Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOIL SURVEY INFORMATION 1APPENDIX I USDA Soil Survey Information A1unoo ejon'1'19, h1a 0►1�r U Aunoo Wnl'3s Ike aaNNdOS 3 b, Al Z Maa'N 2A 2PM N ss�o smm slim a,aoao ssano snuc awrm 3 � Map Sop: 1:1;570 7printed m AlaM2ape (11° z8.5°) A,eeL N Mebrs 0 21 40 R 12) Fed A 0 e �,,m 2" MappM;l ":WebhYmhr Cm aard'rmts:WGSB4 Edgeti¢:OIMZme17NWGSa4 SAD Natural Resources Web Soil Survey i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey I' Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (Edwards Landing, SLQ 3 R _ Qp 2P Ma N. QM M M M A A p� M M 12A 2P26N saaa2n 3 R 8121/2017 Page 1 of 3 I li I' Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (Edwards Landing, SLC) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION I, Area of Interest (AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 0 Area of Interest (AOO 0 Stony Spot 1:24,000. Soils I Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause „y i Son Map unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil p Other line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Sail Map unit Points Speclal'Point Features `- Special Line Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. V,I Blowout Water Features r... Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot +44 Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Closed Depression Web Soil Survey URL: Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit N 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 OR:0 Local Roads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more A. ap Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required. � Background Marsh or swamp ® Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Mina or Quarry . Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Miscellaneous Water Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2016 ®I Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger. Spot Dale(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar i .Saline 20, 2017 ISandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were 8• Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background j Ai Sinkhole imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shining of map unit boundaries may be evident. }y) Slide or Srip Sodic Spot Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida Map Unit Legend Edwards Landing, SLC SC Lucie County, Florida (FL111) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AO1 Percent of AOI 48 Wabasso sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 2.1 23.7% 55 Winder loamy sand 6.9 76.3% Totals for Area of Interest 9.0 100.0% USDA 8/21/2017 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Winder loamy sand —St. Lucie County, Florida St. Lucie County, Florida 55—Winder loamy sand Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1jpwk 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 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 Btgl - 12 to 33 inches. sandy clay loam Btg2 - 33 to 49 inches: sandy loam Cgl - 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 usD9 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 i Map Unit Description: Winder loamy sand —St. Lucie County, 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 (G156BC341 FL) Hydric soil rating. No Description of Winder, Hydric Setting Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Tall 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 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: 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 ofponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhoslcm) 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 - - Othervegetative classifcation: Loamy arid clayey soils -on flats of hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC341 FL) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Floridana Percent of map unit: 3 percent Edwards Landing, SLC I5DA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017 WQ Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Map knit Description: Winder loamy sand —St. Lucie County, Florida Landform: Depressions on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down -slope shape: Concave Across -slope shape: Concave Othervegetative 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 shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (GI 56BC141FL) 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 shape: 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 Othervegetative classification: =Sandy soils -on flats of mesic or-- hydric lowlands (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 LisDA 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 County, Florida Across -slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL) 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 Othervegetative classification: Loamy and clayey soils on flats of hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC341 FL) Hydnc soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2016 Edwards Landing, SLC usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/2112017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX II General Notes (Soil Borings, 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 a groundwater level on certain logs indicatesthatnogroundwaterdata is available. It does not mean that groundwater will not be encountered at that boring location at some other point in time. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a widely accepted method of in situ testing of foundation soils (ASTMD-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): ----- CohesionlessSoils: ___ __ _ N-Value_ -_— Description_ -- Oto4 Veryloose 4 to 10 Loose 30 to 30 Medium dense 30to50 Dense Above 50 Very dense Cohesive Soils: N-Value Description gu, 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 to the 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 by the rotary drill rig. The sample is recovered by withdrawing the auger our of 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 theAACE 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 cuttinghead 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 orjars 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 distance from the groundwater table 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 AACEsoils laboratory are visually observed bya geotechnical engineer or a -trained technician to obtainmoreaccurate 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. 4 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" (300 MMII and COBBLES IT' 175 MMl TO 12" 1300 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. 30 (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% 5-15% 15-29% 30-49% SILT CLAY: <#200 (75µM) Sieve SILTY OR SILT: PI < 4 SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 s PI < 7 CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7 ORGANIC SOILS: Descriotive adiectives <-5% 5-15% 16-35% 36-49% — no mention of sand in description — trace — some —sandy — clean (no mention of silt or clay in description) —slightly — clayey, silty, or silty clayey —very Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives Usually no mention of organics in description 2.6 -5% slightly organic 5-30% organic Classification See Above 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 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 Y. inch (13 mm) thick layer Y 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 3 THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES it R: MC: OC: P L: LL: PI: qu: -200: +40: US: k: DD: TW: LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS I Number of blows to drive a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches Refusal (lessthan six inches advance of the splitspoon after50 hammer blows) Moisture content (percent of dry weight) Organic content (percent of dry weight) Moisture content at the plastic limit Moisture content at the liquid limit Plasticity index (LL-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 sample 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) 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-in dicated.--- 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 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 notthe 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. � Geolechnical Engineeping Repots � Oeotecfudcal Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persow, 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 Fail 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 Repport Is Based on A Unique Set .61 Project-Specitic 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 Wore ifnportant 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 repodwhose 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 J subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed yourreport cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations it that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Gootechoical 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, but preface 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 contrao- 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, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoemilronmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geolechnical 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 reportprepared 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 engineers study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Pmper 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. Relsy,, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/ME 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 geotechnial engineer for more information. ASFETHE BUSINESSROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mall: Info®asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2012 by ASFE, Inc. Dupllcar/on, reproduction, or copying or this document in whole or In part, by any means whatsoever, is softly prohibited, except with ASFES specific wdtten pemdsslon. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written➢ermicstm ofASFF and only for purposes ofscholady raseamh or book review. only members ofASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commitlng negligent or intentional irraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER03135.001i R€CF-TVED APR 11209 ST. Lucie County, Permitting SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1 3170-3180 MORNINGDEW LANE (BUILDING T-14) ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 17-249 11140760 a�op7 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 SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 3170-3180 MORNINGDEw LANE (BUILDING T-14) ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 17-249 PAGE # 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................... 1 2.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................... 1 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM...................................................2 4.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...............................................2 4.1 General Soil Conditions.............................................2 4.2 Measured Groundwater Level......................................3 5.0 LIMITED LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM .......................................... 3 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION...........................................3 6.1 General..........................................................3 6.2 Site Preparation Recommendations .................................. 3 6.3 Foundation and Slab Design........................................4 7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE...........................................................5 8.0 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 11 • General Notes (Soil Borings, Sampling and Testing Methods) • Appendix 11 • AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. W W W.AACEINC. COM 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 3170-3180 MORNINGDEw LANE (BUILDING T-14) ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 1.0 INTRODUCTION AACE File No. 17-249 March 1, 2018 In accordance with your authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) 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 single -story residential building construction, and restrictions which these soil and groundwater conditions may place on the proposed site development. Our work included Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, solid - stem auger borings, limited laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. This report documents our explorations and tests, presents our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING TheSedona Phase 1 project covers approximately 10 acres of land within an approximately35-acre parent tract located on the southwest corner of Edwards Road and 25th Street (St. James Drive) in St. Lucie County, Florida (within Section 29, Township 35 South, Range 40 East). The location of the subject site (i.e. the 10-acre Phase 1 portion) is graphically depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (2016 aerial photograph) as well as on a reproduction of the 1983 USGS Quadrangle Map of "Fort Pierce, Florida", both presented on Sheet No. 1. The USGS Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property as being relatively level with an average surface elevation of about 10 feet relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The infrastructure installation for the Phase 1 site is currently on -going and the proposed T-14 building site is roughly outlined and slightly elevated when compared to the surrounding grades. According to 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 SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 Page -2- 3170-3180 MORNINGDEw LANE (BUILDING T-14) AACE FILE No.17-249 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 briefly discussing the project with your architect, we understand that at this point in time it is desired to only have a subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation performed for the T-14 building site. We have not been provided with any specific structural or architectural information relative to this single -story multi -unit structure. However, we expect that they will be constructed with load -bearing masonry walls and possibly isolated columns. For construction of this type we expected maximum wall loads of 1-2 kips per lineal foot and maximum column loads (if any) of 100 kips. Following our site visit, we expect that 1-2 feet of fill will be placed across the site to raise the general building grades. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM To explore subsurface conditions at theT-14 building site, one (1) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring (ASTM D1586) and two (2) solid -stem auger borings were completed to depths of 10-15 feet below the existing grades. This work was completed on February 24, 2018. The field work locations shown on Sheet No. 2 were determined in the field by our field crew using the provided site plan, andtape/wheel measurements and the roughlyoutlined building pads as reference. The locations should be considered accurate onlyto the degree implied bythe method of measurement used. We preliminarily anticipate that the actual locations are within 15 feet of those shown on Sheet No. 2. SummariesofAACE'sfield 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 jars 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. 4.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 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 13 feet, followed by soft clay (CL) reaching the termination depth of our deepest borings. The above soil profile is outlined in general terms only; please refer to Sheet No. 2 for individual soil profile details. SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 Page -3- 3170-3180 MORNINGDEw LANE (BUILDING T-14) RACE FILE No.17-249 4.2 Measured Groundwater Level The groundwater table 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 variations in site topography. 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. 5.0 LIMITED LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Our drillers observed the soil recovered from the SPT sampler and 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. 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 6.1 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 underlyingthis site are generally satisfactory to support the proposed single -story residential building on conventional spread foundations or a thickened-edge(monolithic)slab. Regardless, 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 building with a heavy vibratory roller. Following are specific recommendations forsite preparation procedures and foundation design for the project. 6.2 Site Preparation Recommendations The existing T-14 building pad should be leveled and compacted with a heavy 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 98 percent of 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 pad should receive not less than 10 overlapping passes, half of them in each of two perpendicular directions. After the existing pad surfaces have been 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. SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 Page 4- 3170-3180 MORNINGDEw LANE (BUILDING T-14) AACE FILE No.17-249 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 prior to the placement of forms. A vibratory, 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. 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 Afterthe foundation soils have been prepared as recommended above, the site should be suitable forsupporting 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 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. We recommend that representatives of 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 -= conditibnsdevelopduringconstruction,thereinforcingsteelmustbeliftedoutandthefoundation surface reconditioned and approved by AACE. After the ground surface is proofrolled 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. SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 Page -5- 3170-3180 MORNINGDEw LANE (BUILDING T-14) AACE FILE No.17-249 7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE We recommend establishing a comprehensive quality control program to verify that all site preparation and foundation and pavement 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. An experienced engineering technician should monitor all stripping and grubbing, on a full-time basis to verify that deleterious materials have been removed. The technician should observe the proof -rolling operation to verify that the appropriate number of passes are applied to the subgrade. In -situ density tests should be conducted during filling activities and below all footings, floor slabs, pavement areas, and within utility/drainage installations to verify that the required densities have been achieved. In -situ density values should be compared to laboratory Proctor moisture -density results for each of 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 Sheets No 2 and 3, and our understanding of the project as described in the previous. Limitations and conditions to this report are presented in Appendix lll. This report has been prepared in accordance 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. Peter G. Ar Principal Ei Fla. Reg. Ni PGA/DPAp n`eaayn tru mio'f` 6' it _ry�kP:E,EOF 9TAT David P. Andre, P.E Teep •; . i7&`''3xlOR ion Principal Engineer" Fla. Reg No.,/53969 �l�Ij��s�OiNAq �1��\ �r:llb ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. W W W.AACEINC.COM l 11 / 6D Z_ ©53 / RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2018 ST. Lucie county, Permitting SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION SEDONA RESIDENTIAL D��--E�VE��4r&LOPMENT- PHASE 1 BUILDINGA 1'T-15 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 17-249 D CE 0 G 0 V�- CE_-D1 MAR 2 7 FXD `/ 762-OS31 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 . t r-. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBSURFACE SOIL ExPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 BUILDINGS T-14 & T-15 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No.17-249 PAGE # 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................1 2.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ..................................... 1 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM....................................................2 4.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...............................................2 4.1 General Soil Conditions.............................................2 4.2 Measured Groundwater Level......................................3 5.0 LIMITED LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM...........................................3 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION ........................................... 3 6.1 General..........................................................3 6.2 Site Preparation Recommendations .................................. 3 6.3 Foundation and Slab Design ........................................ 4 7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE...........................................................5 8.0 CLOSURE....................................................................5 • Sheet No. 1 • Site Vicinity Maps • Sheet No. 2 • Boring Location Plan and Soil Boring Profiles (Building T-14) • Sheet No. 3 • Boring Location Plan and Soil Boring Profiles (Building T-15) - Appendix I • USDA Soil Survey Information- - • Appendix 11 • General Notes (Sol[ Borings, Sampling and -Testing Methods)-- - • Appendix II • AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. W W W.AACEINC.COM 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 BUILDINGST 14 T-15 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA 1.0 INTRODucriON AACE File No. 17-249 March 1, 2018 In accordance with your authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) 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 single -story residential building construction, and restrictions which these soil and groundwater conditions may place on the proposed site development. Our work included Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, solid - stem auger borings, limited laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. This report documents our explorations and tests, presents our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. 2.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Sedona Phase 1 project covers approximately 10 acres of land within an approximately 35-acre parent tract located on the southwest corner of Edwards Road and 25th Street (St. James Drive) in St. Lucie County, Florida (within Section 29,Township 35 South, Range 40 East). The location of the subject site (i.e. the 10-acre Phase 1 portion) is graphically depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (2016 aerial photograph) as well as on a reproduction of the 1983 USGS Quadrangle Map of "Fort Pierce, Florida", both presented on Sheet No. 1. The USGS Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property as being relatively level with an average surface elevation of about 10 feet relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. The infrastructure installation for the Phase 1 site is currently on -going and the proposed T-14 and T-15 building sites are roughly outlined and slightly elevated when compared to the surrounding grades. -- According to 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 w .aaceinc.com SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PHASE 1 BUILDINGS T-14 & T-15 AACE 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 briefly discussing the project with your architect, we understand that at this point in time it is desired to only have a subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation performed fortheT-14 and T-15 building sites. We have not been provided with any specific structural or architectural information relative to these single -story multi -unit structures. However, we expect that they will be constructed with load -bearing masonry walls and possibly isolated columns. For construction of this type we expected maximum wall loads of 1-2 kips per lineal foot and maximum column loads (if any) of 100 kips. Following our site visit, we expect that 1-2 feet of fill will be placed across the site to raise the general building grades. 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM To explore subsurface conditions at theT-14 and T-15 building sites, two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (ASTM D1586) and four (4) solid -stem auger borings were completed to depths of 10-15 feet below the existing grades. This work was completed on February 24, 2018. The field work locations shown on Sheets No. 2 and 3 were determined in the field by our field crew using the provided site plan, and tape/wheel measurements and the roughly outlined building pads as reference. The locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of measurement used. We preliminarily anticipate that the actual locations are within 15 feet of those shown on Sheets No. 2 and 3. SummariesofAACE'sfield procedures are included in Appendix II and the individual boring profiles are presented on the attached Sheets No. 2 and 3. 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 jars 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. 4.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 General Soil Conditions Detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated on the soil boring profiles presented on Sheets No. 2 and 3. 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 13 feet, followed by soft clay (CL) reaching the termination depth of our deepest borings. The above soil profile is outlined in general terms only; please refer to Sheets No. 2 and 3 for individual soil profile details. SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 Page -3- BUILDINGsT-14 &T-15 AACE FILE No.17-249 4.2 Measured Groundwater Level The groundwater table depth as encountered in the borings during the field investigations is shown adjacent to the soil profiles on the attached Sheets No. 2 and 3. 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 variations in site topography. 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. 5.0 LIMITED LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Our drillers observed the soil recovered 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. 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 6.1 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 single -story residential buildings on conventional spread foundations or a thickened-edge(monolithic)slab. Regardless, 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 building with a heavy vibratory roller. Following are specific recommendations for site preparation procedures and foundation design for the project. 6.2 Site Preparation Recommendations The existingT-14 and T-15 building pads should be leveled and compacted with a heavy 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 9mercent of 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 pad should receive not less than 10 overlapping passes, half of them in each of two perpendicular directions. After the existing pad surfaces have been 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 8 ercent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum value. SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 BUILDINGS T-14 & T-15 AACE FILE No. 17-249 Page 4- 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 priortothe placement of forms. Avibratory, walk -behind plate compactorcan be used forthis final densification immediately prior to the placement of reinforcing steel, with previously described density requirements to be 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 leastercent 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 Afterthe foundation soils have been prepared as recommended above, the site should be suitable forsupporting the proposed single -story residential building construction on conventional shallow foundations or 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 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 lessthan one-quarterof 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. We recommend that representatives of AACE inspect all footing excavations in orderto 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 AACE. After the ground surface is proofrolled 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. SEDONA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT- PHASE 1 Page -5- BUILDINGS T-14 & T-15 AACE FILE No.17-249 7.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE We recommend establishing a comprehensive quality control program to verify that all site preparation and foundation and pavement 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. An experienced engineering technician should monitor all stripping and grubbing, on a full-time basis to verify that deleterious materials have been removed. The technician should observe the proof -rolling operation to verify that the appropriate number of passes are applied to the subgrade. In -situ densitytests should be conducted during filling activities and below all footings, floor slabs, pavement areas, and within utility/drainage installations to verify that the required densities have been achieved. In -situ density values should be compared to laboratory Proctor moisture -density results for each of 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 Sheets No 2 and 3, and 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 accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practicesforthe exclusive use of Edwards Landing, LLC. No otherwarranty, 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; ��ltllll!(ly�� Peter d. Ander[§8hj,'P E. Principal Engirt .' aTA��F Fla. Reg.No.57$�5�`"3kLOR QI�i A PCiA/DPA:p2 'l,Ij`SS� , �"_w David P. Andre, P.E. Principal Engineer Fla. Reg. No. 53969 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. WWW.AACEINC.COM