HomeMy WebLinkAboutENGINEERING1 SO-- d34
spni 49
AS
gNVOS,
SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1
LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AACE FILE No.17-249
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1 2018
ST. Lucie Cou
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
i
834 Sw Swan Avenue
Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983
Ph:772-807-9191 Fx:772-807-9192
www.aaceinc.com
File Copy
3
0
9
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1
f. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AACE FILE No.17-249
PAGE #
INTRODUCTION.............................................................1
SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................... 1
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM...................................................2
OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...............................................2
4.1 General Soil Conditions......... . 2
4.2 Measured Groundwater Level ...................................... 3
LIMITED LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM...........................................3
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION.................................
...............................3
6.1 General....... I ............ 3
6.2 Site Preparation Recommendations ................................ . 3
6.3 Foundation and Slab Design ........................................ 4
QUALITY ASSURANCE........................................................5
CLOSURE...................................................................5
Sheet No. 1 • Site Vicinity Maps
Sheet No. 2 • Boring Location Plan and Soil Boring Profiles
Appendix I • USDA Soil Survey Information
Appendix II • General Notes (Soil Borings, Sampling and Testing Methods)
Appendix II • AACE Project Limitations and Conditions
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
WWW.AACEINC.COM
0
0
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
GeotechnicaL Engineering
Construction Materials Testing
Environmental Consulting
Edwards Landing, LLC
2324 South Congress Avenue, Suite 2E
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
Attention: Mr. Gregg Wexler
SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
In accordance with your authorizati
completed a subsurface exploratic
referenced project. The purpose of K
and groundwater levels as they
construction, and restrictions which
proposed site development. Our we
stem auger borings, limited laborato
our explorations and tests, prese
recommendations.
The Sedona Phase 1 project covers ap
parent tract located on the southwe!
St. Lucie County, Florida (within Sectic
subject site (i.e. the 10-acre Phase 1 K
aerial photograph) as well as on a rep
Florida", both presented on Sheet Nc
as being relatively level with an avera
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
1.0 INTRODucriON
AACE File No. 17-249
June 1, 2018
in, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) has
l and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above
�rforming this exploration was to explore shallow soil types
?late to the proposed single -story residential building
these soil and groundwater conditions may place on the
,k included Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, solid-
, testing, and engineering analysis. This report documents
is our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and
D
roximately 10 acres of land within an approximately 35-acre
corner of Edwards Road and 25th Street (St. James Drive) in
129, Township 35 South, Range 40 East). The location of the
irtion) is graphically depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (2016
)duction of the 1983 USGS Quadrangle Map of "Fort Pierce,
1. The USGS Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property
e surface elevation of about 10 feet relative to the National
The infrastructure installation for the Phase 1 site is currently on -going and the proposed T-20
building site is roughly outlined and slightly elevated when compared to the surrounding grades.
Accordingto the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the predominant surficial soil type within the subject
site is the Winder loamy sand (Map Unit ID 55). This soil type is noted to consist of sandy and
loamy marine deposits found on flats within historic marine terraces. The approximate location of
the subject site is shown superimposed on an aerial photograph on Sheet No.1„along with a more
specific description of the soil type. Further, the USDA Web Soil Survey summary report is included
in Appendix I.
834 Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com
0
SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1
3131-3141 NIGHTFALL CIRCLE (BuILDING T-20)
RACE FILE No.17-249
Page -2-
Based on our conversations and on our cursory review of the project civil engineering plans
(prepared by Culpepper & Terpening, Inc), we understand that Phase I of the Sedona project
consists of constructing thirteen (13) single -story, multi -unit residential dwellings and a
clubhouse/swimming pool complex. Additional project features include roadway construction, as
well as drainage and utility improvements.
Based on your request and after brie
that at this point in time it is desir
engineering evaluation performed fc
specific structural or architectural ii
However, we expect that it will be
isolated columns. For construction I
lineal foot and maximum column loa
1-2 feet of fill will be placed across t
To explore subsurface conditions at t
boring (ASTM D1586) and two (2) soli
below the existing grades. This worl
shown on Sheet No. 2 were determir
and tape/wheel measurements and t
should be considered accurate only i
We preliminarily anticipate that the
No. 2.
ly discussing the project with your architect, we understand
d to only have a subsurface exploration and geotechnical
the T-20 building site. We have not been provided with any
ormation relative to this single -story multi -unit structure.
;onstructed with load -bearing masonry walls and possibly
this type we expected maximum wall loads of 1-2 kips per
s (if any) of 100 kips. Following our site visit, we expect that
e site to raise the general building grades.
e T-20 building site, one (1) Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
-stem auger borings were completed to depths of 10-15 feet
was completed on May 29, 2018. The field work locations
A in the field by our field crew using the provided site plan,
e roughly outlined building pads as reference. The locations
I the degree implied by the method of measurement used.
ctual locations are within 15 feet of those shown on Sheet
Summaries ofAACE's field procedures are included in Appendix II and the individual boring profiles
are presented on the attached Sheet No. 2. Samples obtained during performance of the borings
were visually classified in the field, and representative portions of the samples were transported
to our laboratory in sealed sample ja is for further classification. The soil samples recovered from
our explorations will be kept in our laboratory for 60 days, then discarded unless you specifically
request otherwise.
4.1 General Soil Conditions
Detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated on the soil boring profiles presented on Sheet No.
2. The stratification of the boring profiles represents our interpretation of the field boring logs and
the results of laboratory examinations of the recovered samples. The stratification lines represent
the approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual than
implied.
In general, at the locations and depths explored, our borings encountered loose to moderately
dense fine sands (SP), slightly clayey fine sands (SP-SC), and clayey fine sands (SC) to depths of
about 13feet, followed byverysoftcla�y (CL) reaching the termination depth ofourdeepest boring.
The above soil profile is outlined in general terms only; please refer to Sheet No. 2 for individual
soil profile details.
i
•
SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1
3131-3141 NIGHTFALL CIRCLE (BUILDING T-20)
AACE FILE No.17-249
4.2 Measured Groundwater Level
Page -3-
The groundwatertable depth as encountered in the borings during the field investigations is shown
adjacent to the soil profiles on the attached Sheet No. 2. As can be seen, the groundwater table
was generally encountered at depth of about 5.0 feet to about 6.0 feet below the existing ground
surface, with this range likely attributed to similar, localized elevation variations across the building
pad. Overall, fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year
primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall and other factors that may vary from the time the
borings were conducted.
Our drillers observed the soil recove'ired from the SPT sampler and augers, placed the recovered
soil samples in moisture proof containers, and maintained a log for each boring. The recovered soil
samples, along with the field boring logs, were transported to our Port St. Lucie soils laboratory
where they were visually examined by AACE's project engineer to determine their engineering
classification. The visual classification of the samples was performed in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System, USCS.
6.1 General
Based on the findings of our site I
judgment based on our experience w
site are generally satisfactory to s
conventional spread foundations or a
the bearing capacity of the loose neat
of unsatisfactory foundation perform
proofrolling the building with a heav
Following are specific recommen
the project.
6.2 Site Preparation
The existing T-20 building pad should
soft, yielding soils detected should be
conforms with the recommendatio
proofrolling operations to produce d
(ASTM D1557) maximum dry densit,
compacted surface, or 2 feet below i
building pad should receive not les!
perpendicular directions.
!xploration, our evaluation of subsurface conditions, and
th similar projects, we conclude that the soils underlying this
ipport the proposed single -story residential building on
thickened -edge (monolithic) slab. Regardless, in our opinion,
-surface soils should be improved in order to reduce the risk
ince. The general soil improvement we recommend includes
r vibratory roller.
for site preparation procedures and foundation design for
3e leveled and compacted with a heavy vibratory roller; any
excavated and replaced with clean, compacted backfill that
Is below. Sufficient passes should be made during the
y densities not less than 98 percent of the modified Proctor
of the compacted material to depths of 2 feet below the
ie bottom of footings, whichever is lower. In any case, the
than 10 overlapping passes, half of them in each of two
After the existing pad surfaces have lbeen compacted and tested to verify that the desired dry
density has been obtained, the building area may be filled to the desired grades. All fill material
should conform to the recommendations below. It should be placed in uniform layers not
exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. Each layer should be compacted to a dry density not less
than 98 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum value.
0
SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1
3131-3141 NIGHTFALL CIRCLE (BUILDING T-20)
AACE FILE No.17-249
After completion of the general s
excavations dug through the comp
to densify soils loosened during or
excavation prior to the placement c
for this final densification immedia-
described density requirements to
Page -4-
preparations discussed above, the bottom of foundation
!d natural ground, fill or backfill, should be compacted so as
er the excavation process, or washed or sloughed into the
rms. Avibratory, walk -behind plate compactor can be used
prior to the placement of reinforcing steel, with previously
maintained below the foundation level.
Following removal of foundation forms, backfill around foundations should be placed in lifts six
inches or less in thickness, with each lift individually compacted with a plate tamper. The backfill
should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557)
maximum dry density.
All fill material under the buildings should consist of clean sands free of organics and other
deleterious materials. The fill material should have not more than 12 percent by dry weight
passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and no particle larger than 3 inches in diameter. Backfill behind
walls, if any, should be particularly pervious, with not more than 4 percent by dry weight passing
the U.S. #200 sieve.
6.3 Foundation and Slab Design
After the foundation soils have been prepared as recommended above, the site should be suitable
for supporting the proposed single -story residential building construction on conventional shallow
foundations or a thickened -edge (monolithic) slab proportioned for an allowable bearing stress of
1,500 pounds per square foot [psfj, or less. To provide an adequate factor of safety against a
shearing failure in the subsoils, all continuous foundations should be at least 18 inches wide, and
all individual column footings should have a minimum width of 36 inches. Exterior foundations
should bear at least 18 inches below] adjacent outside final grades.
Based upon the boring information
recommended allowable bearing str
against bearing capacity failure. V
constructed as recommended, we an
settlement between adjacent similar.
of the granular nature of the subsurfi
construction; post -construction settl
ind the assumed loading conditions, we estimate that the
!ss will provide a minimum factor of safety in excess of two
'ith the site prepared and the foundations designed and
:icipate total settlements of one inch or less, and differential
✓ loaded footings of less than one -quarter of an inch. Because
ce soils, the majority of the settlements should occur during
?ment should be minimal.
We recommend that representativeslof AACE inspect all footing excavations in order to verify that
footing bearing conditions are consistent with expectations. Foundation concrete should not be
cast over a foundation surface containing topsoil or organic soils, trash of any kind, surface made
muddy by rainfall runoff, or groundwater rise, or loose soil caused by excavation or other
construction work. - Reinforcing steel should also be clean at the time of concrete casting. If such
conditions develop during construction, the reinforcing steel must be lifted out and the foundation
surface reconditioned and approvedby AACE.
After the ground surface is proofrolle'd and filled, if necessary, as recommended in this report, the
floor slab can be placed directly on the prepared subgrade. For design purposes, we recommend
using a subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the compacted shallow
sands. In our opinion, a highly poro l s base material is not necessary. We recommend to use a
minimum of 10 mil polyolefin film aslthe main component of a vapor barrier system.
4P
SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1
3131-3141 NIGHTFALL CIRCLE (BUILDING T-20)
AACE FILE No.17-249
We recommend establishing a coi
preparation and foundation and p
appropriate plans and specifications
by Andersen Andre Consulting Engh
An experienced engineering technic
basis to verify that deleterious mate
proof -rolling operation to verify tl
subgrade. In -situ densitytests shoul
floor slabs, pavement areas, and w
densities have been achieved. In-si
moisture -density results for each of
7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Page -5-
iprehensive quality control program to verify that all site
ivement construction is conducted in accordance with the
Materials testing and inspection services should be provided
leers, Inc.
ian should monitor all stripping and grubbing, on a full-time
-ials have been removed. The technician should observe the
at the appropriate number of passes are applied to the
I be conducted during filling activities and below all footings,
thin utility/drainage installations to verify that the required
:u density values should be compared to laboratory Proctor
the different natural and fill soils encountered.
8.0 CLOSURE
The geotechnical evaluation submitted herein is based on the data obtained from the soil boring
profiles presented on Sheet No 2, land our understanding of the project as described in the
previous. Limitations and conditions to this report are presented in Appendix III.
This report has been prepared in Jaccordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices for the exclusive use of Edwards Landing, LLC. No other warranty, expressed
or implied, is made.
We are pleased to be of assistance'to you on this phase of your project. When we may be of
further service to you or should you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely', �����`" 8
AIUDERSEN AIVORN�
�
Certificate':of Au i r too 6.2
,. .
., � � `51
Peter G And `p;E gtA
Prinapa:l: Engme�l�;�
fl.a Reg'No 57�r��S1r0
P.GA/DPApa:
Oavld P Andre, _P E
nclpal Engineer b}
Fla: Reg-No.,53969
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
WWW.AACEINC.COM
Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida
(Edwards Landing, SLC)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Spoil Area
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
El
Area of Interest (AOI)
Stony Spot
1:24,000.
Soils
Very Stony Spot
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
0
Soil Map Unit Polygons
V
Wet Spot
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
„y
Soil Map Unit Lines
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
Other
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
®_
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Line Features
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
Special
Point Features
scale.
V
Blowout
Water Features
.�
Streams and Canals
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Borrow Pit
measurements.
Transportation
--Clay-spot
-----6-e
—Rails —
--Source-of-Map:—Natural-Resources-Conservation-Service
0
Closed Depression
Web Soil Survey URL:
�s
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Gravel Pit
r+ad
US Routes
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
+
Gravelly Spot
Major Roads
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Landfill
Local Roads
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
gg'�
Lava Flow
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
lti
Background
Marsh or swamp
®
Aerial Photography
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Mine or Quarry
Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida
Miscellaneous Water
Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2016
Perennial Water
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
�+
Rock Outcrop
1:50,000 or larger.
Saline Spot
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar
20, 2017
Sandy Spot
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
Severely Eroded Spot
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
Sinkhole
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Slide or Slip
oa
Sodic Spot
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
0
Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida
i
Map Unit Legend
Edwards Landing, SLC
St.
Lucie.County, Florida (FL111) ,
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit
Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
48
Wabasso sand,
slopes
1,0 to 2 percent
2.1
23.7%
55
Winder loamy sand
6.9
76.3%
Totals for Area of Interest
9.0
100.0%
USDA Natural Resources I Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
0
V
Map Unit Description: Winder loamy sand --St. Lucie
Florida
St. Lucie County, Florida
55—Winder loamy
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 1 jpwk
Mean annual precipitation: 49 to 58 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F
Frost -free periodt' 350 to 365 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance
Map Unit Composition
Winder, drained and bedded, and similar soils: 67 percent
Winder, hydric, and similar soils: 15 percent
Minor components: 18 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Winder, Drained And Bedded
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Concave, convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material. Sandy and loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
E - 6 to 12 inches: sand
Btg1- 12 to 33 inches: sandy clay loam
Btg2 - 33 to 49 inches: sandy loam
Cg1- 49 to 61 inches: loamy sand
Cg2 - 61 to 80, inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: High
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 12 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0
to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.8 inches)
Edwards Landing, SLC
USDA Natural Resources I Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4
0
qP
Map Unit Description: Winder loamy sand --St. Lucie
usDA Natural Resources
2111011 Conservation Service
Florida
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Other vegetative classification: Loamy and clayey soils on flats of
hydric or mesic lowlands (G 1 56BC341 FL)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Windbr, Hydric
Setting
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Concave, linear
Across-slope�shape: Linear
Parent material: Sandy and loamy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
E - 6 to 12 inches: sand
Btg1- 12 to 33 inches: sandy clay loam
Btg2 - 33 to 49 inches: sandy loam
Cg1- 49 to 6inches: loamy sand
Cg2 - 61 to 80 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 21 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: Very high
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 0 to 12 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency o I ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0
to 2.0 mrrthos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w
Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D
Other vegetative classification: Loamy and clayey soils on flats of
hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC341 FL)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Minor Components
Floridana
Percent of map unit. 3 percent
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Edwards Landing, SLC
8/21/2017
Page 2 of 4
•
U
Map Unit Description: Winder loamy sand -St. Lucie
Florida
Landform: Depressions on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip
Down -slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Other vegetative classification: Sandy over loamy soils on stream
terraces, flood plains, or in depressions (G156BC245FL)
Hydric soil rating. Yes
Riviera
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Other vegetative classification: Sandy over loamy soils on flats of
hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC241 FL)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Hallandale
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talf
Down -slope slhape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or
hydric lowlands (G 1 56BC1 41 FL)
Hydric soil rating: No
Pineda
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 1shape: Concave
Other vegetative classification: Sandy over loamy soils on flats of
hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC241 FL)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Wabasso, gravelly substratum
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flats 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 IovYlands (G156BC141FL)
Hydric soil rating: No
Wabasso
Percent of map unit. 2 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Convex
Edwards Landing, SLC
US UA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017
+� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4
•
Map Unit Description: Winder loamy sand --St. Lucie
Florida
Across -slope shape: Linear
Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or
hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL)
Hydric soil rating: No
Winder, shell substratum, hydric
Percent of map unit., 2 percent
Landform: Flats on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Concave, linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Other vegetative classification: Loamy and clayey soils on flats of
hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC341 FL)
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Data Source I
Soil Survey Area: St.
Survey Area Data: Ve
rmation
County, Florida
9, Sep 16, 2016
Edwards Landing, SLC
Conservation Service I National Cooperative Soil Survey • Page 4 of 4
0
u
APPENDIX II
eneral Notes
(Soil Borings, Sampling and Testing Methods)
SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS
GENERAL
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) borings describe subsurface conditions only at
the locations drilled and at the time drilled. They provide no information about subsurface
conditions below the bottom of the boreholes. At locations not explored, surface conditions that
differ from those observed in the borings may exist and should be anticipated.
The information reported on our boring logs is based on ourdrillers' logs and on visual examination
in our laboratory of disturbed soil samples recovered from the borings. The distinction shown on
the logs between soil types is approximate only. The actual transition from one soil to another may
be gradual and indistinct.
The groundwater depth shown on 'our boring logs is the water level the driller observed in the
borehole when it was drilled. These water levels may have been influenced by the drilling
procedures, especially in borings made by rotary drilling with bentonitic drilling mud. An accurate
determination of groundwater level requires long-term observation of suitable monitoring wells.
Fluctuations in groundwater levels throughout the year should be anticipated.
The absence of a groundwater level on certain logs indicatesthat no groundwaterdata is available.
It does not mean that groundwaterwillnot be encountered at that boring location at some other
point in time.
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
The Standard Penetration Test (SP I) is a widely accepted method of in situ testing of foundation
soils (ASTM D-1586). A 2-foot (0.6m) long, 2-inch (50mm) O.D. split-barrell sampler attached to the
end of a string of drilling rods is driven 24 inches (0.60m) into the ground by successive blows of
a 140-pound (63.5 Kg) hammer freely dropping 30 inches (0.76m). The number of blows needed
for each 6 inches (0.15m) increments penetration is recorded. The sum of the blows required for
penetration of the middle two 6-inch (0.15m) increments of penetration constitutes the test result
of N-value. After the test, the sampler is extracted from the ground and opened to allow visual
description of the retained soil sample. The N-value has been empirically correlated with various
soil properties allowing a conservative estimate of the behavior of soils under load. The following
tables relate N-values to a qualitative description of soil density and, for cohesive soils, an
approximate unconfined compressive strength (Qu):
Cohesionless Soils: N-Value Description
0 to 4 I Very loose
I
4 to 10 Loose
10 to 301 Medium dense
30 to 50 Dense
Above 50 Very dense
A .` p
a
0
Cohesive Soils: N-Value
Description
CQu
0 to 2
Very soft
Below 0.25 tsf (25 kPa)
2 to 4
Soft
0.25 to 0.50 tsf (25 to 50 kPa)
4 to 8
Medium stiff
0.50 to 1.0 tsf (50 to 100 kPa)
8 to 15
Stiff
1.0 to 2.0 tsf (100 to 200 kPa)
15 to 30
Very stiff
2.0 to 4.0 tsf (200 to 400 kPa)
Above 30,
Hard
Above 4.0 tsf (400 kPa)
The tests are usually performed at 5 ifoot (1.5m) intervals. However, more frequent or continuous
testing is done by AACE through depths where a more accurate definition of the soils is required.
The test holes are advanced to the test elevations by rotary drilling with a cutting bit, using
circulating fluid to remove the cuttings and hold the fine grains in suspension. The circulating fluid,
which is bentonitic drilling mud, is also used to keep the hole open below the water table by
maintaining an excess hydrostatic pressure inside the hole. In some soil deposits, particularly
highly pervious ones, flush -coupled casing must be driven to just above the testing depth to keep
the hole open and/or prevent the loss of circulating fluid. After completion of a test borings, the
hole is kept open until a steady state groundwater level is recorded. The hole is then sealed by
backfilling, either with accumulated. cuttings or lean cement.
Representative split -spoon samples from each sampling interval and from different strata are
brought to our laboratory in air-tig i t jars for classification and testing, if necessary. Afterwards,
the samples are discarded unless prior arrangement have been made.
POWER AUGER BORINGS
Auger borings (ASTM D-1452) are u
close to the ground surface is desire
with a cutting head at its end is scri
by the rotary drill rig. The sample is
rotating it. The soil sample so obtaii
in bags or jars and returned to the A
HAND AUGER BORINGS
Hand auger borings are used, if s
determined within a shallow (appri
to power drilling equipment. A 3-ir
simultaneously turned and press
approximately 6-inch (0.15m) inter
hole diggers are used, especially it
used in the upper 5 feet (1.5m) to
obtained is described and represen
soils laboratory for classification aii
ed when a relatively large, continuous sampling of soil strata
I. A4-inch (100 mm) diameter, continuous flight, helical auger
wed into the ground in 5-foot (1.5m) sections. It is powered
-covered by withdrawing the augerouroftheground without
ed, is classified in the field and representative samples placed
kCE soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary.
)il conditions are favorable, when the soil strata are to be
iximately 5-foot [1.5m]) depth or when access is not available
ch (75mm) diameter hand bucket auger with a cutting head is
ed into the ground. The bucket auger is retrieved at
ral and its contents emptied for inspection. On occasion post -
the upper 3 feet (1m) or so. Penetrometer probings can be
determine the relative density of the soils. The soil sample
tative samples put in bags or jars and transported to the AACE
d testing, if necessary.
U
UNDISTURBED SAMPLING
Undisturbed sampling (ASTM D-1
their natural condition as possible.
niplies the recovery of soil samples in a state as close to
plete preservation of in situ conditions cannot be realized;
however, with careful handling and (proper sampling techniques, disturbance during sampling can
be minimized for most geotechnical engineering purposes. Testing of undisturbed samples gives
a more accurate estimate of in situ behavior than is possible with disturbed samples.
Normally, we obtain undisturbed samples by pushing a 2.875-inch (73 mm) I.D., thin wall seamless
steel tube 24 inches (0.6 m) into the soil with a single stoke of a hydraulic ram. The sampler, which
is a Shelby tube, is 30 (0.8 m) inches long. After the sampler is retrieved, the ends are sealed in the
field and it is transported to our laboratory for visual description and testing, as needed.
ROCK CORING
In case rockstrata is encountered and rock strength/continuity/composition information is needed
for foundation or mining purposes, the rock can be cored (ASTM D-2113) and 2-inch to 4-inch
diameter rock core samples be obtained for further laboratory analyses. The rock coring is
performed through flush -joint steel casing temporarily installed through the overburden soils
above the rock formation and also installed into the rock. The double- or triple -tube core barrels
are advanced into the rocktypicallyiin 5-foot intervals and then retrieved to the surface. The barrel
is then opened so that the core sample can be extruded. Preliminary field measurements of the
recovered rock cores include percent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values. The
rock cores are placed in secure core boxes and then transported to our laboratory for further
inspection and testing, as needed.
SFWMD EXFILTRATION TESTS
In order to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the upper soils, constant head or falling head
exfiltration tests can be performed. These tests are performed in accordance with methods
described in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Permit Information Manual,
Volume IV. In brief, a 6 to 9 inch diameter hole is augered to depths of about 5 to 7 feet; the
bottom one foot is filled with 57-stone; and a 6-foot long slotted PVC pipe is lowered into the hole.
The distance from the groundwatertable and to the ground surface is recordedand the hole is then
saturated for 10 minutes with the water level maintained at the ground surface.
If a constant head test is performed, the rate of pumping will be recorded at fixed intervals of 1
minute for a total of 10 minutes, following the saturation period.
LABORATORY TEST METHODS
Soil samples returned to the AACE soils laboratory are visually observed by geotechnical engineer
or a trained technician to obtain mi
ore accurate description of the soil strata. Laboratory testing
is performed on selected samples as deemed necessary to aid in soil classification and to help
define engineering properties of the soils. The test results are presented on the soil boring logs at
the depths at which the respective sample was recovered, except that grain size distributions or
selected other test results may be presented on separate tables, figures or plates as discussed in
this report.
THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
The soil descriptions shown on the Dogs are based upon visual -manual procedures in accordance
with local practice. Soil classification is performed in general accordance with the United Soil
Classification System and is also based on visual -manual procedures.
Q
GRAVEL: Coarse Gravel:
Fine Gravel:
Descriptive adiectives:
0-5%
5-15%
15-29%
30 - 49
3/4" (19 mm) to 3" (75 mm)
No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve to 3/4" (19 mm)
— no mention of gravel in description
— trace
— some
—gravelly (shell, limerock, cemented sands)
SANDS:
COARSE SAND:
No. 10 (2 mm) Sieve to
No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
MEDIUM SAND:
No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve to
No. 10 (2 mm) Sieve
FINE SAND:
No. 200 (75 µm)
Sieve to No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve
Descriptive adiectives:
0 - 5%
— no mention of sand in description
5 -15%
—trace
15 - 29%
— some
30 - 49%
— sandy
SILT CLAY:
< #200 (75µM) Sieve
SILTY OR SILT: PI < 4
SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 s PI s
CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7
ORGANIC SOILS:
Organic Content
0-2.5%
2.6 - 5%
5-30%
Descriptive adiectives:
<-5%
5-15%
16-35%
36-49%
Descriptive
Usually no m
organics in di
slightly orgalr
organic
— clean (no mention of silt or clay in description)
— slightly
— clayey, silty, or silty clayey
— very
djectives Classification
ration of See Above
scription
add "with organic fines" to group name
SM with organic fines
Organic Silt (OL)
Organic Clay (OL)
Organic Silt (OH)
THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
i
Organic Clay (OH)
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS AND MATTER:
Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives Classification
30 - 75% sandy peat Peat (PT)
silty peat Peat (PT)
> 75% amorphous peat Peat (PT)
fibrous peat Peat (PT)
STRATIFICATION AND STRUCTURE:
Descriptive Term
with interbedded
seam -- less tha i
Y2 inch (13 mm) thick
layer -- Y2 to 12-inches
(300 mm) thick
stratum -- more than
12-inches (300 mm) thick
pocket -- small, erratic
deposit, usually less than 1-foot
lens -- lenticular
deposits
occasional -- one or I I
ss per foot of thickness
frequent -- more than
one per foot of thickness
calcareous -- containing
calcium carbonate (reaction to diluted HCL)
hardpan -- spodic horizon
usually medium dense
marl -- mixture,
of carbonate clays, silts, shells and sands
Symbol Typical Description
i
LS Hard Bedded Limestone or Caprock
WLS Fractured or Weathered Limestone
LR Limerock (gravel, sand, silt and clay mixture)
SLS Stratified Limestone and Soils
I
I
THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
1►1
R:
MC
OC:
PL:
LL:
PI:
qu:
-200.:
+40:
k S:
DD:
TW:
D FOR BORING LOGS
Number of blows to drive a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler 12 inches using a
140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches
Refusal (less than six inches advance of the split spoon after 50 hammer blows)
Moisture content (percent of dry weight)
Organic content (percent of dry weight)
Moisture conter1t at the plastic limit
Moisture content at the liquid limit
Plasticity index (ILL-PL)
Unconfined compressive strength (tons per square foot, unless otherwise
noted)
Percent passing a No. 200 sieve (200 wash)
Percent retained above a No. 40 sieve
Undisturbed sa pie obtained with a thin -wall Shelby tube
Permeability (feet per minute, unless otherwise noted)
Dry density (pounds per cubic foot)
Total unit weight (pounds per cubic foot)
APPENDIX III
AACE Project Limitations and Conditions
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
(revised January 24, 2007)
Limitations and Conditions
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive
use, in accordance with generallyl accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made herein. Further, the report, in all cases, is subject to the
following limitations and conditions:
VARIABLE/UNANTICIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The engineering analysis, evaluation and subsequent recommendations presented herein are
based on the data obtained froml our field explorations, at the specific locations explored on the
dates indicated in the report. This report does not reflect anysubsurface variations (e.g. soil types,
groundwater levels, etc.) which may occur adjacent or between borings.
The nature and extent of i any such variations may not become evident until
construction/excavation commences. In the event such variations are encountered, Andersen
Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. may find it necessary to (1) perform additional subsurface
explorations, (2) conduct in -the -field observations of encountered variations, and/or re-evaluate
the conclusions and recommendations presented herein.
We at Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers; Inc. recommend that the project specifications
necessitate the contractor immediately notifying Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc., the
owner and the design engineer (if applicable) if subsurface conditions are encountered that are
different from those presented in this report.
No claim by the contractor forlany conditions differing from those expected in the plans and
specifications, or presented in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the
owner and Andersen Andre 'Consulting Engineers, Inc. of such differing site conditions.
Additionally, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by an
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. representative.
SOIL STRATA CHANGES
Soil strata changes are indicated by a horizontal line on the soil boring profiles (boring logs)
presented within this report. iHowever, the actual strata's changes may be more gradual and
indistinct. Where changes occur between soil samples, the locations of the changes must be
estimated using the available information and may not be at the exact depth indicated.
SINKHOLE POTENTIAL
Unless specifically requested i� writing, a subsurface exploration performed by Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc. is not intended to be an evaluation for sinkhole potential.
U
MISINTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION REPORT
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is responsible for the conclusions and recommendations
presented herein, based upon the subsurface data obtained during this project. If others render
conclusions or opinions, or make recommendations based upon the data presented in this report,
those conclusions, opinions and/or recommendations are not the responsibility of Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc.
GED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION
This report was prepared to assistlthe owner, architect and/or civil engineer in the design of the
subject project. If any changes in the construction, design and/or location of the structures as
discussed in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not
discussed in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may not
be valid. All such changes in the project plans should be made known to Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc. for ourjsubsequent re-evaluation.
Bidders who are reviewing this i
was prepared to assist the own
subsurface explorations (e.g.; s
conditions that may affect cons
cannot be held responsible for a
logs with regard to their ade
construction operations.
USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS
port prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report
•s and project. designers. Bidders should coordinate their own
l borings, test pits, etc.) for the purpose of determining any
uction operations. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc.
y interpretations made using this report or the attached boring
uacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which may affect
IN -THE -FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. attempts to identify subsurface conditions, including
soil stratigraphy, water levels,1zones of lost circulation, "hard" or "soft" drilling, subsurface
obstructions, etc. However, lack of mention in the report does not preclude the presence of such
conditions.
LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS
Users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Andersen Andre Consulting
Engineers, Inc. to attempt to locate any man-made, underground objects during the course of this
exploration, and that no attempts to locate any such objects were performed. Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are
subsequently encountered during construction.
PASSAGE OF TIME
This report reflects subsurface conditions that were encountered at the time/date indicated in the
report. Significant changes cap occur at the site during the passage of time. The user of the report
recognizes the inherent risk in using the information presented herein after a reasonable amount
of time has passed. We recommend the user of the report contact Andersen Andre Consulting
Engineers, Inc. with any questions or concerns regarding this issue.
� A
LI
Geolechnic'al Engineering Report
Geotechnical SepvIces Are Pepformed for
Specific Purposes,'Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
—not evenyou —should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Fd Report i
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project4pecihc Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a studyJTypical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
composition of the design team, or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Ape Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly —
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Ape Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
ti
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the reports recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Shbject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the. Engineer's Logs I
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. Tolprevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. 1
Give Contractors a Complete, Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable, Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions,' Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, tohelp others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks, Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to
numerous project failures, If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi-
ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage-
ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for some-
one else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper Implementation of the recommendations conveyed
Inthis report will not of itself he. sufficient to prevent mold
from growing In or on the structure Involved
ReI on Your ASS -Member Geotechnclal
Engineer for Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EAFH exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
AL
(ASFETHE BUSIN SS ASSOCIATION
8811,6olesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017
! e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
I
Copyright 2012 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document In whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, Is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's
specific written permission, Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review.' Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, Individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.;
IIGER03135;0MRP
3
a
N
5�.
27° 24' 33" N 4
Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida
(Edwards Landing, SLC)
27° 24' 26" N - -
5Gi99D 56402f1 564050 55M 564110 564140 564170
3
a
Map Scale: 1:1,570 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet
N Meters
0 2D 40 BO 1Z0
0 SO 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercal or Comer ocordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UiM Zone 17N WGS84
UsDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
5O= 58M 554250 55M 554320
3
0
N
8/21/2017
Page 1 of 3
270 2426" N