Appendix_6_Anderson_Blvd_Repair_Geotech_Services_Report_(2)_S&S.pdf

6011 Benjamin Road, Suite 106 • Tampa, Florida 33634 813-993-0093 • www.TSFGeo.com

State of Florida Registration No. 28073

July 15th, 2025

Stantec 380 Park Place Blvd., Ste. 300 Clearwater, Florida 33759

Attn: Leslie Wooten, Project Manager

Re: Geotechnical Services Report Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811) Pinellas County, Florida TSFGeo Project No. 7511-25-124

Dear Leslie, Tierra South Florida, Inc. (TSFGeo) has completed the geotechnical study for the subject project. The geotechnical investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated February 21, 2025, and the sub-consultant agreement dated April 21, 2025. This report presents the results of our study and includes our evaluation of the soil and groundwater conditions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project consists of repairing Anderson Road on Mullett Key within Fort DeSoto State Park in Pinellas County, Florida. This report presents the data obtained, subsurface conditions encountered, and the geotechnical recommendations for on-site soil suitability. A separate report has been issued addressing the existing pavement section conditions, and recommendations for pavement rehabilitation.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The study was performed to obtain information on the existing subsurface conditions to assist in the roadway design and preparation of construction plans.

The following services were provided:

1) Performed three (3) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths of 15 feet.

2) Classified soil samples using the AASHTO Soil Classification System to establish soil properties.

3) Prepared this geotechnical engineering report summarizing the data obtained, subsurface conditions encountered, and the geotechnical recommendations for on-site soil suitability.

RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

The subsurface conditions along the roadways were explored by performing three (3) SPT borings to depths of 15 feet below existing grades. Prior to our field exploration, the boring locations were marked in the field by TSFGeo personnel using a hand-held GPS and utility clearance performed through Sunshine 811. The boring location plan is provided in the Appendix.

http://www.tsfgeo.com/

Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811) Pinellas County, Florida TSF Project No. 7511-25-124

-2-

The SPT borings were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig and mud rotary procedure. Samples of the in-place materials were recovered continuously using a standard split spoon driven with an automatic 140-pound hammer freely falling 30 inches (ASTM D 1586). Samples of the in-place soils were returned to our laboratory for visual classification. The samples were classified in general accordance with the AASHTO Soil Classification System.

The soil profile at each boring location is presented in the Appendix. The soil profiles should be reviewed for specific information at each location. These records include soil descriptions, stratifications, and penetration resistance. The stratifications shown on the boring log represent the conditions only at the actual boring location. Variations may occur and should be expected. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials, and the actual transition may be gradual. Water level information obtained during field operations is also shown on the boring log. The samples that were not altered by laboratory testing will be retained for 30 days from the date of this report and then will be discarded.

LABORATORY TESTING

Representative soil samples collected from the borings were classified and stratified in general accordance with the AASHTO Soil Classification System. Our classifications were based on visual inspection. Soil samples were selected for laboratory testing to verify visual classification. Laboratory test results are presented in the Appendix as Summary of Laboratory Tests and Grain Size Data Sheets. Tests were performed in general accordance with the test methods noted on the table below.

Soil Test Methods Test Type Test Method

Sieve Analysis ASTM C 136 (AASHTO T 27) Moisture Content ASTM D 2216 (AASHTO T 265)

USDA SOIL SURVEY CONDITIONS

USDA Soil Survey A review of the “Soil Survey of Pinellas County, Florida,” prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), indicates four (4) soil mapping units along the existing roadway. The table on the following page presents the mapping units and a copy of the USDA Soil Survey report is provided in the Appendix. The borings listed for each map unit are based on the soil and groundwater information obtained from the USDA Soil Survey report and conditions encountered during our investigation.

Boring No. Map Unit No. Map Unit Name Groundwater Depth

(inches) B-01, B-02 and B-03

16 Matlacha and St. Augustine soils and Urban land

18 – 36

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The soils encountered within the borings performed consisted of sands with varying amounts of shell.

Representative soil samples collected from the borings were classified and stratified in general accordance with the AASHTO Soil Classification System. The soil profiles are provided in the Appendix.

Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811) Pinellas County, Florida TSF Project No. 7511-25-124

-3-

The groundwater level was encountered within the depth range of 3.2 and 5.1 feet below existing grades. In this area near the Gulf, groundwater levels primarily vary with daily tidal changes, which typically range from

2.0 to 2.5 feet according to local tide charts, and seasonal groundwater fluctuations are not as significant. In addition to tidal influences, groundwater levels will vary in response to rainfall intensity, duration, and total volume. The Design High Water (DHW) elevation should be adjusted to ensure a smooth transition in the roadway and drainage profiles.

The piezometric surface is approximately +10 ft, NGVD29 (+9.1 ft, NAVD) based on FDEP’s ‘Upper Floridan Potentiometric Surface Map’ for the project area, whereas the ground surface elevation is approximately +5 feet, NAVD. This may cause artesian type conditions if underlying confining layers are excavated.

On-Site Soil Suitability The near surface soils consisted of select soils (A-3). This material can be used within the embankment and should be utilized according to FDOT Standard Plans Index 120-001. Although this material is considered suitable for use as stabilized subgrade, it is unlikely to meet the FDOT required LBR value of

40. Therefore, the existing sands will likely require stabilization to achieve the specified LBR.

Excavations Subsoils found at the site consist of sandy soils. These soils can typically be excavated with a hydraulically controlled backhoe. These layers are difficult to dewater due to their high porosity and permeability.

Although not encountered within the depths of the borings performed, unsuitable material or organic soils at the excavation bottoms should be removed and replaced with structural fill.

We expect unbraced cut slopes made in the granular soils at an inclination of 1.7 horizontal to 1 vertical will remain stable for short periods of time provided they are not subjected to seepage, surcharge loads (e.g., from stockpiled soil or equipment) and excessive vibration. Furthermore, open-cut excavations exceeding 4 feet in depth should be properly dewatered and sloped 2H:1V or flatter or be benched using a bracing plan approved by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Florida. Excavated materials should not be stockpiled at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth.

Dewatering will be required for in-the-dry construction over those sections of the site where the invert elevations of the pipelines fall below the water table. Should sections of the excavation encounter the groundwater table, we expect that groundwater control can be accomplished through open pumping in those areas where drawdown requirements are 1 foot or less. Open pumping dewatering can most positively be accomplished by over-excavating the trench by 6 to 12 inches and backfilling the over cut section with coarse gravel. Water that flows through the gravel should be directed to a sump, where it can be collected and pumped to a suitable discharge point. Precautions should be taken during open pumping to assure that fines are not withdrawn from the surrounding soils since this could result in undesirable settlement occurring. If the drawdown requirements are greater than 1 foot, we believe wellpoint dewatering may be required.

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P.” This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations, or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new OSHA guidelines. It

Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811) Pinellas County, Florida TSF Project No. 7511-25-124

-4-is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely adhered to, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain the stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. TSFGeo is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

Trench Backfill Prior to backfilling, where possible, the bottom of the excavation should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer to ensure that no loosely placed materials at the bottom. Where possible, the bottom of the excavation should be compacted/densified. If compaction requirement by the civil engineer differ from the one specified herein, the most stringent will apply.

The utility line should be installed over at least 4 inches of granular bedding material. If organic/soft material is encountered at the bottom of the excavation, we recommend that the unsuitable soils be over-excavated by 2 feet and backfill with well-graded gravel (ASTM D 2487). Limerock should not be utilized as backfill material below the water level. Once the utility pipeline is in place, an additional 12 inch of granular material should be placed and compacted to at least 98% of the material's maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D 1557). The remainder should be backfilled with suitable fill and compacted to at least 98% of modified proctor.

Structural fill used to raise the site to structure bottom levels should consist of clean sand and/or sand and gravel (ASTM D 2487), with a maximum of 12 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. The structural fill should be placed in thin lifts (12-inch-thick loose measure), near the optimum moisture content for compaction, and be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). The structural fill to be placed below the water level should consist of well-graded gravel (ASTM D 2487) or clean sand with a maximum of 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve.

Ground movements and vibrations induced by the excavation and compaction operations should be closely monitored to assess if there is a potential impact on the existing buildings and the nearby bridge.

REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by TSFGeo and project information furnished by Stantec. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, TSFGeo should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the recommendations are required. If TSFGeo is not retained to perform these functions, TSFGeo will not be responsible for the impact of those conditions of the project.

Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811) Pinellas County, Florida TSF Project No. 7511-25-124

-5-

The geotechnical engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made following generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Stantec for the referenced project. If you have any questions about this report, or as we may be of further service, please contact our office.

Respectfully submitted, TIERRA SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by:

Amy L. Guisinger, P.E. Dennis S. Mitchell, P.E.

Principal Engineer Geotechnical Engineer FL License No. 63989 FL License No. 98025 On the date adjacent to the seal.

Signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

APPENDIX: USDA Soil Survey, Boring Location Plan and Soil Profiles, Summary of Laboratory Test

Results, and Grain Size Data Sheets

APPENDIX

Boring Location Plan and Soil Profiles Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Grain Size Data Sheets

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

July 15, 2025

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 16—Matlacha and St. Augustine soils and Urban land 100—Waters of the Gulf of Mexico

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. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and

Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.

Soil Map

332170 332250 332330 332410 332490 332570 332650

332170 332250 332330 332410 332490 332570 332650

27° 38' 26'' N

2'

'' W 27° 38' 26'' N

1'

6' ' W

27° 38' 5'' N

2'

'' W

27° 38' 5'' N

1'

6' ' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900

Feet 0 45 90 180 270

Meters Map Scale: 1:3,220 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

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 soils 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: Pinellas County, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 21, Aug 23, 2024

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 20, 2020—Jan 28, 2020

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.

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

16 Matlacha and St. Augustine soils and Urban land

8.1 18.8%

100 Waters of the Gulf of Mexico 26.7 61.6%

Totals for Area of Interest 43.3 100.0%

Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Pinellas County, Florida

16—Matlacha and St. Augustine soils and Urban land

Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 134ch Elevation: 0 to 80 feet Mean annual precipitation: 48 to 56 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F Frost-free period: 335 to 365 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland

Map Unit Composition Matlacha and similar soils: 33 percent St. augustine and similar soils: 32 percent Urban land: 31 percent Minor components: 4 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Matlacha

Setting Landform: Ridges on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, rise Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy mine spoil or earthy fill

Typical profile C - 0 to 42 inches: sand A/Eb - 42 to 80 inches: fine sand

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.7 inches)

Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Forage suitability group: Forage suitability group not assigned (G154XB999FL) Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G154XB999FL)

Hydric soil rating: No

Description of St. Augustine

Setting Landform: Rises on marine terraces, ridges on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, rise Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy mine spoil or earthy fill

Typical profile A - 0 to 8 inches: sand C1 - 8 to 33 inches: loamy fine sand C2 - 33 to 48 inches: fine sand C3 - 48 to 63 inches: sandy loam C4 - 63 to 80 inches: sand

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (2.00 to 20.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 4.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.9 inches)

Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Forage suitability group: Forage suitability group not assigned (G154XB999FL) Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G154XB999FL)

Hydric soil rating: No

Description of Urban Land

Setting Landform: Marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: No parent material

Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Forage suitability group: Forage suitability group not assigned (G154XB999FL) Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G154XB999FL)

Hydric soil rating: Unranked

Minor Components

Wulfert Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Tidal marshes on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G154XB999FL)

Hydric soil rating: Yes

Kesson Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Tidal marshes on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talf Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G154XB999FL)

Hydric soil rating: Yes

100—Waters of the Gulf of Mexico

Map Unit Composition Waters of the gulf of mexico: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Waters Of The Gulf Of Mexico

Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Forage suitability group: Forage suitability group not assigned (G154XB999FL) Other vegetative classification: Forage suitability group not assigned

(G154XB999FL)

Hydric soil rating: Unranked

References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577

Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook

296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053624

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

Custom Soil Resource Report http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053624 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053624 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf

Boring Location Plan / Soil Profiles

1-- Approximate Location of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Boring

R/JWN BY: APPROVED BY: ENGINEER OF RECORDS

JO AG

AMY GUISINGER, P.E.

CHECKED BY: DATE: FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

OM 6/19/2025 63989

lJJ

::c JO lJJ

Bore # 8-01 Date 5/9/2025

Hamm er Au to Rig CM-550

Latitude 28.00947 55 Longitude -82.6778823

'51_

Light Brown SAND (A-3), few shell

Boring Terminat ed at D epth of 15ft

LEGEND

Bor e # 8-02 Date 5/9/2025

Hammer Au to Rig CM-550

Latitude 28.0094755 Lo ngitude -82.6778823

Light Brown SAND (A-3), few shell

'51_

Light Brown SAND (A-3), few shell, trace sil t

Boring Terminated at D epth of 15ft

NOTES

Bore# 8-03 Date 5/9/2025

Hamm er Au to Rig CM-550

Latitude 28.0094755 Lo ngitude -82.6778823

Light Brown SAND (A-3), few shell

Light Brown SAND (A-3), few shell, trace sil t

Boring Terminat ed at D epth of 15ft

SZ ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER TABLE

1. BORING LOCATIONS WERE MARKED IN THE FIELD

USING A HANDHELD GPSMap GARMIN 78s.

ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND THEIR COORDINATES ARE

APPROXIMATE.

Sand

TIERRA SOUTH FLORIDA

6011 BENJAMIN ROAD, SUITE 106

TAMPA, FL 33634

SCALE:

NTS

PROJECT NUMBER:

7511-25-124

2. DEPTH SHOWN ARE IN FEET FROM EXISTING

GROUND SURFACE

3. SPT N-VALUES SHOWN ABOVE WERE OB TAINED

USING AUTOMATIC HAMMERS. GENERALLY DESIGN

CORRELATIONS AND PROGRAMS USE SAFETY

HAMMERS N-VALUES. HENCE, THE ABOVE

N-VALUES NEED TO BE MULTIPLIED BY 1.24 TO

OB TAIN EQUIVALENT SAFETY HAMMER N-VALUES

FOR DESIGN PURPOSE.

BORING LOCATION PLAN/ SOIL PROFILES

MULLET KEY

ANDERSON ROAD REPAIRS

PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA

rr, -I

JO ::c rr, rr, SHEET NO.

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200 Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

B-01 0 - 2 SP 100 100 98 94 74 58 20 2 Light Brown Sand, few shell - - - 11.1

B-01 13.5 - 15 SP 100 100 98 94 86 72 22 2 Light Brown Sand, few shell - - - 21.8

B-02 4 - 6 SP 100 100 99 98 91 79 30 3 Light Brown Sand, few shell, trace silt - - - 24.0

B-03 8 - 10 SP 100 100 100 99 94 80 29 5 Light Brown Sand, few shell, trace silt - - - 22.2

Natural Moisture

Content (%)

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS

Geotechnical Services Report

Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs Pinellas County, Florida

TSFGeo Project No. 7111-25-124

Boring Number

Sample Depth (ft)

Unified Symbol

Sieve Analysis, Percentage Passing Written Description

Atterberg Limits

Grain Size Data Sheets

DATE: 7/15/2025

ASTM D 2487 Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes Coarse Sand < #4 and > #10

Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200

BORING # B-01 SAMPLE # 1 DEPTH (ft): 0 - 2

STRATUM: -

SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SP

MC% 11.1

OC%

-200% 2

ATTERBERG LIMIT ( - #40 Material )

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

PLASTIC INDEX

Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60) =1.2

Light Brown Sand, few shell

Cu = D60 / D10 = 2.7

GRAIN SIZE DATA SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION

Geotechnical Services Report Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811)

Pinellas County, Florida TSFGeo Project No. 7111-25-124

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.1110100

P

ER

C

EN

T P

A

SS

IN

G

SIEVE OPENING SIZE (mm)

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200

BORING # B-01 SAMPLE # 6 DEPTH (ft): 13.5 - 15

STRATUM: -

SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SP

MC% 21.8

OC%

-200% 2

ATTERBERG LIMIT ( - #40 Material )

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

PLASTIC INDEX

Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60) =1.2

Light Brown Sand, few shell

Cu = D60 / D10 = 2.2

PROJECT INFORMATION

Geotechnical Services Report Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811)

Pinellas County, Florida TSFGeo Project No. 7111-25-124

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.1110100

P

ER

C

EN

T P

A

SS

Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200

BORING # B-02 SAMPLE # 3 DEPTH (ft): 4 - 6

STRATUM: -

SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SP

MC% 24.0

OC%

-200% 3

ATTERBERG LIMIT ( - #40 Material )

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

PLASTIC INDEX

Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60) =1.4

Light Brown Sand, few shell, trace silt

Cu = D60 / D10 = 2.1

PROJECT INFORMATION

Geotechnical Services Report Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811)

Pinellas County, Florida TSFGeo Project No. 7111-25-124

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.1110100

P

ER

C

EN

T P

A

SS

Coarse Gravel < 3" and > 3/4" Medium Sand < #10 and > #40

Fine Gravel < 3/4" and > #4 Fine Sand < #40 and > #200

BORING # B-03 SAMPLE # 5 DEPTH (ft): 8 - 10

STRATUM: -

SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SP

MC% 22.2

OC%

-200% 5

ATTERBERG LIMIT ( - #40 Material )

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

PLASTIC INDEX

Cc = (D30)^2 / (D10 x D60) =1.4

Light Brown Sand, few shell, trace silt

Cu = D60 / D10 = 2.2

PROJECT INFORMATION

Geotechnical Services Report Mullet Key Anderson Road Repairs (PIN 238210811)

Pinellas County, Florida TSFGeo Project No. 7111-25-124

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.010.1110100

P

ER

C

EN

T P

A

SS

References

References