................... 28

6.3.2 Portal Island No. 1 ....................................................................................... 29

6.4 Soil Abrasion ...........................................................................................................30

6.5 Soil Stickiness/Clogging Potential .........................................................................30

6.6 Gas Conditions ........................................................................................................30