No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGFA Geotech Report I I I GFA INTERNATIONAL, FLORIDA'S LEADING ENGINEERING SOURCE Report of Geotechnical Ex I r i p p o atn o Proposed Riverbend Development: Lots 1 - 47 NE Corner of Gilson Rd. & NW Turnabout Ln. St. Lucie County, Florida, February 14, 2014 GFA Project No.: 12-1095.03 For: Standard Pacific Homes, South Florida t 10 c I t 'i i -File COM _.. i j i I Florida's Leading Engineering Source Environmental•Geotechnical Construction Materials Testing•Threshold and Special Inspectlons•Plan Review&Code Compliance '�TERNAT1DaPv C February'°14, 2014 Standard Pacific Homes, South Florida Attention: Michael Debock and John Lonergan 3201 West Commercial Blvd. #230 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Site: Proposed Riverbend Development: Lots 1-47 NE Corner of Gilson Rd. & NW Turnabout Ln. St. Lucie County, Florida ' GFA Project# 12-1095.03 Dear Mr. Debock& Mr. Lonergan: GFA International, Inc. (GFA) has completed the subsurface; exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project in accordance with the geotechnical and engineering service agreement for this project. The scope of services was completed in accordance with our Geotechnical Engineering Proposal (12-1095.03) dated January 3, 20141 planned in conjunction with and authorized by you. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i The purpose of our subsurface exploration was to classify the nature of the subsurface soils and general geomorphic conditions and evaluate their impact upon th;e proposed I construction. This report contains the results of our subsurface exploration at the site and our engineering interpretations of these, with respect to the project characteristics described to us including providing recommendations for site preparation and the design of the foundation system. Based on a site plan prepared by Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. dated 12-27t 12 (reproduced in Appendix B - Test Location Plan) and conversations with the (client, the project consists of constructing one and two-story residences with shallow foundations on about 52 acres. We have not received any information regarding structural loads. For the foundation recommendations presented in this report we assumed the maximum column load will be 70 kips and the maximum wall loading will be 4 kips per linear foot.;At the time of drilling, the site was at final planned design grade. However, the final planned grade may change depending on septic requirements due to the water table and nearby North Fork of the St. Lul 1 cie River. A total of ninety-two (92) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings to depths of approximately seventeen (17) feet, and forty-one (41) Auger Borings (AB) to depths ranging from approximately five (5) to ten (10) feet, below ground surface (BGS) were f ompleted for this study. I ; The subsurface soil conditions encountered at this site generally consist of loose sand (SP) to a depth of 1 foot, medium dense but occasionally loose and dense!sand (SP) with silty sand (SP- SM,SM) and clayey sand (SC) layers from 1 to 10 feet, and then medium dense but occasionally loose and dense soils to the termination of the soundings. The exceptions are at the borings performed for lots 2, 6, 8, 17, 18 and 47 where slightly organic (sand with 521 NW Enterprise Drive - Port St. Lucie,Florida 34986 • (772)924.3575 • (772)924.3580�(fax) • www.teamgfa.com OFFICES THROUGHOUT FLORIDA I i i i i Proposed Riverbend Development:Lots 1-47 Geotechnical Report St. Lucie County, Florida February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 Page 2 of 10 roots and wood) to highly organic (muck) soil layers were encountered as shallow as 2 feet and as deep as 8% feet. Please refer to Appendix E - Record of I est Borings for a detailed account of each boring. The subsurface soil conditions at the project site are generally favorable for, the support of the proposed structures on shallow foundations. An allowable bearing capacity f 2,500 psf may be used for foundation design. I Potentially unsuitable organic soil (sand with roots and woo id to muck) was encountered at lots 2, 6, 8, 17, 18 and 47, and GFA recommends that test pits be performed in those areas. Unsuitable soils may be encountered that must be excavated and removed to at least 5 feet outside the footprint of the building and then backfilled with compacted structural fill. Excavation equipment should be used that allows for rapid excavation so that demucking visual inspection is not hindered by water inflow. If excavation cannot be performed (with the 5 foot offset outside the perimeter of the structures)I without adequate inspection due to water inflow, or without affecting the adjacent property and structures, then the structure will have to be pile supported and GFA will provide additional pile recommendations. The majority of the excavated upper sandy soils (non-organic soils) appear to be suitable for reuse as backfill for pad construction. After excavation and backfill operations (where needed) are completed, the subgrade soils should be improved with compaction from the stripped grade prior to constructing the foundation pads. The top 2 feet below stripped grade should be compacted to a minimum of 95% density prior to placing fill to achieve final grade. Fill (including stemwall backfill) should be placed in 12-inch lifts and compacted to achieve a minimum 95% density. After excavation for footings, the subgrade to a depth of 2 feet below bottom of footings should be compacted to achieve a minimum 95% density. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.. I RespecluRrOraltim4 d, GFAkole n 1010( FI 1 t rization Number 4930 { r ld W. Moler, P.E. ,w o D :vid Alker &6!4r Geotec icg�Eng�r Project Manager qf'�a Re§i*jaion No- 675 .,�0�; L.L C R X., F ' s Copies°� i I s yd 9 Proposed Riverbend Development:Lots 1-47 Geotechnical Report St. Lucie County, Florida February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 Page 3 of 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ---..... .......—*......—............................................ 1.1 Scope of Services............................................................. .................. ...........................4 1.2 Project Description...........................................................................................................4 2.0 OBSERVATIONS..................................................................L.............................................4 2.1 Site Inspection .................................................................. .................. ...........................4 2.2 Field Exploration ...............................................................!..................�...........................5 2.3 Laboratory Analysis............................................................ ......... ...................................5 2.4 Geomorphic Conditions................................................... ...................I...........................5 2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions................................................ ................ ...........................6 3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................I...........................6 3.1 General................................................................................................I...........................6 3.2 Site Preparation...................................................................................I...........................7 3.3 Design of Footings..............................................................:................I...........................9 3.4 Ground Floor Slabs............................................................L.................J...........................9 4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS.........................................................1................. ...........................9 5.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS...................................... ...........................................10 Appendix A-Vicinity Map Appendix B -Test Location Plan Appendix C - Soil Survey Map Appendix D - Notes Related to Borings Appendix E - Record of Test Borings Appendix F- Discussion of Soil Groups I , I I II ' I I � J I Proposed Riverbend Development.Lots 1-47 'Geotechnical Report St. Lucie County, Florida , i February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 ; Page 4 of 10 I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of Services The objective of our geotechnical services was to collect subsurface data for the subject project, summarize the test results, and discuss any apparent site conditions that may have geotechnical significance for building construction. The following scope of services are provided within this report: ] 1. Prepare records of the soil boring logs depicting the subsurface soil conditions encountered during our field exploration. 2. Conduct a review of each soil sample obtained during our fiild exploration for classification and additional testing if necessary. 3. Analyze the existing soil conditions found during our exploration with respect to foundation support for the proposed structure. 4. Provide recommendations with respect to foundation support of the structure, including allowable soil-bearing capacity, bearing elevations, and found I ation design parameters. 5. Provide criteria and site preparation procedures to prepare the site for the proposed construction. 1.2 Project Description i Based on a site plan prepared by Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. dated 12-27T 12 (reproduced in Appendix B - Test Location Plan) and conversations with the client, the project consists of constructing one and two-story residences with shallow foundations on about 52 acres. We have not received any information regarding structural loads. For the foundation recommendations presented in this report we assumed the maximum column load will be 70 kips and the maximum wall loading will be 4 kips per linear foot. At the timelof drilling, the site was at final planned design grade. However, the final planned grade may change depending on septic requirements due to the water table and nearby North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The recommendations provided herein are based upon the above considerations. If the project description has been revised, please inform GFA International so that we may review our recommendations with respect to any modifications. I 2.0 OBSERVATIONS ' i 2.1 Site,Inspection At the time of drilling, the roads and infrastructure had mostly been constructed. The referenced lots had been cleared, filled, and GFA estimates the lots were graded to final Igrade elevation at the time of drilling. The North Fork of the St. Lucie River bordered the ea st side, NW Gilson 1 I i � a a I I i i Proposed Riverbend Development.Lots 1-47 Geotechnical Report St. Lucie County, Florida February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 Page 5 of 10 Road bordered the west side, NW Turnabout Lane bordered the south side, and residences were adjacent to the north side of the site and south of the site. 1 2.2 Field Exploration I A total of ninety-two (92) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings to depths of approximately seventeen (17) feet, and forty-one (41) Auger Borings (AB) to depths ranging from approximately five (5) to ten (10) feet, below ground surface (BGS) were completed for this study: The locations of the soundings and borings performed are illustrated in Appendix B: "Test Location Plan". The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) methods were used as the investigative tools. CPT tests were -performed in substantial accordance with ASTM Procedure D-3441, "Deep Quasi-Static, Cone and Friction Cone Penetration Tests of Soils" and the auger borings in substantial accordance with ASTM Procedure D-1452, "Practice for Soil investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings". The soil samples recovered from the soil borings were visually classified and their stratification is illustrated in Appendix E: "Record of Test Borings". It should be noted that soil conditions might vary between the strata interfaces, which are shown. The soil boring and sounding data reflect information from a specific test location only. Site specific survey staking for the test locations was not provided for our field exploration. The indicated depth and location of each test was approximated based upon existing grade and estimated distances aind relationships to obvious landmarks. The boring and sounding depths were confined to the zone of soil likely to be stressed by the proposed construction and knowledge of vicinity soils. 2.3 Laboratory Analysis j Soil samples recovered from our field exploration were returned to our lab ratory where they were visually examined in general accordance with ASTM D-2488. Samples were evaluated to obtain an accurate understanding of the soil properties and site geomorphic conditions. After a thorough visual examination of the recovered site soils, no laboratory testing was deemed necessary. Bag samples of the soil encountered during our field explorationiwill be held in our laboratory for your inspection for 30 days and then discarded unless we are notified otherwise in writing. 1 The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytic lly, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. GFA would be pleased to perform these services for an additional fee, if required. 2.4 Geomorphic Conditions We reviewed the USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangle topographic map of the area, entitled Palm City. Revisions to this map were based on aerial photographs taken in 1983. The USGS map showed the project site is located on a broad area with an elevation between 5 and 10 feet NGVD. The North Fork of the St. Lucie River borders the east side of the site. The site is shown on sheet number 46 of the Soil Survey of the St. Lucie County Area, Florida, issued by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture in March 1980. According to the Soil Survey, the west side has a channel mapped as Fluvaquents, frequently flooded (14) and Samsula muck, depressional (40), the southeast side and a small center area is mapped as Jonathan sand, 0 to I I ' L Proposed Riverbend Development:Lots 1-47 Geotechnical Report St. Lucie County, Florida February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 Page 6 of 10 5 percent slopes (19), and the remainder of the site is mapped as Salerno and Punta sands (39). All are sandy soils except for Samsula muck, depressional (40), in which there is 36 inches underlain by sandy soils. It should be noted that the Soil Survey generally extends to a maximum depth of 80 inches (approximately 6%feet) below ground surface and is not indicative of deeper soil conditions. Please refer to Appendix C - Soil Survey Map for a detailed report for the soil survey. Boring logs derived from our field exploration are presented in Appendix E: "Record of Test Borings". The boring logs depict the observed soils in graphic detail. The CPT soundings indicate the penetration resistance values logged during the drilling and sampling activities. The classifications and descriptions shown on the logs are generally based upon visual characterizations of the recovered soil samples. All soil samples reviewed Have been depicted and classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, modified as necessary to describe typical Florida conditions. See Appendix F: "Discussion of Soil Groups", for a detailed description of various soil groups. The subsurface soil conditions encountered at this site generally consist of loose sand (SP) to a depth of 1 foot, medium dense but occasionally loose and dense sand (SP)with silty sand (SP- SM,SM) and clayey sand (SC) layers from 1 to 10 feet, and then medium dense but. occasionally loose and dense soils to the termination of the soundings. The exceptions are at the borings performed for lots 2, 6, 8, 17, 18 and 47 where slightly organic (sand with roots and wood) to highly organic (muck) soil layers were encountered as shallow as 2 feet and as deep as 8'/2 feet. Please refer to Appendix E - ,Record of Test Borings for a detailed account of each boring. i 2.5 Hydrogeological Conditions On the dates of our field exploration, the groundwater table was encountered at depths ranging from approximately'/2 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface. It should be noted that there was rainfall on the order of 2 to 3 inches within a few days of the performing the borings and water table measurements, and these water table measurements may not be indicative of the normal water table elevation for that time of year. The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally depending upon local rainfall and other site specific and/or local influences including the water levels in the nearby North Fork of the St. Lucie River with tidal influences. Brief ponding of stormwater may occur across the site after heavy rains. i No additional investigation was included in our scope of work in relation to the wet seasonal high groundwater table or any existing well fields in the vicinity. Well fields may influence water table levels and cause significant fluctuations. If a more comprehensive water table analysis is necessary, please contact our office for additional guidance. i 3.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 General A foundation system for any structure must be designed to resist bearing capacity failures, have settlements that are tolerable, and resist the environmental forces that the foundation may be subjected to over the life of the structure. The soil bearing capacity is the soil's ability to support I Proposed Riverbend Development:Lots 1-47 ,Geotechnical Report St. Lucle County, Florida February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 Page 7 of 10 loads without plunging into the soil profile. Bearing capacity failures are analogous to shear failures in structural design and are usually sudden and catastrophic. The amount of settlement that a structure may tolerate is dependent on several factors including: uniformity of settlement, time rate of settlement, structural dimensions and properties of the materials. Generally, total or uniform settlement does not damage al structure but may affect drainage and utility connections, These can generally tolerate movlements of several g ty g y e al inches for building construction. In contrast, differential settlement affects a structure's frame and is limited by the structural flexibility. The subsurface soil conditions at the project site are generally favorable fori the support of the proposed structures on shallow foundations. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be used for foundation design. Expected settlement of the structure is 1 inch orlless total and less than Y2 inch differential. i 3.2 Site Preparation GFA recommends the following compaction requirements for this project: ➢ Proof Roll......................................................................95% of a Modified Proctor ➢ Building Pad Fill ............................................................95% of a Modified Proctor ➢ Footings........................................................................95% of a Modified Proctor The compaction percentages presented above are based upon the maximum dry density as determined by a "modified proctor" test (ASTM D-1557). All density itests should be performed to a depth of 2 feet below existing grade and below bottom of footings. All density tests should be performed using the nuclear method (ASTM D-2922), the sand cone method (ASTM D-1556), or Hand Cone Penetrometer(HCP) tests. Our recommendations for preparation of the site for use of shallow foundation systems are presented below. This approach to improving and maintaining the site soils has been found to be successful on projects with similar soil conditions. 1. Initial site preparation should consist of performing stripping and clearing operations. This should be done within, and to a distance of five (5) feet beyond, the perimeter of the proposed building footprint (including exterior isolated columns). Test Pits should be performed at lots 2, 6, 8, 17, 18 and 47 where slightly organic (sand with roots and wood) to highly organic (muck) soil layers were encountered as shallow as 2 feet and as deep as 8'/2 feet, and where unsuitable soils are encountered, they should be removed. Foundations and any below grade remains of any structures that are within the footprint of the new construction should be removed, and utility lines should be removed or properly abandoned so as to not affect structures or pavements. 2. Following site stripping (and excavation where needed) and prior the placement of any fill, areas of surficial sand not exposed limestone should be compacted ('!proof rolled" and _ ( P ) P iP tested. We rec ommend usinga steel drum vibrato roller with sufficient static weight and vibratory 9 vibratory impact energy to achieve the required compaction. If the subg;rade is too wet or the inflow of groundwater cannot be controlled so that the compaction is not achievable, i 1 Proposed Riverbend Development.,Lots 1-47 Geotechnical Report St.Lucie County, Florida February 14, 2014 GF4 Project No. 12-1095.03 1 Page 8 of 10 then very clean granular fill may be placed up to 1 foot above the water table, intensively densified and compacted until no further settlement can be visually discerned at the fill surface, and 1 foot of soil both above and below the water table have achieved at least 95% density. Density tests should be performed on the proof rolled surface at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet, or a minimum of three (3) tests, whichever is greater. Areas of exposed intact limestone shall be visually confirmed by the project geotechnical engineer prior to fill placement, in lieu of proof rolling. 3. Fill material may then be placed in the building pad as required. The fill material should be inorganic(classified as SP, SW, GP, GW, SP-SM, SW-SM, GW-GP, GP-GM) containing not more than 5 percent (by weight) organic materials. Fill materials withl snt/clay-size soil fines in excess of 12% should not be used. Fill should be placed in lifts with a maximum lift thickness not exceeding 12-inches. Each lift should be compacted and tested prior to the placement of the next lift. Density tests should be performed within the fi'll at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet per lift in the building areas, or a minimum of three (3)tests per lift, whichever is greater. 4. For any footings bearing on a limestone formation, the bottom of all footing excavation shall be examined by the engineer/ geologist or his representative to determine the condition of the limestone. The limestone shall be probed for voids and loose pockets of sand. Such areas shall be cleaned to depth of 3 times the greatest horizontal dimension and backfilled with lean concrete. 5. For footings placed on structural fill or compacted native granular soils, the bottom of all footings shall be tested for compaction and examined by the engineer/ geologist or his representative to determine if the soil is free of organic and/or deleterious material. Density tests should be performed at a frequency of not less than one (1) density test per each isolated column footing and one (1) test per each seventy five (75) 'lineal feet of wall footings. If compaction cannot be attained due to persistent wetness or the water table near the bottom of the footing excavation, or due to silty/clayey soil 'pumping' during compaction, GFA recommends undercutting below bottom of footing and replacementiwith No. 57 stone, or rock/sand fill for subgrade that cannot be compacted per recommendations (upper 2 feet). The rock/sand fill should be compacted and tamped into the excavation and inspected and verified by a representative from GFA, and tested with hand cone perietrometers, probe rods, or density tests. 6. The contractor should take into account the final contours and grades as established by the plan when executing his backfilling and compaction operations. Using vibratory compaction equipment at this site may disturb adjacent structures. We recommend that you monitor nearby structures before and during proof-compaction operations. A representative of GFA International can monitor the vibration disturbance of adjacent structures. A proposal for vibration monitoring during compaction operations can be supplied upon request. 1 dd 1 I I Proposed Riverbend Development:Lots 1-47 Geotechnical Report St Lucie County, Florida February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 ( i Page 9 of 10 I 3.3 Design of Footings Footings may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Shallow foundations should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below final grade! This embedment shall be measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Isolated column footings' should be at least 24 inches in width and continuous strip footings should have �a width of at least 18 inches regardless of contact pressure. Once site preparation has been performed in accordance with the recommendations described in this report, the soil should readily support the proposed structure resting on a shallow foundation system. Settlements have been projected to be less than 1-inch total and '/z-inch differential. All footings and columns should be structurally separated from the floor slab, as they will be loaded differently and at different times, unless a� monolithic mat foundation is designed. 3.4 Ground Floor Slabs a I The ground floor slabs may be supported directly on the existing grade !or on granular fill following the foundation site preparation and fill placement procedures outlined in this report. For purposes of design, a coefficient of subgrade modulus 150 pounds per cubic inch may be used. The ground floor slab should be structurally separated from all walls and columns to allow for differential vertical movement. Excessive moisture vapor transmission through floor slabs-on-glrade can result in damage to floor coverings as well as cause other deleterious affects. An appropriate moisture vapor retarder should be placed beneath the floor slab to reduce moisture vapor from entering the building through .the slab. The retarder should be installed in general accordance with applicable ASTM procedures including sealing around pipe penetrations and at the edges of foundations. 4.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS This consulting report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the current project owners and other members of the design team for the Proposed Riverbend Development° Lots 1-47 located in St. Lucie County, Florida. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local geotechnical engineering practices; no other warranty is expressed or implied. The evaluation submitted in this report, is based in part upon the data collected during a field exploration, however, the nature and extent of variations throughout the subsurface profile may not become evident until the time of construction. If variations then appear'evident, it may be necessary to reevaluate information and professional opinions as provided inIthis report. In the event changes are made in the nature, design, or locations of the proposed structure, the evaluation and opinions contained in this report shall not be considered I valid, unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions modified or verified in writing by GFA International. Analysis of the foundation performance under hurricane conditions or other storm events, including the effects of loss of soil support due to scour or other forces, is not within the scope of this report, and the recommendations are valid only for normal conditions. Additional.analysis I i II I ' I II i Proposed Riverbend Development:Lots 1-47 Geotechnical Report St. Lucie County, Florida February 14, 2014 GFA Project No. 12-1095.03 Page 10 of 10 and options for foundation systems with scour conditions or other scenarios can be performed if requested. 1 5.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the tests performed at the locations indicated on the attached figure in Appendix B. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings. While the borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at their respective locations and for their vertical reaches, local variations characteristic of the subsurface soils of the region are anticipated and may be encountered. The delineation between soil types shown on the soil logs is approximate and the description represents our interpretation of the subsurface conditions' at the designated boring locations on the particular date drilled. Any third party reliance of our geotechnical report or parts thereof is strictly prohibited without the expressed written consent of GFA International. The applicable SPT methodology (ASTM D-1586), CPT methodology (ASTM D-3441), and'Auger Boring methodology (ASTM D-1452) used in performing our borings and sounding, and for determining penetration and cone resistance is specific to the sampling tools utilized and does noti reflect the ease or difficulty to advance other tools or materials. I I I I ���NtiA�'GE0T6 Y C Z ,s n W f y 2 N AT • CornerVicinity Map Proposed Riverbend Development: Lots 1-47 NE of • ' • & NW Turna6out County,St. Lucie ProjectGFA • 1 ' 1 ,�i ' R•fL � '1-z©fir•:, s - Locationr T r Note:Aerial Photograph from GoogleEarth Website �11 =• f J a a. �r •�.�.y{ N lam`/'+✓ '� _ ��'jy,ts�tlmagery�Dater4/23/2012� lat 2Z223923° Ion -SG.28951T elev 9 tl rye al[ 6705 ft Q 4GH � Test Location Plan Overview Development:Riverbend Proposed:3 1 of Pro Lots 1-47 (Page ) p •� �-f"� .:,,r.,, �a.c:�-V:x:u..a,.ccfr,_�_. � , rV.cu�tpsc.P' `\� •t! I Iri .r: '1�' ''I—I •\ •j.--' I_. ... —��..__' n•vamwc rwnolm on I ......... leOTLINt/Sir 1 /— - I A,• r � 1•pf mF(PSNOROJ I { `WMbN04 �] , rouro,rrc usfo:r .�•; a- ..\•t�V1t� J}t y`•,'v.tts.r , --- ...�./�-`°/•, '/ I I ; LEGEND `1, ,I �2 ,;��•� _ — '"1. 1 ! I I,•yl \>g s 'f•-1 I Y' ',(:\ 4 1 j 1 I _eau•cnr ., f fri61 ;,a/;.;"•... m..a I xaaa ��n,m...m.,u.or:.... IY fF'4G✓[...wrf y) a ���.. I� — ��l \'\� `�f J/'• if ___ _ rvss•[i PLv�vi�u�Yrra�ia•T `'I .r~ , ''��� �A `\ �\ 't yy ,/'.IVtS�(&.1e0•�. AWI.O.4f rtl YLri t,AWr 4*ut nm.r er.mw IIID•nt :..1 fit'. L'! 9 YY/,1°.Y"� \ •'. � ! c { Y f'trni m. . _._ 5�-,_.-/ •} I t-•+a \ �r� •'.ld ..I� -fr cz.s..a ra ar«r..aa I t�l I \l, .I ;, vnfl.\;r'r:' 1 i.t •'',_ `C� � e,F•an t., _ T"ICAL SEMCSYSTEM FRONTLOTDIMENSIONING ' •i'I I �-�; 1 7', ny r d'k. `i,are w I 1 i IL oawe fear'.�• to� I ••t •:I /'� Im.e#f';�\. �j nma ��/�;j'«�''0.-:',� '� _ '-,''%'� � ! ( :5 � �'.� V I ••:1` tfr-r.m �'z �4� 1 l tf r z 1 .�" \ ,'I 1, �LJ•:...I<v.- ~`` \ �.j t It'.. ,c•,erao ,..,�, r :,:Su.�._\ �. /s ,: `' ` •I ..i�''T� ..•• r : •. / I • 4 / .•rrc.ric'`t,.�. i/ '�—/�/, \\\ ,a..n4��n.ice^ m'rvn nmr l,'' V• J!ip •:•• -I� I r`m[Ifsiir ',...1 .S -./ ` / _ `', \`� "' - f�rnr[un,e®J , y �t'\, i•, •, .,� �' ..... .��,�, _ 'u f, 1. u...,,.:7'i f ._.1°- i\ �y I \ J � 1•J�`c� .. r ..._ ._.. s.., -�........... .._ .__...-.-•- mvrtmn.feovruAft - \.•, 1l,rM95GFtA ....._.... .,'� I `Ur>•--4`-' .. '� `\ n.r,.,,.n«rr I fe'uN)S,:ve 6ivfW---r• —� ��.-,.�=:�.�J: 4a,a L,III IM"Yh, • a rtaa,q rc IV1D OfL(P•. —REVISIONS— er ma n o•rt CULPEPPER S TERPENINO, INC RNERBEND n,�.a.nw,v.....m.»...r.,.......� .....-...................._......_....._..._...____......_.._.._......_....._.�. ..M_+i-m- «......_.—._._._.._......... m..�,..a«.•.�...:.m•....n...ron>•,n "`ul.:si?....._. .a. + .-058 ............._............ f+mammfmn•em.w.»n...,,.,,.r,� ..._.......__......_............___...._........__...._. .._.. .._..__.... _....._ ._..� ., r;....;; SEPTIESYSTEMFRONTLOTEXf1)BIT -G..� Test Location Plan Development:Riverbend Proposed:3 2 of Pro Lots 1-47 (Page ) p t i dD 1�' ' 'c` /a I d f 1 3 % ` ` `r +FFB-9. 73'SNOR£UN£ ?ROMCMN ZONE I (NO'f 70 BE OIS7UKMU0 i`+ IIN.I'M Y. I^V h 5' t I vD S i 1 70 It I ill, Ic 1 13 1 , c;�i�i '1 t 1, i +,,'� �..n � I'`T)•�� l��A�•"c/ �.`. \ VD '1 +ap r/ �`'. !' is r,I• ' ' ( ` '` 8 ,`1—T c, -- --- `� 3j,,4 '�• MIN.IFE<9.70 ":, J',// ♦\ 8 / -,/ ` / MI46 N.FtE%9.1 ! ;;`�! 1 1•t �- nl ,'I 01 CR 1 1 eT' 3j. i0.0- 2H.4CREtt 1' _tJ..:..^'.lr: ' `� / ``�\MIN.Pj��9.70 \ ---Approximate Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) Sounding and/or Auger Boring (AB) Locations Test Location Plan (Page 3 of 3): Proposed Riverbend Development: Lots 1-47 � / :' ...•/I ' N\\ �iQ•, y'S 1S• C7YD, $ , i .,,�� �'- e' ( r `� ''�,`.,n, F7•B:v�/f./ \\ -i{`tp `\ `r/'A7IN.1•rta .7b Mi FFF.-9v AVITT,IT," hfINITE dla � fir• 11 � � �,{� °G � � / / �\ ' �{ , �f � e� r.`J `^r io W.il`1.4h'7)J ' i ` Q�•• r / �,li C,.. \ +`}.h'TL1n.TJ.�.`\ r'E'+ i { O.C✓..d(NfSt-"� .� �� o '� .`• L./' `. / -�''%`. :C\- ; *{ ``5 !anA(R6,'J', .. s::�V`• (,Yj.SGafti OlTv\'VACCA .`\ dG / 61 NI M F773=ro.GO' -'" �. / �do •'` •mil`, \ / /// ��\ � -'- ) r,"' ,j a` '\ - (v36•'�,r `�,��(- ,�/ \ ! ®17i dG'' `/ ,\ /G'"MIY.FFF .23, c. 1�{ �AfIN, -11.10 ,, •` dG 9p \i".\` dV / ,` �' �_, y, vv' -_ _ `• `., � •`d;: �O off' �.i vv r•j s z9 \ // \ ems; °°r ��� 4;• L $ 1 S ti 3.. •30 T \ / f^, ///l, \\` StlDp4'• ©MIN.J�, �3�i' �h 73'SHORE) 7 s' �r � PROIFCII / \ (Homo-. ,. do tlD o\ ,.,, �•,j °�"r , \` �� / ..,� \ �, VYr6f1=3 / j. 6..i,'-- , •�'` S tY.- =9,65 der �e � :�, t \; � 3f ' f . - I1/ •\l i/ ''.',•ri `' � � .,eP � . I i+itv.YFE=�1 \ Ali, � >•tfti � \ :\ ��'��_ ,, ' \ ''f�1 29,�1T i I -•C". \--��/ tl�Y � :\ \ -dG� Z�'�_ `? :S dG t � MIN.f•FL• 32-_.'rtri-i..riri IN iFTE-123P ' -- y _ tuo -__ - - q,. . ?_`i'-'-' t°�' tt� .FFE 1.15 `.. i i �- - -------NiVTUtt1VA130CfPL7tiN - MIN, .L.ISdp`� dIG_ r — MIN 1 Approximate Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) Sounding and/or Auger Boring (AB) Locations Custom Soil Resource Report N Soil Map I 569450 569540 569630 569720 569810 559900 569990 570080 570170 570260 27°13'28"N Q ,, 27°13'28"N 99 44 � o 0 ti N o .mi M p o N M Np p o V� M p N O p� O M p �IP, k. 711 27°13'10°N 27 13'10"N 569450 559540 569630 569720 569810 569900 569990 570080 570170 570260 3 3 h Map Sale:1:4,090 Yprinted on A landscape(11"x 8.5")sheet h Meters $ NN 0 50 10D 200 300 i Feet /V 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WG584 Edge tics:UTM Zone 17N WGS84 8 I { I Custom Soil Resource Report I i Map Unit Legend ' 1 - St:Lucie County,Florida(FL111) Map lJnit Symbol Map.dmt Name Acres in A6I1 Percent of AOI 14 Fluvaquents,frequently flooded 1.6 2 9% 19 Jonathan sand,0 to 5 percent 8.1 14.9% slopes 39 Salerno and Punta sands 42.0 j 77.2% 40 Samsula muck,depressional 2.6 4.8% 99 Water 0.1 I 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest 54.4 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represe t the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area.The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated byby one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas.A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils.Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils.On the landscape, however,the soils are natural phenomena,and they have the!characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently,every map unit is made up of the soilslor miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. I Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to requirel different management.These are called contrasting,or dissimilar,components.They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas arel identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each.A few areas of minor components may not Have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough ob�ervations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the 1 sefulness or accuracy of the data.The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that I 10 a ! I I Custom Soil Resource Report ' I have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil piroperties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except Ifor differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example,Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous are as in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas.Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them.Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys-include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. i I I i 1 11 i I it Custom Soil Resource Report I I St. Lucie County, Florida 14—Fluvaquents, frequently flooded I � Map Unit Setting Elevation: 10 to 100 feet Mean annual precipitation:49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature:70 to 77 degrees F Frost-free period.350 to 365 days i Map Unit Composition Fluvaquents and similar soils:85 percent Minor components: 15 percent 1 Description of Fluvaquents Setting Landform: Flood plains on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Sandy and loamy fluvial sediments Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained i Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Uery low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 6 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:4.0 Available water capacity: Low(about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability(nonirrigated):7w I Hydrologic Soil Group: D Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned (G156BC999FL), Unnamed (G156BU900FL) Typical profile 0 to 7 inches:Clay 7 to 19 inches: Loamy sand 19 to 25 inches: Clay 25 to 38 inches: Sandy loam 38 to 80 inches: Sand Minor Components Riviera Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Talf 12 I I I i Custom Soil Resource Report Down-slope shape: Linear j Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification:Sandy over loamy soils on flats of hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC241 FL), Unnamed (G156B0003FL) Pompano j Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform: Drainageways on marine terraces, flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on flats of music nor hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL), Unnamed (G156B0003FL) Kaliga Percent of map unit.3 percent Landform: Depressions on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Other vegetative classification: Organic soils in depressions and on flood plains (G156BC645FL), Unnamed (G156BU850FL) Winder, depressional Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions on marine terraces I Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave, linear Other vegetative classification: Loamy and clayey soils on st ream terraces, flood plains, or in depressions (G156BC345FL), Unnamed (G156BU800FL) Chobee Percent of map unit: 3 percent ' Landform: Depressions on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Other vegetative classification: Loamy and clayey soils on stream terraces, flood plains, or in depressions (G156BC345FL), Unnamed (G156BU800FL) I i 19—Jonathan sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:49 to 58 inches j Mean annual air temperature:70 to 77 degrees F Frost-free period: 350 to 365 days { Map Unit Composition i Jonathan and similar soils: 90 percent I Minor components: 10 percent 13 I I i Custom Soil Resource Report • I Description of Jonathan I Setting Landform: Ridges on marine terraces, knolls on'marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Sandy marine deposits Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 51 to 72 inches to ortstein Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 36 to 60 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:4.0 ; Available water capacity:Very low(about 1.9 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability(nonirrigated):6s Hydrologic Soil Group:A Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on rises, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands(G156BC121 FL), Unnamed (G156BU142FL) Typical profile j 0 to 3 inches: Sand 3 to 68 inches:Sand 1 68 to 80 inches:Sand f Minor Components Hobe Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, ridges on'marine terra ies Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on uses, knolls, and ridges of mesic uplands (G156BC121 FL), Unnamed (G156BU192FL) i Pendarvis j Percent of map unit.3 percent Landform: Rises on marine terraces, knolls on T arine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on rises and knolls of mesic uplands (G156BC131 FL), Unnamed (G156BU130FL) Waveland Percent of map unit.2 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces i 1 14 d i Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (three-dimensional):Taff Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on flats of mesic for hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL), Unnamed (G156BU003FL) Salerno Percent of map unit.2 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tait Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on flats of mesic'or hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL), Unnamed (G156BU003FL) I I i 39—Salerno and Punta sands Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature:70 to 77 degrees F Frost-free period: 350 to 365 days Map Unit Composition Salerno and similar soils:45 percent Punta and similar soils:45 percent Minor components: 10 percent Description of Punta Setting Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position(three-dimensional):Talf Down-slope shape: Convex j Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Sandy marine deposits Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:4.0 j Available water capacity:Very low(about 2.7 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland I 15 I I I ' I I Custom Soil Resource Report Land capability(nonirrigated):4w Hydrologic Soil Group:A/D Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on flats of mesic!or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL), Unnamed (G156BU900FL) Typical profile 0 to 4 inches:Sand 4 to 57 inches:Sand j 57 to 80 inches:Sand I Description of Salerno Setting Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Talf Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material:Sandy marine deposits Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature:51 to 72 inches to ortstein Drainage class: Poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.57 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 6 to 18 inches j Frequency of flooding: None { q Y g Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity.- Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:4.0 Available water capacity:Very low(about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability(nonirrigated):4w Hydrologic Soil Group:A/D Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL), Unnamed (G156B0003FL) Typical profile I 0 to 5 inches: Sand i 5 to 55 inches:Sand 55 to 68 inches: Sand d 68 to 80 inches: Sand Minor Components Waveland j Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Talf Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic�or hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL), Unnamed (G156B0003FL) i Pendarvis Percent of map unit:5 percent i I 16 j I Custom Soil Resource Report i Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, rises on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear 1 Other vegetative classification:Sandy soils on rises and knolls of mesic uplands (G156BC131 FL), Unnamed (GI 56BU130FL) j i I I I 40—Samsula muck, depressional Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature:70 to 77 degrees F Frost-free period: 350 to 365 days i Map Unit Composition Samsula and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Description of Samsula Setting Landform: Depressions on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Herbaceous organic material over sandy marine deposits Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent l Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained I Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches j Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:4.0 Available water capacity: High (about 9.3 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability(nonirrigated):7w Hydrologic Soil Group:A/D Other vegetative classification:Organic soils in'depressions and on flood plains (G156BC645FL), Unnamed (G156BU850FL) Typical profile 0 to 25 inches: Muck 25 to 36 inches: Mucky sand 36 to 53 inches:Sand i 17 I j I Custom Soil Resource Report i i Minor Components Hontoon Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Depressions on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Other vegetative classification:Organic soils in depressions and on flood plains (G156BC645FL), Unnamed (G156BU850FL) I 99—Water I Map Unit Composition Water.- 100 percent Description of Water Interpretive groups Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned (G156BC999FL) i I I I , i I I I i I I I I I 18 I I Appendix D - Notes Related to Borings I II NOTES RELATED TO RECORDS OF TEST BORING AND GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE I � 1. Groundwater level was encountered and recorded(if shown) following the completion of the soil test boring on the date indicated.Fluctuations in groundwater levels are common;consult report text for a discussion. 2. The boring location was identified in the field by offsetting from existing reference marks and using a cloth tape and survey wheel. I 3. The borehole was backfilled to site grade following boring completion, and patched with asphalt cold patch mix when pavement was encountered. 4. The Record of Test Boring represents our interpretation of field conditions based on engineering examination of the soil samples. 5. The Record of Test Boring is subject to the limitations,conclusions and recommendations presented in the Report text. i 6. "Field Test Data"shown on the Record of Test Boring indicated as 11/6 refers to the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)and means 11 hammer blows drove the sampler 6 inches.SPT uses a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. 7. The N-value from the SPT is the sum of the hammer blows required to drive the sampler the second and third 6- inch increments. i 8. The soil/rock strata interfaces shown on the Records of Test Boring are approximate and I ay vary from those shown.The soil/rock conditions shown on the Records of Test Boring refer to conditions atithe specific location tested;soil/rock conditions may vary between test locations. i I 9. Relative density for sands/gravels and consistency for silts/clays are described as follows: 1 SPT CPT SANDS/GRAVELS SPT CPT SILTS/CLAYS BLOWS/FOOT KG/CM2 RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT KG/CM CONSISTENCY 0-4 0-16 Very loose 0-1 0-3 J Very soft 5-10 17-40 Loose 2-4 4-6 Soft 11-30 41-120� Medium Dense 5-8 7-12 Firm 31-50 121-200 Dense 9-15 13-25 Stiff 50+ over 200 Very Dense 16-30 1 25-50 j Very stiff >30 >50 Hard 10. Grain size descriptions are as follows: j NAME SIZE LIMITS Boulder 12 Inches or more Cobbles 3 to 12 Inches' Coarse Gravel 1/4 to 3 Inches Fine Gravel No.4 sieve to%inch Coarse Sand No. 10 to No.4 sieve Medium Sand No.40 to No.10 sieve Fine Sand No.200 to No.40 sieve Fines Smaller than No.200 sieve 11. Definitions related to adjectives used in soil/rock descriptions: PROPORTION ADJECTIVE APPROXIMATE ROOT DIAMETER j ADJECTIVE <5% Trace Less than 1/32" Fine roots 5%to 12% Little 1/32"to`/4" Small roots 12%to 30% Some I/4"to V Medium roots 30%to 50% And Greater than V Large roots Organic Soils:Soils containing vegetable tissue in various stages of decomposition that has a fibrous to amorphous texture, usually a dark brown to black color,and an organic odor. Organic Content<25%:Slightly to Highly Organic;25%to 75%:Muck;>75%:Peat I I I