No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutENGINEERING EVALUATIONGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 3163 HAMMOND ROAD MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 18-104 SCANNED 'BY St. hjrjPP'.(1iVTffi7 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 834 SW Swan Avenue Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph:772-807-9191 Fx:772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING E_VALUAT_I.O_ N 3163 HAMMOND ROAD MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 18-104 PAGE tl 1.0 —,INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................. 1 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ........................................... 2 3.1 Site Location and Description ............................................. 2 3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey ............................................... 2 3.3 Project Understanding................................................... 2 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM.......................................................... 3 5.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................... 3 5.1 General Soil Conditions .................................................. 3 5.2 Measured Groundwater Level ............................................ 3 5.3 Estimated Normal Seasonal High Groundwater Table ........................ 4 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM........................................................ 4 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION .................................................. 5 7.1 General................................................................ 5 7.2 Site Preparation Recommendations ........................................ 5 7.2.1 Clearing....................................................... 5 7.2.2 Compaction Procedures .......................................... 5 7.2.3 Fill Material and Pond Excavation .................................. 6 7.3 Building Foundation and Slab Design ...................................... 6 8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 7 9.0 QUALITY CONTROL................................................................... 8 10.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................... 8 • Figure No. 1-Site Vicinity Maps • Figure No. 2 - Field Work Location Plan • Sheets No. 1 and 2 - Soil Boring Profiles • Appendix I - USDA Soil Survey Information • Appendix 11- General Notes (Soil Boring, Sampling and Testing Methods) • Appendix III - AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. W W W.AACEINC.COM PPNW ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Construction Materials Testing Environmental Consulting Missionary Flights International 3170 Airmans Drive Fort Pierce, FL 34946 Attn: Mr. Joe Karabensh GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 3163 HAMMOND ROAD MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 1.0INTRODUCTION AACE File No. 18-104 January 24, 2018 In accordance with your request and authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (RACE) has completed a subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above referenced project. The purpose of performing this exploration was to explore shallow soil types and groundwater levels as they relate to the proposed construction project, and restrictions which these sail and groundwater conditions may place on the proposed development. Ourwork included Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, auger borings, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. This report documents our explorations and tests, presents our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summary is intended to provide a brief overview of our findings and recommendations; however, the report should be read in its entirety by the project design team members. • The proposed cottage and clubhouse building sites were found to be underlain by soils which are generally satisfactory to support the proposed low-rise construction on conventional spread foundations. A maximum design foundation bearing pressure of2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended for the proposed structures. • Typical pavement sections (including the proposed RV sites) consisting of an asphaltic or rigid concrete wearingsurface atop a calcareous base, followed by a stabilized subgrade on compacted natural soils is considered appropriate for the project, provided adequate separation between the pavementsection and the seasonal high watertable elevation can be maintained. • Site preparation procedures will include clearing, stripping and grubbing of all surface vegetation and organic topsoil, followed by proofrolling of building and pavement areas. • Borings performed within the proposed detention area encountered fine sands and slightly clayey fine sands which are generally considered suitable for use as a fill source, as discussed further in Section 7.2.3. • The groundwater table was encountered at depths of about 3.5 to 4.5 feet below the existing grades. 834 Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL- PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AACE File No. 18-104 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PRomcr UNDERSTANDING 3.1 Site Location and Description Page -2- The subject 5.2-acre (±) site is located on the northwest corner of Hammond Road and Steel Boulevard in St. Lucie County, Florida (within Section 30, Township 34 South, Range 40 East), and is listed on the St. Lucie County Property Appraiser's web site as having the address 3163 Hammond Road. The location of the subject site is graphically depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (2017 aerial photograph) as well as on a reproduction of the 1983 USGS Quadrangle Map of "Fort Pierce NW, Florida", both presented as our Figure No. 1. The USGS Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property as being relatively level with an average surface elevation of about 19 feet relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The undeveloped parcel is currently mildly overgrown with trees and underbrush but is accessible to vehicular traffic in many locations. 3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the subject site is underlain by the following soil types: Map Unit 21- Lawnwood and Mvakka sands [eastern two-thirds of the site] This composite soil type is noted to consist ofsandy marine depositsfound within flotwoods on historic marine terraces, with sands present to depths in excess of 80 inches below grade. Map Unit 51- Wave land-Lawnwood complex, depressional [western one-third of the site] This soil complex is noted to consist of sandy marine deposits found within depressions on historic marine terraces, with fine sands, sands and loamy sands present to depths in excess of 80 inches below grade. The approximate location of the subject site is shown superimposed on an aerial photograph (obtained from the USDA Web Soil Survey) on Figure No. 1, and the USDA Web Soil Survey summary report is included in Appendix I. 3.3 Project Understanding Based on our review of the forwarded site plan (prepared by EDC and dated 12/29/16), we understand that it is proposed to construct a series of single -story cottages and a single -story clubhouse on the subject site. We have not been provided with any structural or architectural information relative to these structures, however, we expect that they will be constructed with load -bearing masonry walls and possibly isolated columns. For this type of construction we expect maximum wall loads of 1-2 kips per lineal foot and maximum column loads of 50 kips (if any). Additional site improvements will include a number of paved RV parking sites along Steel Boulevard, an internal paved driveway, as well as a dry detention area. It is expected that a maximum of 2-3 feet of fill will be placed to raise the general site and building grades. Details of the provided Site Plan are presented as our Boring Location Plan, Figure No. 2. MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL - PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK Page -3- AACE File No. 18-104 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM To explore subsurface conditions at the site, the exploration program summarized in Table 1 below was completed: Table 1 - Field Exploration Program Field Work Type Standard # of Borings Depth Below Grade [feet] Location Standard Penetration Test ASTM 5 15 Referto (SPT) Boring D1586 Figure No. 2 Auger Boring ASTM D1452 8 6-10 Referto Figure No. 2 Our field exploration program was completed in the period January 10-18, 2018. The field work locations shown on Figure No. 2 were determined in the field by our field crew using the provided site plan, obtained aerial photographs, existing site features, and a combination of a hand-held WAAS-enabled GPS instrument and tape/wheel measurements. The field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used. We anticipate that the actual locations are within 15 feet of those shown on Figure No. 2. Summaries of AACE's field procedures are included in Appendix II and the individual soil boring profiles are presented on the attached on Sheets No. 1 and 2. Samples obtained during performance of the borings werevisually classified in the field, and representative portions of the samples were transported to our laboratory in sealed sample jars for further classification. The soil samples recovered from our explorations will be kept in our laboratoryfor 60 days, then discarded unless you specifically request otherwise. 5.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 General Soil Conditions Detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated on the soil boring profiles presented on the attached Sheets No. 1 and 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 boundarybetween soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual than implied. In general terms, the soils on this site at the locations and depths explored, consist of a few inches of topsoil (sands with roots/organics) followed by very loose to moderately dense fine sands (SP) and slightly clayey fine sands (SP-SC). It is noted that, in some borings and within the upper stratum of fine sands (SP), dark brown hardpan -type soils were encountered with varying degree of cementation. The above soil profile is outlined in general terms only. Please refer to the attached Sheets No. 1 and 2 for individual soil profile details. 5.2 Measured Groundwater Level The groundwater table depth as encountered in the borings duringthefield investigations is shown adjacent to the soil profiles on the attached Sheets No. 1 through 2. As can be seen, the groundwater table was generally encountered at depths ranging from about 3.5 feet to about 4.5 feet below the existing ground surface, with this range likely attributed to similar, localized variations in site topography. 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. MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL - PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AACE File No. 18-104 Page -4- 5-3-Estimated-Normal-Seasonal-High-GroundwaterTable - - - — — ----------- The groundwater table will fluctuate seasonally, primarily based on rainfall. The normal seasonal high groundwater level is likelyduringthe rainyseason in Southeast Florida, typically between June and Septemberof each year. The watertable elevations associated with a 100-yearflood level (or during an extreme storm event) would be much higherthan the normal seasonal high watertable elevation. The normal seasonal high groundwater table can also be influenced by the presence of relief points such as canals, lakes, ponds, swamps, etc., as well as by the drainage characteristics of the in -situ soils. Based upon our field exploration, our observation of recovered soil samples and on review of the soil survey, we estimate that the normal seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations is about 1 to 2 feet above the levels encountered in the borings. The estimated normal seasonal high groundwater levels do not provide any assurance that the groundwater levels will not exceed these estimated levels during any given year in the future. Drainage impediments, storm events or other such occurrences may result in groundwater levels exceeding our estimates. If a more accurate determination of the seasonal groundwater level variations on this site is prudent for the design of the project, we would recommend installing a number of piezometers and performing periodic monitoring of the ambient groundwater levels. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Our drillers observed the soil recovered from the SPTsampler and the augers, placed the recovered soil samples in moisture proof containers, and maintained a logforeach 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. Representative samples were also selected for limited index laboratory testing, consisting of moisture content tests (ASTM D2216) and percent fines tests (ASTM D1140). These tests were performed to aid in classifying the soils and to help evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the site soils. The results of our visual classifications and laboratory testing are presented on the soil boring profiles on Sheets No. 1 and 2. - Balance of page left blank intentionally - MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL- PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK Page -5- AACE File No. 18-104 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 7.1 General Based on the findings of our site exploration, our evaluation of subsurface conditions, and judgment based on our experience with similar projects, we conclude that the soils underlying this site are generally satisfactory to support the proposed low-rise construction on conventional spread foundations. However, in our opinion, the bearing capacity of the loose near -surface soils should be improved in order to reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation performance. The general soil improvement we recommend includes proofrolling the individual building sites with a heavy vibratory roller. Following are specific recommendations for site preparation procedures, foundation design, and pavement systems for the project. 7.2 Site Preparation Recommendations 7.2.1 Clearing The individual building areas within lines five feet outside building perimeters should be cleared, grubbed and stripped of all surface vegetation, stumps, trash, debris and topsoil, and stump excavations should be backfilled and compacted as noted below. 7.2.2 Compaction Procedures Following clearing, the proposed building areas, RV sites, and parking/driveway/roadway areas should be proofrolled with a 10 ton vibratory roller; any soft, yielding soils detected should be excavated and replaced with clean, compacted backfill that conforms with the recommendations below. Sufficient passes should be made during the proofrolling operations to produce dry densities not less than 95 percentof the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum dry density of the compacted material to depths of 2 feet below the compacted surface, or 2 feet below the bottom of footings, whichever is lower. In any case, the building and parking areas should receive not less than 10 overlapping passes, half of them in each of two perpendicular directions. After the exposed surface has been proofrolled and tested to verify that the desired dry density has been obtained, the building and pavement areas 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 95 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum value. After completion of the general site preparations discussed above, the bottom of foundation excavations dug through the compacted natural ground, fill or backfill, should be compacted so as to densify soils loosened during or after the excavation process, or washed or sloughed into the excavation priorto the placement of forms. Avibratory, walk -behind plate compactor can be used for this final densification immediately prior to the placement of reinforcing steel, with previously described density requirements to be maintained below the foundation level. The groundwater must be lowered (if needed) to allow maintaining the required density level and a firm working surface for the placement of the foundations. 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. MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL- PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AACE File No. 18-104 Page -6- 7.2.3 Fill -Material -and -Pond Excavation — - - — - - - - — -- — All fill material under the buildings and pavement should consist of clean sands free of organics and other deleterious materials. The fill material should have not more than 10-12 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. The encountered shallow fine sands (SP) and hardpan -type soils are generally considered to be suitable for use as a fill source. However, the encountered hardpan -type soils (weakly cemented fine sands with silt) can occasionally be difficult to excavate, potentially requiring special equipment. Should excavation result in hardpan -type soils appearing as "boulder -size" chunks of cemented soils we recommend that the contractor segregate these materials from the sandy materials. Typically, with additional processing, any such hardpan boulders can be adequately broken down and used as fill, backfill, or otherwise. The encountered slightly clayey fine sands (SP-SC) are suitable for structural fill, but will likely be more difficult to compact due to their inherent nature to retain excess soil moisture. If the use of slightly clayey soils is desired, it may be necessaryto stockpile these soils in order for them to drain. Thinner lifts (perhaps 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness) may be required for placement and compaction of these soils. Further, it may become necessary to mix these soils with drier, cleaner granular sands prior to placement to increase the "workability" of these soils. The encountered organic topsoil is not considered suitable for use as anytype of fill, otherthan in landscaped areas or other non-structural areas. 7.3 Building Foundation and Slab Design After the foundatio n soils have been prepared as recommended above, the site should be suitable for supporting the proposed low-rise construction on conventional shallow foundations (or monolithic slabs) proportioned for an allowable bearing stress of 2,500 pounds per square foot [psf), 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 and the assumed loading conditions, we estimate that the recommended allowable bearing stress will provide a minimum factor of safety in excess of two against bearing capacity failure. With the site prepared and the foundations designed and constructed as recommended, we anticipate total settlements of one inch or less, and differential settlement between adjacent similarly loaded footings of less than one -quarter of an inch. Because of the granular nature of the subsurface soils, the majority of the settlements should occur during construction; post -construction settlement should be minimal. The project QA/QC representative (testing agency) should 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 approved by the testing agency. MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL - PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK Page -7- AACE File No. 18-104 After the ground surface is proofroIled 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 porous base material is not necessary. We recommend to use a minimum of 10 mil polyolefin film as the main component of a vapor barrier system. 8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend a standard -duty (15-year design life) pavement section consisting of an asphaltic concrete wearing surface on a calcareous base course supported on stabilized subbase over well - compacted subgrade. After clearing and proofrolling the site surface as previously recommended, the surficial soils should be suitable to support the pavement sections. The embankment material should be compacted to a dry density of 98 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557 orAASHTO T-180) maximum dry density of the compacted soil to a depth of one foot below the surface. The subbase material to a depth of 12 inches should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 40 and it should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557 orAASHTOT-180) maximum dry density. The surficial fine sand (SP) on this site does not appear to have the required LBR value and may require mixing. The base course may consist of crushed limerock or coquina and should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 100. We recommend a base course at least 6 inches thick for standard pavements which may be placed and compacted in a single layer. All base course material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density. by at least 18 inches. If this cannot be achieved, consideration could be given to uti an asphaltic base course (black base) and/or roadway underdrains. We recommend an FDOT Type SP asphaltic structural course (min. Marshall Stability of 1,000 Ibs), 1.5 inches thick, and placed and compacted in two layers. Care must be exercised to place the asphalt over dry, well primed base material. If rigid pavements orsidewalks are proposed, the subgrade material should be compacted to a dry density of 98 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 or AASHTO T-180) maximum dry density of the compacted soil to a depth of two feet below the surface. The subgrade surface should be saturated immediately prior to concrete placement to provide adequate moisture for curing of the concrete. We recommend a five-inchthick pavementsection ofunreinforced Portland cement concrete. The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of4,000 psi. Construction control joints should be placed no more than 12 feet apart in either direction and should be at least one - quarter of the thickness of the concrete. They should be cut as soon as the concrete will support the crew and equipment (8 to 12 hours). The concrete should be cured by moist curing or by application of a liquid curing compound. MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL - PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK Page -8- AACE File No. 18-104 9.0 QUALITY -CONTROL We recommend establishing a comprehensive quality control program to verify that all site preparation and pavement/drainage construction is conducted in accordance with the appropriate plans and specifications. Materials testing and inspection services should be provided by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. 30.0 CLOSURE The geotechnical evaluation submitted herein is based on the data obtained from the soil boring profiles presented on Sheets No. 1 and 2, and our understanding of the project as previously described. Limitations and conditions to this report are presented in Appendix III. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices for the exclusive use of Missionary Flights International. 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. ANDERSEN ANDRE CONS`U`I IfS��INC. Certificate of Authorizatipn,,ryry�� ����;��pE.N8F'••'P� �' No, 57956 , Peter G. Andersenn E. * David P. Andre, P.E. Principal Engine -©¢l ��� ,%_Lu Principal Engineer Fla. Reg. No. 579�yip� ••FLOitt�p C� Fla. Reg. No. 53969 PGA/DPA:pa rrrnnt��\ cc (via email): Mr. Brad Currie & Mr. Steven Frink w/EDC, Inc. ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.® W W W.AACEINC. COM 2017 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Section 30 Township 34S Range 40E O NOT TO SCALE USDA NRCS SOIL TYPES WITHIN SITE BOUNDARY 21: Lawnwood and Myakka sands 51: Waveland-Lawnwood complex, depresslonal USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP (1983 USGS Quadrangle Map of "Ft. Pierce NW, Florida") I i .' - - - SITE 5:: I�T 3 , o 31I ( ° 36 Lt!{ USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP xmu CVw UANory prawn Cy: PGA pale: January 2818 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 3... xnmmpnp aonp cn..LdW.DPA pal,: J...mym1. ON 9W Sxen Av.nu.. PDX SL Wcb. FLN98] 773d8]A191 wxwAACElnccan SITE VICINITY MAPS MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL G,t01uh WANn.NaHrn N..2819. RECREATIONAL ryHICLEPARK AACERI.N.:W18. rrFFigure No. 1 TB-1 DATE: 01/1, p N y .T E'; w 1 201 DATL: BROWN/OK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 1yT """••••• SL CLAYEY ND (SP-SC) r 1 I FINE SAND (SP) i•r v _� GRAY S' CLAYEY "HE SAND (SP-SC) /1a DATE: TOPSOIL ....... .... ... . _....... LT. GUY/GUY SHE SAND (SP) DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) W. HARDPAN MGM [HARDPAN -TYPE] I' BROWN FINE SAND (SP) A,>;ar .... .I- - ....... ...E GRAY FINE SAND (SP), T/O CLAY 17 .............. I........... I......... GRAY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC) /la DATE: MC: Iv N TOPSOIL.......... " -240. D LT. GUY/GUT FINE SAND (SP) 9 DX. BROWN FINE SAND (P) W. HARDPAN MGM [HARDPAN-ME] BROWN FINESAND (SPY,' _ '2 GUY SL. CLAYEY -ME SAND-(SP-SC) . - . - -- TB-5 8/1B DATE: 0I/18/18 N =TOPSOIL .. .... .. . ... ....... ... TOP5DIl ...,.. ....... p GUY FINE SAND (SP)". GUY SHE SAND (SP) -DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ': DR. REDDISH -BROWN _W. HARDPAN FROM [HARDPAN -TYPE] ( FINE SAND (SP) W. HARDPAN FRG J,LC [HMDPAN-TYPE] ..... ..... ... ... .. .......... ... ........ ,. ..,. g v GREEN -CUT SL CLAYEY [uc RW_122J FINE SAND (SP-SC) BROWN SHE SAND (SP), L•AJ T/O CLAY ?:: 0 ............................ I...... ..U GREEN-GT ..Fl.NE -BAN D..SP(...) .... 10 ; X BROWN FINE SAND (SP) BROWN FINE SAND (SP) BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 'U/A F NE YI.A ROWN SL CLAYEY SAND (SP SC) ... .......... ...... ..... a .. ....... .. .. .. .. COB o IS' BLS EOB o IS' BLS EOB o IS' BLS E08 O 13' BLS LEGEND: ■ TOPSOIL (SANDS W. TRACES OF ORGANICS/ROOTS) FINE SAND (SP) SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) ® CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC) LT. BROWN SL. CLAYEY PINE SAND (SP-SC) _ IS EOB O TB-/ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM MOSS) MC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT (ASTM D2216) HAB-/ HAND AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) -200 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE [PERCENT FINES] (ASTM D1140) AS-/ SOUD-STEM AUGER BORING (ASTM 01E32) DRILL CREW FIRM: MCC H SIT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT DRILL CREW CHIEF. RL 8]LE GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED DRILL RIG: DIEDRICH D-25 EDO END OF BORING DRILL METHOD: ROTARY-WASH/BENTONITE SLURRY BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE CASING: NOT NEEDED GWT N.E. GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC/SAFETY SP, SP-SC, ETC: 140 LDS, 30-IN DROP UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCSI USCS GROUPS DETERMINED BY WSUAL CLASSIFICATION EXCEPT FOR NOTED LABORATORY TESTS ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 834 SW Seven Avenue, Pod St. Lucia. FL H903 "2407-Old o—AACEInemm CmtlRcato of Aulpmtratlou Ne.38T9A SOIL BORING PROFILES 3169 NAMMOND ROAD MCE Fite No: 18-108 I Sheet No. 1 HAB-1 i HAB-2 HAB-3 HAB-4 01/10/18 01/10/18 0I/10/la at/le/la 0 .. ...I.. i. .. TOPSOIL .. ... .... TOPSOIL .... ...... �, ............... ... ... TOPSOIL . ...,.. ........... ... .. .. ..,.. 0 TOPSOIL i; LT, BROWN/BROWN LT. (BROWN FINE SAND (SP) LT. BROWN/BROWN Li. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) FIN.[. DK.E SAND BROWN (SP) SANG BP ^ FINE SAND (SP) pX. BROWN TINE SAND (SP), T/0 SRT Arv0 HARDPAN()Y/O SILT AND HARDPAN [HARDPAN -TYPE] 21 [HARDPAN -TYPE] ...U.IBROWN, CLAYEY .. ..... .. .... ......... ` .OK: BROWN FINE SANO.(Sp). ........ .. 46.. k' .BROWN/LT. BROWN .FINE. SANO.(SP). .... .. !eft .LT.. BROWN, SL, CLAYEY,.. .......... S ,_. FINE SAND (SC) -. FIRE SAND (SP-SC) EDP O 6' BLS EOB O 6' BLS LT. GRAY FINE SAND (SP) ROOF O F BLS o EOB O )' B15 to..— .. .. ... ........... .............. .......... ........................... .. ............... ................ ...... ..._ _..._ ... ........ ..._.... 10 HAB-5 HAB-6 AB-1 AB-2 01/10/la 01/10/18 0I/16/le 01/18/1e 0 .. ..I. TOPSOI..L . .. ... .. ._.. .............. TOPSOIL . OIL . _.- —TOPSOIL .. __. ................ TOPSOIL .. .... ... .. .......... .. 0 u % DK: GRAY FINE SAND (SP) BROWNNK. BROWN LT. BROWN FINE SAND (SP)i FINE SAND (SP), T/0 CLAY OK BROWN TINE SAND (SP). T/0 CLAY auL; ': LT. BROWN/BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 1'} 5 .. '•S = DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP). ..... .. ......... ........ .... F�.- ... l^a 3] BROWN - SL CLAYEY .... �— m T/O SILT AND HARDPAN [HARDPAN -TYPE] FINE SAND (SP-SC) 2uP. 11JJ LT. GRAY FINE SANG (SP) LT. GRAY SL CLAYEY BROWN SL CLAYEY - FINE SAND FINE SAND (SP-SC) (SP-SC) o EOB O ]' BLS EOB O 0' BLS ri GRAY FINE SAND (SP) of CLAYEY GRAY.RSANG 10 ............... _........................................,................................_ ... _..... . EY SAND. (SP.SC) ............_......_..... ................................ ..... 10 OB O 10' BLS B O110'BLS LEGEND: ■TOPSOIL ( SANDS W. TRACES OF ORGANICS ROOT$ ) TB-# STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM D1586) HAS-0 HAND AUGER BORING (ASTM DI452) MC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT (ASTM 02216) -200 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE [PERCENT TINES] (AWN DIIQ) AB-1 SOLID -STEM AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) DRILL CREW FIRM: RACE 0 FINE SAND (SP) N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT DRILL CREW CHIEF: RL z,ELT_ GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED DRILL RIG: DIEDRICH D-25 SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND SP—SC ( ) EOB END OF BORING BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE DRILL METHOD: ROTARY—WASH/BEMTONITE SLURRY CASING: NOT NEEDED Gm N.E. GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC/SAFETY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SC) SP, SP—SC, ETC: 140 1.6% 30—IN DROP UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USC51 USCS GROUPS DETERMINED BY VISUAL CLASSIFICATION EXCEPT FOR NOTED LABORATORY TESTS ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 3NUHAMMONUROAov"`""" EliB!lun..'2015 n Avenue, Pml SLLude,FLN983 TF240F.9191—.AAtElne.emn SOIL BORING PROFILES MISSIONARY RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL COecMFtl py.OPq Oala: January lOID CnrrMub&AunncratlonNc,25M RaECREATIOH^LVEHICLEPARK pp0EF11nNo:1&101 Sheet No. 2 Soil Map -St. Lude County, Florida (Missionary Flights) a sss-x a Hare "SoA,; 00YprYtalm A tvtl©pe(WXSS)sle4. § N ks a 4 90 �:�� �:� Fd3etE:UIM]ne3lNVlG�e Natural Resources Wel, Soil Survey 1/122018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (Missionary Flights) MAP LEGEND Area of ]...at (Act) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Sod Map unit Polygons N Sod Map Unit Lines 13 Soil Map Unit Paints Special Point Features (J. Blowaut ® Borrow Pll Clay spot 0 Closed Depression Gravel Pa - Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flaw .0 Marsh or swamp More or own, 0 Miscellaneous Water ® Perennial Water V Rack Cull + Saline Spot - , Sandy spot 9 Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole Seal Sodlc Spat ® Spag Ala Q star, Spot Q Very StonysPot 57 Wa spot Curer . Specal Line Features Water Features — Streams and Canoe Transportation 1-a-1 Raits Interstate Highways US Routes ,aa, Major Roads y Local Roads Background ® Added Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AD I were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of sail line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting sails that could have been shown at a mare detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Sail Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3657) Maps Mom the Web Sail Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distarts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equalarea conic projection, should be used if mare accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS outlified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: St. Lune County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:5o,0oa or larger. Dates) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 200g—Mar 20. 2017 The orthophato or other base map on which Me soil lines were compiled and digibled probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result. same minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. usm Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/12/2016 51" Conservation Service National Cooperative Sail Survey Page 2 of Soil Map --St. Lucie County, Florida Map Unit Legend Missionary Flights Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes 22.0 41.3% 21 Lawnwood and Myakka sands 16.9 31.8% 25 Nettles and Oldsmar sands 2.9 5.4% 51 Waveland-Lawnwood complex, depressional 11.4 21.5% Totals for Area of Interest 53.1 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/12/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 11 N Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida St. Lucie County, Florida 21—Lawnwood and Myakka sands Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol., ljpvg Elevation: 20 to 200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period. 350 to 365 days Farmland classification: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition Lawnwood and similar soils: 40 percent Myakka and similar soils., 40 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Lawnwood Setting Landform: Marine terraces on flatwoods Landform position (three-dimensional): Tait Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 8 inches: sand E - 8 to 28 inches: sand Ell - 28 to 52 inches: sand Bh2 - 52 to 58 inches: sand C - 58 to 80 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 31 inches to ortstein 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 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None 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: Very low (about 0.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Missionary Flights USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/12/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w - — — — -- Hydrologic Soil -Group:_ AID_ Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL) Hydric soil rating: No Description of Myakka Setting Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material., Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 7 inches: sand E - 7 to 27 inches: sand Bh - 27 to 38 inches: sand C - 38 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 high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: -About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding. None Frequency of ponding. None 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 4.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (imgated): None specified Land capability classification (nonimgated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: AID Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ankona Percent of map unit. 7 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 (G156BC141FL) Missionary Flights USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/1212018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida Missionary Flights Hydric soil rating. No Electra Percent of map unit., 7 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, rises on marine 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) Hydric soil rating., No Waveland Percent of map unit: 6 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) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 LISDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/12/2018 conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Waveland-Lawnwood complex, depressional --- St. Lucie County, Florida Missionary Flights St. Lucie County, Florida 51—Waveland-Lawnwood complex, depressional Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: ljpwf Mean annual precipitation: 49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period., 350 to 365 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Waveland and similar soils: 55 percent Lawnwood and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transacts of the mapunit. Description of Waveland Setting Landform., Depressions on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Concave Parent material: Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 4 inches: fine sand Eg - 4 to 32 inches: sand Bhf - 32 to 40 inches: loamy sand Bh2 - 40 to 53 inches: sand Cg1 - 53 to 66 inches: sand Cg2 - 66 to 80 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 31 to 50 inches to ortstein Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained Runoff class., Negligible 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 inches Frequency of flooding., None Frequency of ponding: Frequent 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 waterstorage in profile: Very low (about 0.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/122018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Map Unit Description: Waveland-Lawnwood complex, depressional --- St. Lucie County, Florida Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Othervegetative classification: Sandy soils on stream terraces, Flood plains, or in depressions (G156BC145FL) Hydric soil rating: Yes Description of Lawnwood Setting Landform., Depressions on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Concave Parent material., Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 3 inches., sand E - 3 to 28 inches: sand Bh1 - 28 to 52 inches., sand Bh2 - 52 to 58 inches: sand C - 58 to 80 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 31 inches to ortstein Natural drainage class: Very poorly drained Runoff class: Negligible 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 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency ofponding: Frequent 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 waterstorage in profile: Very low (about 0.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (noninigated): 7w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on stream terraces, flood plains, or in depressions (G156BC145FL) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Wabasso Percent of map unit. 5 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Missionary Flights USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/1212018 conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Description: Waveland-Lawnwood complex, depressional—St. Lucie County, Florida Missionary Flights Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or - — - - - hydric-lowlands-(G156BC141FL) --- -- --- - - - Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 ussDDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1I12I2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX II General Notes (Soil Boring, Sampling and Testing Methods) ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 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 our drillers' 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 groundwater level on certain logs indicates that no groundwater data is available. It does not mean that groundwater will not be encountered at that boring location at some other point in time. F'She 011711017»01:1W11%11910611*11 The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 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 Very loose 4 to 10 Loose 10 to 30 Medium dense 30 to 50 Dense Above 50 Very dense Cohesive Soils. N-Value Description �u 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 foot (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 -tight 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 used when a relatively large, continuous sampling of soil strata close tothe ground surface is desired. A4-inch (100 mm) diameter, continuous flight, helical auger with a cutting head at its end is screwed into the ground in 5-foot (1.5m) sections. It is powered bythe rotarydrill rig. The sample is recovered by withdrawing the auger ourof the ground without rotating it. The soil sample so obtained, is classified in the field and representative samples placed in bags orjars and returned to the AACE soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary. HAND AUGER BORINGS Hand auger borings are used, if soil conditions are favorable, when the soil strata are to be determined within a shallow (approximately 5-foot [1.5m]) depth or when access is not available to power drilling equipment. A 3-inch (75mm) diameter hand bucket auger with a cutting head is simultaneously turned and pressed into the ground. The bucket auger is retrieved at approximately 6-inch (0.15m) interval and its contents emptied for inspection. On occasion post - hole diggers are used, especially in the upper 3 feet (1m) or so. Penetrometer probings can be used in the upper 5 feet (1.5m) to determine the relative density of the soils. The soil sample obtained is described and representative samples put in bags or jars and transported to the AACE soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary. UNDISTURBED SAMPLING Undisturbed sampling (ASTM D-1587) implies the recovery of soil samples in a state as close to their natural condition as possible. Complete 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 rock strata 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 rock typically in 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 distancefrom the groundwater table and totheground surface is recordedand the hole isthen 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 ageotechnical engineer or a trained technician to obtain more 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. 't THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES The soil descriptions shown on the logs 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. BOULDERS (>12" I300 MMII and COBBLES IT' [75 MMl TO 12" [300 MMII: GRAVEL: Coarse Gravel: 3/4" (19 mm) to 3" (75 mm) Fine Gravel: No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve to 3/4" (19 mm) Descriptive adiectives: 0 - 5% — no mention of gravel in description 5-15% —trace 15-29% —some 30 - 49% —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. 30 (2 mm) Sieve FINE SAND: No. 200 (75 µm) Sieve to No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve Descriptive adiectives 0-5% 5-15% 15-29% 30 - 49% SILT CLAY: <#200(75µM) Sieve SILTY OR SILT: PI < 4 SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 s PI s 7 CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7 —no mention of sand in description —trace —some — sandy Descriptive adjectives: <- 5% — clean (no mention of silt or clay in description) 5 - 15% —slightly 16 - 35% — clayey, silty, or silty clayey 36-49% —very ORGANIC SOILS: Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives Classification 0 - 2.5% Usually no mention of See Above organics in description 2.6 - 5% slightly organic add "with organic fines' to group name 5-30% organic 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 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 Thickness with interbedded seam less than % inch (13 mm) thick layer -- %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 less 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 ROCK CLASSIFICATION (FLORIDA) CHART: Symbol Typical Description LS Hard Bedded Limestone or Caprock WLS Fractured or Weathered Limestone LR Limerock (gravel, sand, silt and clay mixture) SLS Stratified Limestone and Soils THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS N: Number of blows to drive a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches R: Refusal (less than six inches advance of the split spoon after50 hammer blows) MC: Moisture content (percent of dry weight) OC: Organic content (percent of dry weight) PL: Moisture content at the plastic limit LL: Moisture content at the liquid limit PI: Plasticity index (LL-PL) qu: Unconfined compressive strength (tons per square foot, unless otherwise noted) -200: Percent passing a No. 200 sieve (200 wash) +40: Percent retained above a No. 40 sieve US: Undisturbed sample obtained with a thin -wall Shelby tube k: Permeability (feet per minute, unless otherwise noted) DD: Dry density (pounds per cubic foot) TW: Total unit weight (pounds per cubic foot) APPENDIX III AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. (revised January 24, 2007) Project Limitations and Conditions Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally 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 from our field explorations, at the specific locations explored on the dates indicated in the report. This report does not reflect any subsurface variations (e.g. soil types, groundwater levels, etc.) which may occur adjacent or between borings. The nature and extent of 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 for any 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. However, 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 in writing, a subsurface exploration performed by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is not intended to be an evaluation for sinkhole potential. MISINTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION REPORT Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is responsible forth e conclusionsand 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. CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared to assist the 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 our subsequent re-evaluation. USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS Bidders who are reviewing this report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared to assist the owners and project designers. Bidders should coordinate their own subsurface explorations (e.g.; soil borings, test pits, etc.) for the purpose of determining any conditions that may affect construction operations. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be held responsible for any interpretations made using this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which may affect construction operations. IN -THE -FIELD OBSERVATIONS Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. attempts to identify subsurface conditions, including soil stratigraphy, water levels, zones 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 atthe time/date indicated in the report. Significant changes can 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. Geolechnicel Engineering Report , Geotechnical Services Are Performed 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 FuH Report 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 Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical 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- ingreportwhose 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 Are 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 Are 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 subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. -A-Geotechnical Engineering -Report -Is subject 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 Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe 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. 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 Responsibgity 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, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer shouldrespohd fully and frankly. - - - - Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mentalstudy 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 geolechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure Involved. RelW on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnclal Engmeer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/rHE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH 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. ASFETHE BUSINESS A SEOCIATION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2612 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying or 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 of ASFE, 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 film, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.. IIGEA03135.eMRP ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Construction Materials Testing Environmental consulting Missionary Flights International 3170 Airmans Drive Fort Pierce, FL 34946 Attn: Mr. Joe Karabensh AACE File No. 18-104 February 20, 2018 ADDENDUM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION MISSIONARY FLIGHTS INTERNATIONAL - PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA As requested by Engineering Design & Construction, Inc. (EDC) and authorized by you, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) has completed two (2) soil hydraulic conductivity (exfiltration) tests at the above referenced project site. In general, the tests were performed in substantial accordance with methods described in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual (ERPIM), Volume IV, and yielded the following results: Table 1- Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results Test Groundwater Flow Rate, Q Hydraulic Equivalent Horizontal Estimated Soil An ID Depth (cfs) Conductivity, K Permeability Rate Factor (ft-bis) (cfs/sqf - ft head) (ft/day) �kjk) EX-1 3.5 2.0 x 10-3 8.2 x 10's 7.0 2 EX-2 4.2 1.5 x 10-3 5.5 x 10's 4.8 2 The hydraulic conductivity results in Table 1 are also shown on the attached Sheet No.1 alongwith the soil profiles encountered at the two test locations. As noted, we recommend utilizing a factor of safety of 2 when using the k-values presented herein in the design of stormwater runoff retention and detention facilities. 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, ANDERSEN ANDjj��CUIU�L(�R p ENGINEERS, INC. Certificate of-AylNilnc�itl`iilSlo,.�6i4 Peter G=And ersen, P,rE. PrincipagmeP E'to ;= W Fla. Re b79 : 7,. cc (via emdtj��i�OJuFrrt F �,ito `w/EDC, Inc. /f/ IVAL�,\y�.. >avid"PZAVndre,P.E. Principal Engineer Fla. Reg. No. 53969 Zlyaf S 834 SW Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com 0 A 2 NOT TO SCA NOTES AND LEGEND - EX-# ZEzflltrallon Test ■ El Shawn and noted field work locations are approximate and were determined using the provided site plan, obtained aerial photographs, and existing site features as references. The shown field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree Implied by the method of measurement used. . Sheet No. T Source: Site Plan by EDC EX-i EX-2 Dx/Is/1e 02/t9/1a yp .. .. .. ....... i0PB01L .. ... _., ._.. . ..,.... ,. TOPSOILas ' ...... ., ...... p ORAY-BROWN nNE SANO (SP) FINE -NO BROWN m ( SDK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ` FINE SAND (SP) 2AL� ': W. HARDPAN FRCM [HARDPAN -TYPE] x �S a LT. BROWN fINF SANG (SP) LT. BROWN SL CIATET„ 5 Q 5 .. .. ... ... .. .. ..... .. ,NNE SWO (BP -SC) EOB O S' BLS ECB O 8' BLS TEST SUMMARY (EX-1): TEST SUMMARY (EX-2): -s -s Q = 2.Ox10 CFS Q = 1.5x10 CFS d = 0.5 FT d = 0.5 FT H2 = 3.5 FT H2 = 4.2 FT IDS = 2.5 FT Ds = 1.8 FT K = 8.2x10-5CFS/SQFT - FT HEAD K = 5.5x10-5CFS/SOFT - FT HEAD We recommend using a Factor of Safety of 2 We recommend using a Factor of Solely of 2 when using this value In the design of drainage Improvements. when using this value In the design of drainage Improvements. TOPSOIL (SANDS W. TRACES OF ORGANICS/ROOTS) FINE SAND (SP) SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) E%-0 ESHLTRATION TEST XX' r GROUNDWATER TABLE (R BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED EO9 ENO OF BORING BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE SP. SP-SC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [Uses] USCS GROUPS DETERMINED BY VISUAL CLASSIFICATION DRILL CREW FIRM: AACE DRILL CREW CHIEF: BS ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. FIELDWORK LOCATIONS AND n IWe..,, Pen$1 Lucla,FL34985 n2407.9191 wwwAACElnc.com C.nffl EXFILTRATION TEST RESULTS GOt AUNOrMeBOn NP 3eT9f EXFILTRATION TEST CONFIGURATION (Nat To $eel.) _ SFWMD EXFILTRATION TESTS K HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY Q STABILIZED ROW RATE d DIAMETER OF TEST HOLE H2 HYDROSTATIC COLUMN OS SATURATED HOLE DEPTH (BY GWT) NOTE: IF 0, CWT NOT ENCOUNTERED 40 K nd(2 d414VS+F2d) AACE File No: le.laa 1 Sheet No. 1