Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOIL SURVEY INFORMATIONr � , APPENDIX I USDA Soil Survey Information a��a1 D�NN 2r 2WN 2r M2EN Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida a (Edwards Landing, SLC) a I1 0 5D 10D 200 3M ry Map Vgedim:Web Maxtor Cn rcoorrrm tes:WMM Edge G¢: UN Zme 17NVVWM Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 8121/2017 Page 1 of 3 2r 2W N 2r 2G2WN MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) O I Area of Interest (AOI) Solls [] Soil Map Unit Polygons ti Sol Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features V ' I Blowout Bonow Pit Clay Spot 0 1 Closed Depression ,Cb'I Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot ®; Landfill A i Lava Flow & Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry � Miscellaneous Water ® 'iPerennial Water Rock Outcrop .� Saline Spot Sandy Spot g Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole $y Slide or Slip Sadic Spot Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (Edwards Landing, SLC) Spoil Area ® Stony Spot Very Stony Spot 57 Wet Spot A Other Special Line Features Water Features r,.. Streams and Canals Transportation 444 Rails N Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads 'Rro Local Roads Background ® Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI 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 soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting sails that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2016 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 200"ar 20. 2017 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. USDA Natural Resources I Web Soil Survey 8/2112017 � Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —.St. Lucie County, Florida Map Unit Legend Edwards Landing, SLC St Lucie County, Florida (FL111) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AO_I 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% im Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/21/2017 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: ljpwk 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 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 Edwards Landing, SLC 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 ___ Fmguency_offlooding;_ None________ _ Fmquencyofponding: 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) tjSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/2112017 gilliiiiiiii Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 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 (GI5SBC341 FL) Hydre soil rating: No Description of Winder, Hydric Setting Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Concave, linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material., Sandy and loamy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand E - 6 to 12 inches: sand Btg1- 12 to 33 inches: sandy clay loam Btg2 - 33 to 49 inches: sandy loam 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: 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 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 waterstorage in profile: Low (about 5.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Other vegetative class cation: Loamy and clayey soils on flats of hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC341 FL) Hydric soil rating: Yes— - - Minor Components Floridana Percent of map unit. 3 percent Edwards Landing, SLC USD9 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8/212017 i� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 a J � Map Unit 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 Other vegetative classification: Sandy over loamy soils on stream terraces, flood plains, or in depressions (G156BC245FL) Hydric soil rating. Yes Riviera Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Sandy over loamy soils on flats of hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC241 FL) Hydric soil rating: Yes Hallandale Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Flats on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talf Down -slope 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_. _ - Other vegetative classification: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141 FL) Hydnc 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 IboA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey a12112017 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 Other vegetative classification: Loamy and clayey soils on flats of hydric or mesic lowlands (G156BC341 FL) Hydric soil rating., Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 16, 2016 Edwards Landing, SLC LSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 8121/2017 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 ofa groundwater level on certain logs indicates that no groundwaterdata 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 (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): CohesionlessSoils: - -- - - -N-Value — ----Description------ — - - 0to4 Very loose 4 to 30 Loose 10 to 30 Medium dense 30 to 50 Dense Above 50 Very dense j Cohesive Soils: N-Value Description 0 to 2 Very soft 2 to 4 Soft 4to8 Medium stiff 8 to 15 Stiff 15 to 30 Very stiff Above 30 Hard Below 0.25 tsf (25 kPa) 0.25 to 0.50 tsf (25 to 50 kPa) 0.50 to 1.0 tsf (50 to 100 kPa) 1.0 to 2.0 tsf (100 to 200 kPa) 2.0 to 4.0 tsf (200 to 400 kPa) 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-tightjars 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 bywithdrawingthe 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 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. A3-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 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/contin u ity/com position 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 fil led with 57-stone; and a 6-foot long slotted PVC pipe is lowered into the hole. The distance from the groundwatertable and to the ground surface is recordedand the hole is then saturated for 10 minutes with the water level maintained at the ground surface. If a constant head test is performed, the rate of pumping will be recorded at fixed intervals of 1 minute for a total of 10 minutes, following the saturation period. LABORATORY TEST -METHODS -_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _ - - - - Soil samples returned to the AACEsoils 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. q I � 1 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 MMI) and COBBLES IT' 175 MMl TO 12" 1300 MMJ): 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%— nomentionofgravelindescription 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. 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 SILTYORSILT: PI<4 SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 s PI < 7 CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7 Descriptive adiectives <-5% 5-15% 16-35% 36-49% ORGANIC SOILS: — 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_ Des criptiveAdjectives _ Classification 0 - 2.5% Usually no mention of See Above organics in description 2.6 - 5% slightly organic 5 - 30% organic 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 -- %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 LS LR SLS Typical Description Hard Bedded Limestone or Caprock Fractured or Weathered Limestone- Limerock (gravel, sand, silt and clay mixture) 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 (lessthan six inches advance of the splitspoon 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 for the conclusions and recommendations presented herein, based upon the subsurface data obtained during this project. If others render conclusions or opinions, or make recommendations based upon the data presented in this report, those conclusions, opinions and/or recommendations are not the responsibility of Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. 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 o_bjects_which_are subsequently encountered -during construction -- - PASSAGE OF TIME This report reflects subsurface conditions that were encountered at the time/date indicated in the report. Significant changes 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. � Geolechnicol Engineeping Repots � Geotecluticai Services Are Performed top Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meetthe 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 Full Repots 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_ Bep opt Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specificfac- 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, — notpreparedlfor.yourproject, — ---- --- -- _ • 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. Geotechnicat engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability forproblems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings 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 geolechnical 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 Misbdterpretatton 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 fngineer'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 repod can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they an 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 an 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 Respmu lity Previsions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnial 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. GeoenvironmetiN Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared forsome- one else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies an 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 an 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 ollhe services per- formed In connection with thegeofechnical engineers study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper Implementation of the recommendations conveyed In tits report will not of Itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing In or on the structure Involved Relh on Your ASK -Member Geotechnclal Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFVfHE BEST PEOPLE ON EAWH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that an be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFETHE GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Golesvi Ile Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info®asfe.org www.asteorg Copyrigh12012 by ASFE, Inc. Dupflcatlon, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or In part, by any means whatsoever, Is strictly prohiblted, except with Asia specific written permission. Excerphhg, quoting, or otherwise extracting waning 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 ofASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element ofa geotechnfcaf engineadng report. Any other firm. Individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER03135.01iRP