S02 - Stormwater Calculations.pdf

Atriax, PLLC.,102 3rd Avenue, NE (28601), PO Box 1629, Hickory, NC 28603, Telephone:(828)-315-9962

INTEGRITY ● SERVICE ● EXCELLENCE

Roadway and Drainage Improvements

Bay Pines National Cemetery VA Project No.: 890CM3018

Narrative and Stormwater Management

Calculations

March 2021

Prepared For:

Department of Veterans Affairs

10000 Bay Pines Blvd.

St. Petersburg, FL 33708

Submitted by:

A SERVICE DISABLED VETERAN OWNED SMALL

BUSINESS WITH LARGE BUSINESS CAPABILITIES

Will Text Box This document has been electronically signed and sealed by William T Hamblin, PE (#90231) on the date shown using a digital signature in accordance with F.A.C.61G15-23.004, with a digital certificate issued by IndenTrust. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies.

St. Petersburg, Florida

Stormwater Narrative and Calculations

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 DESIGN 2

EXHIBITS …………………………………………………………………………………….

EXHIBIT 1: Calculations

EXHIBIT 2: Geotechnical Report

INTRODUCTION

The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) contracted this roadway and drainage project to correct existing deficiencies of the existing roadway and drainage systems at Bay Pines National Cemetery

(BPNC) to extend the service life of facility infrastructure, systems and equipment as well as upgrade the function and appearance of the cemetery by eliminating areas of standing water in sections of roadway and burial areas. Items included are:

A. Existing Stormwater Ponds (ERP 20224.003 – Original Permit, ERP 20224.011 Modification)

The three existing permitted Dry Detention Ponds are currently not functioning properly. In order to drain the ponds, the accumulated runoff has to infiltrate either into the ground or into several underdrains that discharge into an outlet structure. The outlet structure contains two pumps that pump into an irrigation pond. Due to a combination of high water table, clogged underdrains, and inoperable pumps the “dry” ponds consistently contain several feet of water.

The proposed design solution is to convert the existing dry ponds to interconnected Conservation Wet

Ponds. The draw down period of 24-30 hours remains the same as the current dry pond design. A new drawdown orifice and outlet structure will be added to discharge to an existing manhole. The current overflow weir and outlet structure with a 12” discharge pipe will remain in place. The existing ponds will need to be dredged and excavated to a lower elevation to allow for the required permanent pool volume below the control elevation.

Converting the dry ponds to wet ponds will allow the Cemetery to be in compliance with the permit, and also help with nearby saturated burial sections. The characteristics of the 6.31-acre drainage area remain as permitted in ERP 20224.011. Refer to previous design narrative prepared by KCI Technologies for existing drainage area description and soil conditions.

B. Existing Roadway System

Standing water has been an ongoing problem at Bay Pines, this has been attributed to a lack of an established curb and gutter to control water runoff. The roadway near burial sections 51, 52, 53 and 61 have flooded during heavy rain events as well as an area near the administration building and the

Carillion Tower.

To alleviate standing water on the roadway and repair damaged portions, the roadway will be reconstructed with a normally crowned section allowing the stormwater to runoff into the adjacent grass areas.

The current drainage patterns in this area will remain unchanged.

C. New Cortege Lane Extension

The existing entrance to the cemetery is via a connecting roadway running north and south with entrances off Hoover road to the north and Cemetery Road to the South. The entrance road to the cemetery is located on the eastern side of the connecting road halfway between Hoover and

Cemetery roads. The Cemetery entrance road runs north of the administration building and terminates at the memorial monument traffic circle. Currently cortege operations stack vehicles on this entrance road segment in front of the administration building. Vehicle capacity is limited with larger services cars backing up on the connector road.

The proposed cortege lane extension will provide dedicated direct access to the entrance segment from Hoover road. This segment will provide stacking for 9- 12 vehicles in three lanes. Access will be controlled by Tubular steel swinging gates which will be closed when services are not scheduled.

The cortege lane extension will add approximately 3,300 sf of new impervious area. The current drainage patterns in this area will remain unchanged.

DESIGN

The existing and proposed Stage Storage and PAV Stage Calculations can be found in Exhibit 1. The proposed conversion of the dry ponds to wet ponds will lower the pond bottom to Elev. 3.00. The permanent pool will be between Elev. 3.00 and the Control Elevation of 4.80. The permanent pool is designed to meet the 1” Rainfall Event of 30,893 CF (ERP #20224.011) plus the 14-day residence volume of 20,397 CF = 51,290 CF. The combined permanent pool of Ponds 1, 2, and 3 will be 53,760 CF. The minimum pond area is 13,749 SF, the provided pond area is 34,278 SF. The water quantity detention volume provided is 44,494 CF.

SHWT: A geotechnical report was prepared by Wood. (Exhibit 2) for the pavement assessment. Borings

“B-1” and “B-2” are located between Ponds #1 and #2 and a groundwater elevation was measured to

Elev. 5.00 and Elev. 4.00, respectively. This falls within 2’ of the new control elevation of 4.80.

OUTLET STRUCTURE: A new outlet control structure is to be installed with a 2.5” orifice. This will allow the treatment volume to be drawn down between 24-30 hours. Due to elevation constraints, the existing outfall structure cannot draw down the pond any lower than Elev. 6.00 (unless the existing pumps are used). Instead the bleed down flow will be routed through the cemetery and discharge into an existing manhole.

The original design of the dry ponds has a similar drawdown timeframe. Because of the similar draw down period, the ponds will have similar storage capacity for the 25-year storm event. The existing outfall structure and overflow weir at Elev. 6.00 will remain in service and allow larger storm events to maintain their current discharge.

APPENDIX 1

CALCULATIONS

St. Petersburg, Florida

Exhibit 1 Require Pollution Abatement Volume (PAV)

Dry Detention ERP #20224.011

30,893 cubic feet= 1" Rainfall

Wet Pond Conservation Method ‐ 1/2" of Rainfall

15,447 Cubic Feet = 1/2" Rainfall

Step 2 a)

A = Project area = drainage area 6.31 acres

C = Composite Rational Runnoff coefficient 0.25 Table 1

P = Historic average wet season rainfall rate 0.25

R = Residence Time 14 Days

Vr 0.47 AF

Vr 20,397 CF b)

(Vmin)=A*.667"*1/12

A 6.31 acres

Vmin 0.35 AF

Vmin 15,278 CF

Vr >Vmin Therefore Vb=Vr

Wet detention system design pool volume

Q+Vr 51,290 CF

Step 3 Calculate the Minimum Pond Area (As)

1) Based on 10 in. maximum head on the orifice:

Vw=(A)(.5)(1/12)

Vw 0.26 AF

As 0.32 Acres

2) Based on design pool volume [(Q)+(Vb)= 51,290 at maxium depths

Permit # 20224.11 ‐ Columbarium

Drainage Improvements 2017

St. Petersburg, Florida

Exhibit 1

1.1775 AF=

(As)=1.1775 AF/5.9

As 0.20 Acres

H= 15.81 > 10 in

Therefore the correct minimum pond area is 0.32 Acres

13,749 SF

Stage Storage Volumes (Project 830 CM 3016)

Elevation Surface (sq‐ft) Storage (cu ft)

4.50 572 ‐

5.00 2,807 744

5.50 3,483 2,344

5.64 3,685 2,845

6.00 4,231 4,269

8.00 7,899 16,216

Elevation Surface (sq‐ft) Storage (cu ft)

4.50 5,835 2,769

5.00 6,455 5,841

5.50 7,219 9,257

5.64 7,441 10,283

6.00 8,026 13,067

8.00 11,632 32,623

Elevation Surface (sq‐ft) Storage (cu ft)

4.50 21,235 10,183

5.00 23,034 21,247

5.50 24,888 33,225

5.64 25,420 36,746

6.00 26,813 46,147

8.00 35,235 108,038

Existing Pond 1

Existing Pond 2

Existing Pond 3

Permit # 20224.11 ‐ Columbarium

Drainage Improvements 2017

St. Petersburg, Florida

Exhibit 1 Elevation Surface (sq‐ft) Storage (cu ft)

4.50 27,642 12,952

5.00 32,296 27,832

5.50 35,590 44,826

5.64 36,546 49,874

6.00 39,070 63,483

8.00 54,766 156,877

Proposed Treatment Volume

Overflow Outlet/Wier Elevation 6.00 ft

Control Elevation 4.80 ft

Bottom of Pond 3.00 ft

Permanent Pool Depth 21.6 inches

Treatment Depth 14.4 inches

Regrading of Ponds 1, 2, 3 to re‐establish side slopes, and new pond bottom

Elevation Surface (sq‐ft)

Cumlative Storage

(cu ft)

Cumlative

Storage above

4.80

3.00 2,024 ‐ ‐

4.00 2,940 2,407 ‐

4.80 3,796 5,155 ‐

5.00 4,026 5,692 536

5.64 4,810 8,397 3,242

6.00 5,274 10,143 4,988

8.00 8,088 23,035 17,880

Elevation Surface (sq‐ft)

Cumlative Storage

(cu ft)

Cumlative

Storage above

4.80

3.00 3,738 ‐ ‐

4.00 4,899 4,305 ‐

4.80 5,932 8,629 ‐

5.00 6,203 9,842 1,213

5.64 7,105 14,096 5,466

6.00 7,633 16,747 8,118

8.00 9,168 38,130 29,501

Permit # 20224.11 ‐ Columbarium

Drainage Improvements 2017

Propsed Pond 2

Existing Ponds 1, 2, 3 Combined

Proposed Pond 1

St. Petersburg, Florida

Exhibit 1

Elevation Surface (sq‐ft)

Cumlative Storage

(cu ft)

Cumlative

Storage above

4.80

3.00 19,993 ‐ ‐

4.00 23,758 21,183 ‐

4.80 24,550 39,975 ‐

5.00 25,083 44,937 4,961

5.64 26,818 61,536 21,560

6.00 27,812 71,364 31,389

8.00 33,577 132,654 92,678

Elevation Surface (sq‐ft)

Cumlative Storage

(cu ft)

Cumlative

Storage above

4.80

3.00 25,755 ‐ ‐

4.00 31,597 27,895 ‐

4.80 34,278 53,760 ‐

5.00 35,312 60,471 6,711

5.64 38,733 84,029 30,269

6.00 40,719 98,254 44,494

8.00 50,833 193,819 140,059

Proposed Water Quality Design Pool 53,760 CF

Water Quantity Detention Volume 44,494 CF

Sizing Orifice

Wet Detention

3.00 ft

4.80 ft

15,477 cu ft

6.00 ft

5.24

7738.50 cu ft

5.03

5.24 H1 0.44

5.03 H2 0.23

Treatment Volume Req

Weir Elevation

Elevation at Treatment Volume

Elevation at 1/2

1/2 Treatment Volume

Design for Detention Type

Seasonal High Ground Water Elevation

Orifice Invert

Proposed Ponds 1, 2, 3 Combined

Proposed Pond 3

Stage for PAV of 15,447

Stage for PAV of 7,738.50

No. of Orifice

St. Petersburg, Florida

Exhibit 1

0.44 ft

0.23 ft

H = 0.335 ft

15,447 cu ft

27 hours

3600 hours

Q= 0.079 cfs

32.17 ft/sec2

0.6

A= 0.029 ft2

D= 0.191 ft

D= 2.29 in

Trial #2

Adjust h1, h2, and the orifice diameter (D) to the flow line of the orifice

Flow Line Elevation 4.895

H1= 0.34

H2= 0.13

H = 0.24 ft

The average flow rate (Q) required to draw down the treatment volume between

24‐30 hours

TV=Treatment Volume…………………………………………………………………….

t=Recovery Time……...…………………………………………………………………….

CF=Conversion Factor……………………………………………………………………….

g=Gravitational Constant……………………………………………………………….

h1 = Depth of water between the top of the treatment volume and the flow line of the orifice……………………………………………………………….

C=Orifice Coefficient (assumed = 0.6)……………………………………………….

h2 = Depth of water between the stage when half of the treatment volume has been released and the flow line of the orifice………….

St. Petersburg, Florida

Exhibit 1 A= 0.034 ft2

D= 0.208 ft

D= 2.49 in

Adjusted Flow line Elev. 4.904 ft

Difference FLE 0.01 ft

This trial is acceptable because there is no difference between the FLE

The diameter may be rounded up for construction purposes. D = 2.5"

Therefore, with 1 pipe of 2.5", and Flow Line Elevation at 4.90 ft will meet the recovery time criteria.

St. Petersburg, Florida

Exhibit 1

Hydraulic Analysis Report

Project Data

Project Title: Bay Pines National Cemetery – Roadway and Drainage Improvements

Designer: William Hamblin, PE

Project Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Project Units: U.S. Customary Units

Notes: Drawdown from Ponds 1, 2, and 3

Channel Analysis: Channel Analysis

Notes: 6” HDPE

Input Parameters

Channel Type: Circular

Pipe Diameter: 0.5000 ft

Longitudinal Slope: 0.0020 ft/ft

Manning's n: 0.0120

Flow: 0.0800 cfs

Result Parameters

Depth: 0.1859 ft

Area of Flow: 0.0665 ft^2

Wetted Perimeter: 0.6557 ft

Hydraulic Radius: 0.1014 ft

Average Velocity: 1.2038 ft/s

Top Width: 0.4833 ft

Froude Number: 0.5721

Critical Depth: 0.1393 ft

Critical Velocity: 1.7904 ft/s

Critical Slope: 0.0060 ft/ft

Critical Top Width: 0.45 ft

Calculated Max Shear Stress: 0.0232 lb/ft^2

Calculated Avg Shear Stress: 0.0126 lb/ft^2

APPENDIX 2

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT – PREPARED BY OTHERS

EXISTING ROADWAY AT BAY PINES NATIONAL

CEMETERY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

Pro-posal

Wood Project #6166201481.02 Date: November 2020

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

1101 Channelside Drive, Ste 200

Tampa, Florida 33602

Tel (813) 289-0750

Fax (813) 289-5474 www.woodplc.com

EXISTING ROADWAY AT BAY PINES NATIONAL CEMETERY

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

Prepared for:

John Gallup & Associates, LLC

Marietta, GA

Prepared by

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

1101 Channelside Drive, Suite 200

Tampa, Florida 33602

Wood Project No. 6166201481.02

November 9th, 2020 http://www.woodplc.com/

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS

3.1 Pinellas County Survey

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

4.1 Asphalt Coring

4.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.0 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE

9.0 GENERAL SITE INSPECTION

10.0 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EVALUATION

11.0 LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO (LBR) ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 Existing Pavement Conditions

12.2 Full depth removal and replacement

12.3 Milling and Resurfacing

13.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1 Soil Suitability at the site

13.2 Clearing

13.3 Dewatering

13.4 Existing Soils Preparation

13.5 Engineering Fill Placement

13.6 Drainage

13.7 Construction Monitoring

14.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

15.0 REFERENCES

John Gallup & Associates, LLC Wood Project No. 6166201481.02

Existing Road at Bay Pines National Cemetery November 2020

Geotechnical Exploration Page ii

Page ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Summary of Asphalt Cores and SPT Borings at Bay Pines National Cemetary

Table 2 - Approximate Observed Grouwater Levels during Drilling Activities

Table 3 - Seasonal High Groundwater Conditions

Table 4 - Asphalt and Base Thickness at Bay Pines National Cemetary

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location map

Figure 2 – Hand Auger and Asphalt Core Location Map

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A - Lake County Soil Survey

Appendix B - Boring Logs

Appendix C - Laboratory Tests

Appendix D - Pavement Evaluation

Appendix E - LBR Estimates for Existing Pavement Evaluation

Geotechnical Exploration Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Bay Pines Cemetery is located in Bay Pines, Florida. It was built in 1933 and consist of approximately 30 acres. The asphalt pavement at the cemetery is approximately 1 mile long and is experiencing distresses. Portions of the pavement have been upgraded throughout the years, however, the date when most of the pavement was last repaired is unknown.

On behalf of John Gallup & Associates, LLC, Wood Environmental & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

(Wood) has completed the geotechnical exploration for evaluation of the existing pavement at

Bay Pines Cemetery.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

Wood performed a geotechnical subsurface exploration in the project area to assess the existing pavement and soil conditions. Based upon such findings, Wood also prepared geotechnical engineering analysis and recommendations for pavement remediation and/or replacement. A site location map is presented in Figure 1, and the asphalt core and boring location map are presented in Figure 2.

The following tasks were completed by Wood under this assessment:

• Performing nine (9) Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) below the asphalt layer, along the existing roadway. Our original proposal included performing hand augers and Dynamic Cone

Penetration (DCPs) tests to a depth of approximately 6 feet below the asphalt surface. We decided to replace the hand augers and DCP’s with SPT borings, as these can provided more precise soil engineering correlations, helpful during pavement evaluation and analysis.

• Classifying the soil types in accordance with the United Soil Classification System (USCS) designations (ASTM D2487) and in accordance with the Visual Manual Classification (ASTM

D2488).

• Assessing soil profiles for seasonal high-water table indicators.

• Extracting asphalt cores at selected locations, to verify asphalt thickness.

• Preparing a geotechnical report, which includes figures, boring logs, seasonal high-water table estimates, asphalt core thicknesses, evaluation of the existing pavement, and engineering recommendations for the proposed pavement remediation and/or replacement.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 2

3.0 PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS

3.1 Pinellas County Survey

Soils data from the Soil Survey of the site produced by the United States Department of

Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) were reviewed as part of the exploration. The soil unit identified within the project area is described below:

• Felda Soils and Urban land (map symbol 11), are poorly drained soils with drainageways on marine terraces. The soil unit consists of fine sands to a depth of 24 inches below ground surface, fine sandy loams between 24 and 36 inches below surface and loamy fine sands between 34 and 80 inches below surface. The water table is between the surface and 12 inches below surface. The available water storage capacity is low, and permeability is moderately high to high, ranging from 0.6 to 2.0 in/hr.

• Immokolee soils and Urban land (map symbol 13), are poorly drained soils with flatwoods on marine terraces. The soil unit consists of fine sands to a depth of 80 inches below ground surface. The water table is between 6 and 18 inches below surface. The available water storage capacity is low, and permeability is moderately high to high, ranging from 0.6 to 6 in/hr.

• Myakka soils and Urban land (map symbol 17), are poorly drained soils with flatwoods on marine terraces. The soil unit consists of fine sands to a depth of 80 inches below ground surface. The water table is between 6 and 18 inches below surface. The available water storage capacity is low, and permeability is moderately high to high, ranging from 0.6 to 6 in/hr.

The USDA-NRCS soil survey classifications are based on the interpretations of aerial photographs and widely spaced hand auger borings. Borders between mapping units are approximate, and the transition between soil types may be gradual. Areas of dissimilar soils can occur within a mapped unit. However, the soil survey provides a reasonable basis for an initial evaluation of surficial soil conditions in the area and can provide an indication of changes that may have occurred due to land filling, excavation, and other activities at the site. The soil survey information for the site is presented in Appendix A.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

4.1 Asphalt Coring

Nine (9), 4-inch diameter asphalt cores (designated AC-1 thru AC-9) were performed on October

6, 2020. The cores were completed to specify pavement and base information, identify pavement

Geotechnical Exploration Page 3 and base material thicknesses, and capture crack depths. This information was later used to aid evaluating the existing pavement conditions, and proposed improvements. Upon coring completion, Wood continued with SPTs in the same locations. Figure 2 shows the locations of the asphalt cores and SPT borings.

The asphalt cores/ SPT boring locations were selected by the Atriax Group, the Civil Engineer for this project. The asphalt core extractions were performed by J&R Drilling, Inc., of Tampa, Florida

(J&R Drilling).

4.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings

As previously described, nine (9) Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) borings were performed in selected locations along the road alignment performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586, and labeled B-1 thru B-9.

The field work was completed on October 6, 2020. The soils encountered in the borings were visually classified and logged in the field in accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Visual-Manual

Procedures). Representative portions of the samples were transported to Wood’s materials testing laboratory in Jacksonville, Florida for further classification and testing. The logs were then updated based on the results of the laboratory classification tests (see Section 4.0) using the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM D 2487.

The subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the soil boring logs in Appendix B.

These boring logs represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered in the field, the visual examination of field samples by our technical staff, and the results of our laboratory testing program. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata on the boring logs represent approximate interface locations.

Actual transitions between strata may be gradual. On completion, the SPT boring locations were surveyed to determine the as-built coordinates using a handheld Garmin GPS model 72H model with a reported accuracy from the manufacturer of +/- 10 feet. These locations should be considered as approximate. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth and should be considered approximate.

The SPT borings were performed by J&R Drilling. The drilling was completed using a truck mounted drill rig. SPT testing was conducted continuously to a depth of 6 feet below the asphalt layer. Soil samples were collected from the borings using a 1.5-inch inner diameter split-spoon sampler driven with an automatic 140-pound slide hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The soils from the recovered split spoon samples were visually logged in the field. At the end of drilling, each SPT boring was backfilled with the remaining auger cuttings and plugged with

Geotechnical Exploration Page 4 bentonite chips, then the pavement was patched with compacted asphalt cold-patch material.

Table 1 includes a list of the asphalt cores and SPT borings performed at the site.

TABLE 1 Summary of Asphalt Cores and SPT Borings at Bay Pines National Cemetery

Asphalt

Core

Referenced

SPT boring

Northing

(ft) (1)(2)

Easting

(ft) (1)(2)

Ground

Elevation (ft, NAVD88) (3)

SPT Boring

Termination

Depth (ft)(4)

AC-1 B-1 1263341.1 406128.2 +9.0 6.4

AC-2 B-2 1263374.4 406443.0 +8.0 6.4

AC-3 B-3 1263826.7 407068.8 +4.0 6.4

AC-4 B-4 1263972.7 406805.9 +5.0 6.2

AC-5 B-5 1264265.6 406424.3 +6.0 6.2

AC-6 B-6 1263895.3 406119.4 +9.0 6.1

AC-7 B-7 1263595.7 406455.7 +9.0 6.2

AC-8 B-8 1264297.6 406023.7 +8.0 6.5

AC-9 B-9 1264211.4 406036.4 +8.0 6.4

Notes:

(1) Northing and easting coordinates were measured using a Garmin GPS 72H model and rounded to the nearest tenth.

(2) Northing and easting coordinates are referenced to the US State Plane, Florida West Zone (902).

(3) Ground surface elevations are referenced to vertical datum NAVD88 and were obtained from Google Earth.

(4) Below asphalt surface.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Based on the findings of our subsurface investigation and laboratory testing, two generalized soil strata beneath the pavement sections have been identified. The strata are distinguished by engineering characteristics, typically grain size, cohesion, and organic content. The consistencies of the soils were defined based on the Automatic hammer SPT-N values (FDOT Soils and

Foundations manual, Chapter 6).

Stratum 1 is composed of pale brown limerock base material, varying in thickness between 3.25 and 7.50 inches, underneath the asphalt layer. Limerock base was observed in borings B-1, B-2, B-

3, B-4 and B-7, between 0.2 feet and 1 foot below top of the asphalt layer.

Stratum 2 consists of very loose to medium dense Sands (SP), with varying shades of brown and gray, as well as sands with silts (SP-SM), and silty sands (SM), with corresponding moisture contents between 9% and 34%, fines content between 4% and 20%, and organic contents ranging between 4% and 6%.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 5

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples collected during the subsurface exploration program were transported to Wood’s materials testing laboratory in Jacksonville, Florida. Selected samples were tested for natural moisture content (ASTM D2216), percent of material finer than the #200 sieve (ASTM D1140), and organic content (ASTM D2974). Soils were classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487.

Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C and are generally consistent with our field descriptions. A detailed discussion of the strata was presented in Section 5.

The laboratory test results were used to modify the field log classifications for presentation in the

Boring Logs in Appendix B.

7.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Depth to groundwater encountered in the SPT borings was recorded at the time of the field investigation. A summary of the groundwater levels observed during the field works is shown in

Table 2.

TABLE 2 Approximate Observed Groundwater Levels during Drilling Activities

Boring

ID(1)

Ground

Elevation (ft, NAVD88)

Groundwater depth (ft)(2)

Groundwater

Elevation

(ft, NAVD88)

B-1 +9.0 4.0 +5.0

B-2 +8.0 4.0 +4.0

B-3 +4.0 5.0 -1.0

B-4 +5.0 5.0 0.0

B-5 +6.0 5.0 +1.0

B-6 +9.0 5.0 +4.0

B-7 +9.0 5.0 +4.0

B-8 +8.0 5.0 +3.0

B-9 +8.0 5.0 +3.0

Notes:

(1) Refer to boring location map.

(2) Below asphalt surface.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 6

8.0 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE

The typical seasonal high groundwater table (SHGWT) is defined as the highest groundwater level sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season, for existing site conditions, in a year with average normal rainfall amounts.

Based on historical data, the wet season in Florida is typically between June and September of any given year.

In order to estimate the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations, many factors may be considered, such as the following:

• Measured groundwater table

• Drainage characteristics of existing soil types

• Season of the year (wet/dry season)

• Current & historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date)

• Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.)

• Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.)

• Vegetative indicators

• Review of available published literature including USDA Soil Survey, Potentiometric Maps, etc.

• Stratigraphy including the presence of hydraulically restrictive layers

• Redoximorphic features (i.e. soil mottling, color, etc.)

Based on the ground conditions encountered during the field investigations, our site observations, and information in the NRCS Soil Survey data, the estimated SHGWT at the site is presented in

Table 3.

TABLE 3 Seasonal High Groundwater Conditions

ID (1)

USDA-NRCS

Soil Type

USDA-NRCS

Estimated

SHGWT (ft)(2)

Encountered

Groundwater depth (ft)(2)

SHGWT

Indicator

(ft)(2)(3)

Estimated

SHGWT

depth range

(ft) (2)

B-1 Immokolee soils and

Urban land

1.5 ft - 2.5 ft 4.0 N/E 0.5 – 4.0

Geotechnical Exploration Page 7

ID (1)

USDA-NRCS

Soil Type

USDA-NRCS

Estimated

SHGWT (ft)(2)

Encountered

Groundwater depth (ft)(2)

SHGWT

Indicator

(ft)(2)(3)

Estimated

SHGWT

depth range

(ft) (2)

B-2 Immokolee soils and

Urban land

1.5 ft - 2.5 ft 4.0 N/E

B-3 Felda Soils and Urban land 1.0 ft - 2.0 ft 5.0 N/E

B-4 Myakka soils and Urban land

1.0 ft - 2.0 ft 5.0 N/E

B-5 Myakka soils and Urban land

0.7 ft - 1.7 ft 5.0 N/E

B-6 Myakka soils and Urban land

0.6 ft - 1.6 ft 5.0 N/E

B-7 Myakka soils and Urban land

1.0 ft - 2.0 ft 5.0 N/E

B-8 Myakka soils and Urban land

1.0 ft - 2.0 ft 5.0 N/E

B-9 Myakka soils and Urban land

0.4 ft - 1.9 ft 5.0 N/E

Notes:

(1) Refer to boring location map.

(2) Below asphalt surface.

(3) N/E = Not Encountered. No indicators were encountered during the investigations.

The recovered soil samples did not show signs of orangish mottling which is a typical indicator of

SHGWT. Based on the ground conditions encountered during the investigations, information in the NRCS Soil Survey data, the soil types and properties identified in the borings, Wood estimates that the typical SHGWT at this site will range between approximately 0.5 ft and 4.0 ft below the asphalt surface.

9.0 GENERAL SITE INSPECTION

During the field works, a Wood’s field representative inspected the pavement areas around the cemetery. Our visual observation noted portions of pavement in poor condition, several spots with pavement patches, and lack of drainage on both sides of the road. It is important to note, that drainage plays a very important factor in the long-term life of the pavement. An ineffective drainage system or lack of thereof, decreases the stiffness (strength) of both, the base and subgrade materials, due to water intrusion into the pavement, which leads to a substantially shorter pavement useful life.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 8

10.0 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EVALUATION

The Pavement Coring and Condition Data Sheet (PDCS) is presented in Appendix D. Flexible pavement evaluation for Bay Pines Cemetery was performed following the guidelines of Florida

Department of Transportation (FDOT) Materials Manual, Chapter 3 “Bituminous Materials”, section

3.2 “Flexible Pavement Coring and Evaluation” and the “2017 Flexible Pavement Condition Survey

Handbook”.

Appendix D shows the measured asphalt section length (thickness) of each layer and provides related pavement data for each core location. The Appendix also assigns an overall description

(good, fair, or poor), of the pavement condition, at each location. The asphalt core thicknesses ranged from 1.75 to 5.50 inches and the base thickness, where encountered, varied between 3.25 and 7.50 inches. Table 4 summarizes these findings.

TABLE 4 Asphalt and Base Thicknesses at Bay Pines National Cemetery

Core

No.

Reference

Boring

Asphalt core

Thickness

(in)

Base

Thickness

(in)

Pavement

Condition(2)

AC-1 B-1 4.50 7.50 Good

AC-2 B-2 4.50 7.50 Good

AC-3 B-3 5.00 7.00 Good

AC-4 B-4 2.50 3.50 Fair

AC-5 B-5 2.50 N/E(1) Poor

AC-6 B-6 1.75 N/E(1) Poor

AC-7 B-7 2.75 3.25 Poor

AC-8 B-8 5.50 N/E(1) Fair

AC-9 B-9 4.50 N/E(1) Good

(1) N/E: Not Encountered.

(2) Based on PDCS in Appendix D.

11.0 LIMEROCK BEARING RATIO (LBR) ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING PAVEMENT

EVALUATION

Appendix E summarizes the LBR estimates based on the N values from the SPT borings. The blow counts presented in Appendix B were obtained using auto hammer. Wood converted the N-values to safety hammer using the following correlation:

NS = 1.24 NAUTO (2020 FDOT Soils and Foundations Manual).

Geotechnical Exploration Page 9

Wood estimated the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values, from the corrected SPT-N values, using the following correlation, presented by Moshe Livneh (1987):

Log CBR = -5.13 + 6.55 (log NS) -0.26

CBR is in percentage (%) and NS is the number of blows per foot in 2 feet intervals (Refer to

Appendix B for the boring logs).

In order to estimate LBR values from CBR’s, Wood used the approach provided by the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) in its publication “Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation”, dated

September 30, 2009. The approach is:

LBR = CBR/0.8

For evaluation purposes, we assume the material below the subgrade (existing soils) is located at a depth of approximately 2 feet below the asphalt surface. At this depth the correlated LBR values for the “existing soils” ranged between 7% and 12%. Below this depth (about 4 and 6 feet below the asphalt surface, the LBR values vary between 3% and 9%. Boring B-8 was the only one that encountered LBR greater than 20% about 4 to 6 feet below the asphalt surface.

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 Existing Pavement Conditions

In general, most of the areas of the existing pavement have deteriorated. Other areas of the pavement section appear to have various overlays and patching. Aging has occurred over most of the asphalt concrete. In addition, the pavement in Borings B-5, B-6, B-8 and B-9 did not encounter limerock base material, a condition that reduces the pavement load distribution, and further decreases the overall drainage capability in the pavement. These factors contribute to pavement distress in the long term.

Based on our observations, we believe the main issue causing deterioration in the existing pavement is the lack of drainage.

During our site visit, it was apparent that water did not have a clear pathway along the existing roadway. Excessive moisture under the pavement in the long-term, usually leads to a loss of strength in the base and subgrade layers, and will eventually cause damages to the pavement, which are typically reflected in the asphalt surface course.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 10

The pavements at boring locations B-1, B-2, B-3, B-8 and B-9 did not encountered major distresses on the asphalt surface. However, boring locations B-4, B-5, B-6 and B-7 exhibited asphalt distresses including alligator cracks, or combinations of alligator and block cracks. Some unraveling was also noted in several areas of the pavements.

To summarize, we consider that the pavement at boring locations B-4, B-5, B-6, B-7 and B-8 present a “poor” to “fair” condition, suggesting that these areas will require priority during the improvement works. These are the areas with the highest traffic volumes (at the main loop). On the other hand, the pavement at boring locations B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-9 exhibited “good” conditions. We understand that these areas have less improvement priority compared to the first group.

By the same token, borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 were the only ones that encountered limerock base, with a good condition, so it can be concluded that these pavement areas can still perform properly.

The existing material underneath the pavement structure, is approximately 2 feet below the asphalt surface, and exhibits relatively low LBR values (between 7% and 12%). In order to improve the LBR in the existing soils, we recommend performing proper site preparation, before placing the subgrade and base layers. Section 13 provides pertinent construction recommendations.

12.2 Full depth removal and replacement

In the critical areas, Wood recommends removing the existing asphalt pavement and the existing base and placing new base and asphalt layers. Drainage needs to be considered for these improvements.

The following pavement section is recommended for the Bay Pines Cemetery:

• 2.5-inch structural asphalt.

• Limerock base shall have a thickness of 8 inches (minimum) and minimum LBR value of

100%, compacted to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM

D1557). Use of limerock as the base layer requires a separation of 18 inches from the seasonal high-water level. As an alternative, it is recommended that a different type of base such as a cemented coquina (LBR 100) or recycled concrete aggregate (LBR = 150%) be used.

• 12-inch stabilized subgrade. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, Wood recommends that the sandy subgrade to be compacted to a density of at least 98 percent

Geotechnical Exploration Page 11 of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557) to a depth of at least 12 inches below top of subgrade. Wood expects the subgrade to have relatively clean sandy soils to exhibit Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40% at the 98-percent compaction criteria.

12.3 Milling and Resurfacing

In the less critical areas (Boring locations B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-9), as a preventing measurement, Wood recommends performing milling and resurfacing. In this process, a milling machine is used to grind down the top course of existing pavement, typically to a depth of 1.5 inches. Then, a new layer of asphalt can be placed to the thickness that was removed. Drainage considerations are also needed for this option, to avoid further pavement deterioration.

13.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1 Soil Suitability at the site

In general, the limerock base material encountered at the site is suitable for reuse as roadway base material. At the same time, the existing soils may be reused as structural fill, when areas of unsuitable soils below the subgrade are detected. The following section provides construction recommendations for the proposed improvement works.

13.2 Clearing

The existing asphalt at the proposed improvement areas shall be removed and shipped back to the local asphalt producer for reusing purposes. The existing base, where encountered shall be removed and stockpile for reuse.

The proposed pavement improvement areas shall be cleared, grubbed, and stripped of all vegetation and topsoil. All unsuitable materials and organics should be removed from the cleared areas. Care should be exercised to minimize disturbance to any vegetation that is designated to remain.

13.3 Dewatering

Where applicable, it is recommended to dewater at least 2 feet below the top of the subgrade for proper placement and compaction.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 12

13.4 Existing Soils Preparation

Prior to placement of subgrade and the selected base material, the excavated surface should be scarified, and moisture conditioned to a depth of at least 12 inches and recompacted to at least

98% of its Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). As an alternative, proofrolling can be performed within the construction areas to be filled. The proofrolling efforts should extend at least 5 feet beyond the improvement limits.

Proofrolling should be performed by a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck and closely monitored by a geotechnical engineer to observe for unusual deflection of the soils beneath the wheel loads.

If unusual or excessive deflection is observed, the areas should be undercut to firm soils and backfilled with structural fill placed in a maximum of one-foot thick lifts. Backfill soils should be of the same composition and be compacted to the same criteria as fill soils, which will be subsequently described.

13.5 Engineering Fill Placement

If the existing sands are free of organics and debris, they may be reused as compacted fill. The compacted fill should be mechanically placed in a controlled manner and compacted to a minimum of 98% of its Modified Proctor maximum dry density. This compacted fill should be placed in loose lifts 6-inch-thick maximum.

If the existing sands are contaminated with organic soils it is recommended to remove and replace them with approved fill material from a borrow area. The fill material should consist of medium to fine-grained quartz sands with variable silty to clayey fines generated from site excavations or imported. Imported fill should have a minimum fines content (percent by dry weight of soil passing No. 200 Sieve) of 7% and a maximum 3-inch particle size. The compacted fill should be mechanically placed in a controlled manner and compacted to a minimum of 98% of its Modified

Proctor maximum dry density. This compacted fill should be placed in loose lifts 6-inch-thick maximum.

Specifications for the stabilized subgrade and base were provided in section 12.2.

13.6 Drainage

Wood recommends that an adequate drainage system is built along the sides of the improved roadway. Transverse and longitudinal drainage shall be installed in both, the new and existing sections of the pavement to protect it and ensure the pavement life-cycle is achieved.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 13

In addition, in both sides of the road, pavement shoulders should be built to allow surficial water to travel transversally to the direction of the traffic. The shoulders should also slope away from the traveled lanes. A minimum cross-slope from the crown shall be met.

At the roundabouts, the cross slopes should be built in one direction to ensure water will drain towards the lowest shoulder of the pavement section. Thereafter, a longitudinal drain will be required. A proper longitudinal slope will be required to allow proper water path.

Please be advised that the design of a drain system is beyond the scope of work of this report.

13.7 Construction Monitoring

The satisfactory, long-term performance of the construction is highly dependent upon the contractor’s adherence to the recommendations presented herein and to the project specifications. Wood strongly recommends that a qualified geotechnical technician, responsible to Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions and the Owner, monitor all aspects of construction.

14.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report assume that site conditions are not substantially different than those exposed by the explorations. If during construction, subsurface conditions are observed or appear to be different from those encountered in the explorations, Wood should be advised promptly so that those conditions can be reviewed, and recommendations reevaluated, where necessary.

The boring logs represent the subsurface conditions at the specific location at the time of the exploration. The subsurface conditions at other locations or at different times may differ, and no warranty as to the subsurface conditions elsewhere or at different times is expressed or implied by the data presented herein. Furthermore, the depths on the boring logs designating the interface between the various soils and rocks may only be approximate boundaries where the transition is gradual or could not be detected by the boring operations. In addition, the depth of the groundwater table, if encountered, is only indicative of the conditions at the time of the borings as groundwater level may fluctuate significantly because of various factors.

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the scope of the exploration and testing program. In addition, this report does not reflect the subsurface conditions below the tested depths.

Geotechnical Exploration Page 14

The evaluation of conditions that may be encountered in construction requires engineering judgment and interpretation. For this reason, we recommend that Wood remain involved with this project during the construction process, particularly during foundation construction and general earthwork operations. If we are not retained during construction, we cannot assume responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations, or for unfavorable foundation and pavement performance as a result of judgments rendered by others.

15.0 REFERENCES

FDOT 2020 Flexible Pavement Design Manual (FPDM).

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5320-6E, Airport Pavement

Design and Evaluation. September 9, 2009.

Livneh, M. (1987). “Validation of Correlation between a Number of Penetration Test and In situ

California Bearing Ratio Tests, “Transp. Res. Rec. 1219. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 56-67.

Pinellas County Public Works Roadway Pavement Guidelines, April 10, 2008.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Custom Soil Resource Report for Pinellas County, Florida, October 28, 2020; USDA Website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm

FIGURES

FIGURE 1

PR

O

JE

CT

N U

M

BE

R:

C

IT

Y:

T

AM

PA

F:

\P

RO

JE

CT

S- C3

D\

B ay

P in e\

\O ct _2

0\

_B ay P in e_

Si te

.d w g L

AY

O

U T:

F

IG

U

RE

SA

VE

D:

1/ 3/

:1

AM

P

LO

TS

TY

LE

TA

BL

E:

C

IV

IL

-M

AS

TE

R.

CT

B

P

LO

TT

ED

: 1 1/

3/

:1

DR

AW

N B

Y:

V

IV

ES

, M

AR

TI

N

SCALE:

DATE:DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY:

PROJECT NO.

DESIGNED BY:REVISIONSDATE

Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

1101 Channelside Drive, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33602

Phone: 1.813.289.0750 Fax: 1.813.289.5474 www.woodplc.com CA-5392

JOHN GALLUP & ASSOCIATES, LLC

SITE LOCATION MAP

EXISTING ROAD AT BAY PINES NATIONAL CEMETERY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

BAY PINES, FLORIDA

CLIENT

M.VIVES

A.CHORDIA

L.GARCIA

AS SHOWN

11/3/2020

6166201481.02

N

S

W E

SOURCE: 2020 MICROSOFT CORPORATION © 2020 HERE.

FLORIDA

PROJECT

LOCATION

Feet

0 1000 2000

SITE LOCATION

AC-1/SPT-1

AC-2/SPT-2

AC-3/SPT-3

AC-4/SPT-4

AC-5/SPT-5

AC-6/SPT-6

AC-7/SPT-7

AC-8/SPT-8

AC-9/SPT-9

FIGURE 2

N

S

W E

Feet

0 250 500

LEGEND:

SOURCE: 2020 MICROSOFT CORPORATION © 2020 MAXAR ©CNES (2020) DISTRIBUTION AIRBUS DS © 2020 HERE. BING

PR

O

JE

CT

N U

M

BE

R:

C

IT

Y:

T

AM

PA

F:

\P

RO

JE

CT

S- C3

D\

B ay

P in e\

\O ct _2

0\

_B ay P in e_

Si te

.d w g L

AY

O

U T:

F

IG

U

RE

SA

VE

D:

1/ 4/

:4

P

LO

TS

TY

LE

TA

BL

E:

C

IV

IL

-M

AS

TE

R.

CT

B

P

LO

TT

ED

: 1 1/

4/

:5

DR

AW

N B

Y:

V

IV

ES

, M

AR

TI

N

SCALE:

DATE:DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

APPROVED BY:

PROJECT NO.

DESIGNED BY:REVISIONSDATE

Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

1101 Channelside Drive, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33602

Phone: 1.813.289.0750 Fax: 1.813.289.5474 www.woodplc.com CA-5392

JOHN GALLUP & ASSOCIATES, LLC

ASPHALT CORE & SPT BORING LOCATIONS MAP

EXISTING ROAD AT BAY PINES NATIONAL CEMETERY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

BAY PINES, FLORIDA

CLIENT

M.VIVES

A.CHORDIA

L.GARCIA

AS SHOWN

11/4/2020

6166201481.02

ASPHALT CORE & SPT BORING LOCATIONS

APPENDIX A

United States Department of Agriculture

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Pinellas County, Florida

Natural Resources Conservation Service

November 1, 2020

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/ http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/ https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?cid=nrcs142p2_053951 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents Preface How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil Map

Soil Map Legend Map Unit Legend Map Unit Descriptions

Pinellas County, Florida 11—Felda soils and Urban land 13—Immokalee soils and Urban land 14—Kesson fine sand, very frequently flooded 17—Myakka soils and Urban land 99—Water

References

How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed.