seminole tribe of florida - semtribe.com · sheet a-1 floor plan shows a removable grate at entry...

of 4

SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

Denise DeCarolis Carpenter Purchasing Department

Director

6300 STIRLING ROAD HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33024

PHONE (954) 966-6300 x11170 FAX (954) 967-3478

E-MAIL: [email protected]

WEBSITE: http://www.seminoletribe.com

Tribal Officers:

MARCELLUS W. OSCEOLA, JR.

Chairman

MITCHELL CYPRESS Vice-Chairman

LAVONNE ROSE

Secretary

PETER HAHN Treasurer

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FOR LAKELAND BATHROOM STRUCTURE FACILITIES RENOVATION

RFP 14-2018

Addendum No. 2, issued March 5, 2018

This Addendum No. 2 is hereby made a part of RFP 14-2018 and has been issued to provide a revised Schedule of Values as well as to provide answers to questions as well as additional information:

The following questions/inquiries are being addressed through this addendum:

1. Is the referenced soil report available? Yes, is available, geotechnical studies are attached.

2. Who will be responsible for layout of structure, surveying, as-builds and other surveyor related requirements? Surveying is by STOF and As-builds by GC.

3. Is a permit required and who pays for permit fees? Permits are paid for by STOF.

4. General Conditions note 23 requires GC to provide job site sign. Please confirm. Not Required

5. General Conditions note 24 requires 6 inspections at a cost of $550.00 each please confirm the GC pays for these inspections. Not required.

Lakeland Bathroom Structure Facilities Renovation Addendum 2, RFP 14-2018

Seminole Tribe of Florida CONFIDENTIAL of 4

6. Please provide specifications and confirm thickness of gravel for the retention area. Page C2 section B-B. See rev. sheet C-2, Thickness of gravel is 3” thick.

7. Sheet C2 “proposed drain field & reserve area” seems to be by General Contractor. Sheet C# calls for the proposed drain field (at same area) to be by STOF Public Works Department. Please clarify scope and responsibility. For the drain field and reserve area? Proposed drain field, pump and the 540 HDPE pump tank are by STOF. GC is to stub out plumbing, 5’ from Building.

8. Please provide the work limits for silt fence installation. See attached

9. Will a temporary fence or additional security be required at project site? If so what are the fence limits and layout. No temporary fence required.

10. What will be the extent of site restoration and or sod replacement? Item 31.500 provide 3,000 sf of Sod an allowance.

11. Is there irrigation at the site? If so what are the removal and or re-location requirements. No irrigation required.

12. Sheet A-1 Floor plan shows a removable grate at entry to each restroom. No other details provided. Please provide section, specifications and tie-in to plumbing and drainage if required. Removable great has been removed.

13. The interior 4” masonry partitions are free standing extending to 7’-0” AFF without support. Please confirm this is accurate. There is a conc. Tie-beam 4”x8” w/ 1#4 cont.

14. As per section 1-A/3 the 4” cmu will have shower heads and internal plumbing installed. Please confirm the selected valves and rough in will fit within 4” unsupported cmu partitions. Seal opening watertight w/NP-1 or similar

15. Sheet A-2 rear and front elevation calls for C.J. at stucco walls. Please provide a C.J. detail. See Attached.

16. Room finish schedule sheet A-4 calls for walls to receive W-1 finish which is stucco. Wall section(s) in sheet A-3 shows wet shower areas to be



tiled. Please width of tile area, tile specifications and substrate requirements to receive the wall tile. See Attached.

17. Please provide specification for “colored concrete” as specified for concrete floor. Provide integrally colored concrete “Gray”.

18. Please provide attic access requirements. As per FBC R807.

19. Note Sheet A-3 requires contractor to follow NOA including installation of Fire Shield. Please provide requirements and specifications for Fire Shield. Remove “Fire shield”

20. Sheet A-1 material finish legend are calling for colored concrete floors w/broom finish. What color are the floors to be? The finish should be smooth and the color is going to be Medium gray (Integrally cast-in-place)

21. Sheet A-1 is showing a removable grate at each restroom entrance. What are the intentions of this grate? Please provide the necessary information to price (make, model, finish) Please remove Removable grate has been removed from plans

22. Sheet P-2 is showing all water supplies to be over head. Will the tie-beam that is being placed on top of the masonry walls interfere with this? NO, Please provide a detail for the plumbing penetrations through the tie-beam to allow for plumbing to be ran into the CMU walls. Seal opening watertight with NP-1 or similar.

23. Sheet A-3 is showing plumbing fixtures for the showers to be in the 4” thick masonry walls this may propose a challenge due the limited room in the cavity of a 4” CMU. The 4” masonry walls are partial height and do not come up to the ceiling. The isometric is showing the plumbing coming from overhead. Please advise if this is correct? This will leave a 1’ section of exposed pluming pipes above the 4” masonry walls. Pipes should be running thru 4” masonry walls, the Plumbing isometric in sheet P-2 and Water Supply plan on sheet P-1 will be corrected.

24. The water piping entry detail on sheet P-2 as well as the water supply plan on sheet P-1 is showing surface mounted water supply drops to be surface mounted. Please verify We will remove water piping entry detail. Piping is not surface mounted.

25. The roof overhang detailed on 2-S2 is showing the top chord of the truss overhanging the concrete beam, however, details 1, 2, & 3 are showing a different overhang detail that includes a soffit. Which detail is correct?



Follow overhang type showed on sheet A-3 details 1, 2, 3. The ties and straps shall remain as per structural drawings.

26. Sheet C2 Section B-B is calling for 3’ of gravel. Please verify the depth of 3’ is correct. Thickness of gravel is 3 inches.

27. Exhibit A Schedule of values– Division 31 Earthwork is calling for removal of trees, this is not shown on the civil drawings. Please provide a drawing indicating the trees to be removed. See attached graphics.

28. Exhibit A Schedule of values – Note 2 Drawing List does not match the drawings provided. Please advise. Coordinate with STOF.

29. Is the plumbing supply to be tied into the existing water pump shown on the civil sheets? If not please indicate where the water supply is coming from and this will be tied-in. Plumbing supply to be tied to the existing water pump.

30. During our site visit it was said that all plumbing fixtures to be American Standard, however, the drawings are calling for Kohler. Please provide a list of American Standard fixtures if this is correct? Coordinate with STOF.

31. During our site visit there was mention of an alternate shingle roof. This is not shown on the plan set. Please advise? A new schedule of values may be required to allow us to input alternates, if required. Coordinate with STOF.

32. Addendum #1 is showing the drain field to be handled by STOF Public Works Department. Is the contractor to the excavation and fill of the drain field per note on C3 as well as handle the pump, tank and connections? Please provide the Gould’s pump model # required. Proposed drain field, pump and the 540 HDPE pump tank is by STOF. GC is to stub out plumbing, 5’ from Building.

33. Will a revised Schedule of Values be provided to accommodate changes? Coordinate with STOF.

34. Sheet A-0 General Requirement note 23 states to provide a project sign. Please provided the requirements for this sign. Not required.

35. Sheet E-1 indicated and overhead connection on the electrical riser. Please confirm that the utility company will connect to the riser? If the utility company is not responsible for this connection, please indicate where the feed connection is located. Coordinate with STOF.

ATTACHMENTS INCLUDE:

(1) Revised Schedule of Values (2) Geotechnical Report & (3) Graphics

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed Restroom Facility / Septic System Bryant Road Seminole Reservation – Site A Lakeland, Florida

Prepared for:

G. Batista & Associates

Prepared by:

MADRID ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

2030 State Road 60 East Bartow, FL 33830

863-533-9007

Project No. 13269 October 2017

Madrid Engineering Group, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................. 1

1.1 General ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Site Location and Description ....................................................................... 1

1.3 Soil Survey ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION............................................................................................ 2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING .............................. 3

3.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions .......................................................................... 3

3.2 Groundwater Conditions and Seasonal High Ground Water ........................ 3

3.3 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................ 4

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN .................................... 5

4.1 General Considerations ................................................................................ 5

4.2 Restroom Facility Shallow Foundation Analysis and Evaluation .................. 5

4.3 Site Preparation ............................................................................................ 6

4.3.1 Clearing and Stripping ......................................................................... 6

4.3.2 Proof-Rolling ....................................................................................... 6

4.3.3 Earthwork and Compaction ................................................................. 6

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE .......................................................................................... 7

6.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................... 7

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 NRCS/USDA Soils Map

Figure 3 Testing Location Map (Client Provided)

APPENDICES

Appendix A Soil Boring Log

Appendix B Laboratory Testing Reports

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 General

Madrid Engineering Group (Madrid) is pleased to submit this report summarizing

the results from our subsurface soil exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation

for the proposed CMU restroom facility at the Bryant Road Seminole Tribe of Florida

Reservation in Lakeland, Florida. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on

the results of our field exploration, laboratory tests, and appropriate engineering

analyses.

Based on information provided by the client (G. Batista & Associates), the project

includes the construction of a new CMU restroom facility (approximate 600 to 700

square feet based upon client defined limits) and associated septic system on a partially

developed portion of the reservation land. No loading conditions were provided but

loads are anticipated to be modest and typical for this type of structure.

The purpose of this investigation was to provide an evaluation of the existing

subsurface conditions at the boring location and to identify constraints or limitations (to

the extent possible) that the subsurface conditions may impose on the planned

construction; as well as perform permeability testing and an evaluation of the seasonal

high water table (SHWT) to aid in the septic system design. The scope of work included

review of existing geological data, a field exploration program, and providing general

recommendations for construction of the restroom facility foundation.

1.2 Site Location and Description

The subject site is located on the west side of Bryant Road and north of Old Polk

City Road in Lakeland, Florida as shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. Specifically,

the property is located in Section 33, Township 26 South, Range 24 East in Polk

County. The subject site is located on a relatively open, relatively flat, grass-covered

area behind (to the northwest of) an existing residential structure on the Seminole

Reserve land.

1.3 Soil Survey

The Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey reports

provide a general description of the typical shallow soil strata (about 6 feet) encountered

within each particular soil mapping unit and reports typical depth to seasonal high water

levels. The NRCS defines seasonal high water as “a zone of saturation at the highest

average depth during the wettest season that is at least six inches thick, persists for

more than a few weeks, and is within six feet of the soil surface.” The Soil Survey for

Polk County indicates shallow soils at the site are comprised of Pomona Fine Sand

(map unit 7).

Bryant Road Seminole Reservation Site A

G. Batista and Associates

MEG Project No. 13269

Page 2

According to the NRCS, this Pomona soil is poorly drained on broad areas on

flatwoods. Areas of this soil range from 5 to several hundred acres. Slopes are smooth

to concave and are 0 to 2 percent. Typically, this soil has a very dark gray fine sand

surface layer about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer to a depth of about 21 inches

is sand. It is light brownish gray in the upper part and light gray in the lower part. The

subsoil to a depth of about 26 inches is dark reddish brown loamy fine sand. Below that

is very pale brown and light gray fine sand to a depth of about 48 inches, light gray fine

sandy loam to a depth of about 60 inches, and light gray sandy clay loam to a depth of

about 73 inches. The underlying material is light gray loamy sand to a depth of at least

80 inches. This Pomona soil is reported to have a seasonal high water table within 12

inches of the surface for 1 to 4 months during most years. The available water capacity

is low. This soil is severely limited as a site for urban development because of wetness.

The absorption fields can be elevated by adding fill material. The high water table

interferes with proper functioning of septic tank absorption fields. To overcome the

problems caused by wetness on sites used for buildings or local roads and streets, a

drainage system can be installed to lower the high water table or fill material can be

added to increase the effective depth to the high water table.

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

Madrid explored subsurface conditions at the site on October 9, 2017 by drilling

one (1) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring to a depth of 25 feet below ground

surface (bgs), using track mounted drilling equipment. Madrid also completed a Test Pit

to a depth of 30 inches bgs to look for historical indicators of the Seasonal High Water

Table (SHWT). At the base of the test pit, 6-inch long vertical and horizontal Shelby

tubes (relatively undisturbed thin-walled samples) were collected for later permeability

testing in our soils laboratory. The general testing locations were client defined on a

provided map, and were located in the field by measuring from the nearby one-story

residential structure. The residential structure generally faces to the southeast.

Assuming the residential structure faces south, the SPT boring was located 65 feet

north and 20 feet west of the northeast corner of the structure, while the test pit was

located 105 feet north and 20 feet west of the northeast corner of the structure. The

approximate testing locations are shown on Figure 3, Testing Location Map (Client

Provided).

Disturbed samples from the SPT boring were obtained using a split-spoon

sampler in general accordance with ASTM Specification D 1586, using a 1.4-inch I.D.

split-spoon sampler driven with a 140-pound slide hammer falling a distance of 30




Page 3

inches. An engineering technician familiar with soil classification and field evaluations

logged the borings in the field and placed samples in sealed containers and returned

them to Madrid’s laboratory for further classification. Upon completion, the borehole

was backfilled in general accordance with industry standards.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions

In general, the SPT boring encountered interbedded layers of very loose to

medium dense sand (SP) and variably silty/clayey sand (SP-SM, SC) from the ground

surface to the boring termination depth of 25 feet bgs. The surficial water table was

encountered at a depth of 36 inches bgs during our field exploration.

The soil boring logs are presented in Appendix A. The general soil profiles

described above and as presented on the boring logs are based on our interpretation of

subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations only. Boundaries between

soil layers shown are approximate and for illustration purposes only. Variations in soil

conditions in both horizontal and vertical directions different from those presented are

likely to exist at the site.

3.2 Groundwater Conditions and Seasonal High Ground Water

The water table was encountered at a depth of 36 inches (3 feet) bgs during our

field exploration program. Indications of the SHWT were observed within the test pit

(completed in the area of the proposed septic system) at a depth of approximately 6 to 8

inches bgs; thus, we recommend a design seasonal high water table at a depth of 6

inches. This was based upon the location of discernible redox concentrations which

appeared relatively contemporary in nature; and was underlain by a relatively well-

defined region of lower chroma material. No confining layers were encountered within

the depth of exploration.

The Soil Survey for Hillsborough County, Florida describes the seasonal high

water table for the map unit to be within 12 inches of the surface for 1 to 4 months

during most years. The indicators for the SHWT observed during our field program

appear to be consistent with the soil survey mapped unit.




Page 4

3.3 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests for natural water content (ASTM D2216) and percent passing

the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140) were performed on selected samples from the SPT

boring to verify the visual and tactile soil classifications. Additionally, laboratory testing

for Constant Head Permeability (ASTM D2434) was completed on the horizontal and

vertical Shelby tube samples obtained at depths between 2.5 and 3 feet bgs within the

test pit; and laboratory tests for natural water content and percent passing the No. 200

sieve were performed on the Shelby tube samples after completion of the permeability

tests. Laboratory test reports are included in Appendix B.

� The laboratory tests indicate variable fines contents in sediments at depths

from 2 feet to 15 feet bgs in the SPT boring. Percent passing the No. 200

sieve for SPT samples tested ranges from 5.9 to 39.7 percent. Laboratory

testing completed on the Shelby tube samples indicated between 4.4 and 6.9

percent passing the No. 200 sieve.

� Soils permeability testing yielded a vertical permeability rate of 4.5 in/hr

(11.43 cm/hr) and a horizontal permeability rate of 2.8 in/hr (7.11 cm/hr).

These samples were collected within the test pit completed within the

proposed area for the septic system. The lower horizontal rate appears to be

associated with slightly higher fines content; typically we expect to see

horizontal permeability slightly higher than the vertical.

Discernible redox concentrations

(6 to 8 inches bgs)

Low chroma material




Page 5

4.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN

4.1 General Considerations

The SPT boring encountered very loose to medium dense sand (SP) and

variably silty / clayey sand (SP-SM, SC) from the ground surface to the boring

termination depth of 25 feet. Soil density within the surficial 10 feet bgs were generally

found to increase in density with depth. It is our determination that soil conditions at the

site are suitable for the support of the proposed restroom facility on shallow foundations.

However, construction of foundations should likely be performed in the dry season and

may require dewatering efforts, particularly if constructed during the wet season. If

need be, groundwater levels should be drawn down sufficiently low to permit subgrade

compaction (recommended a minimum of 24 inches below bottom of foundations).

Construction of the foundations should adhere to the structural engineer’s

recommendations and the plans and specifications. Although beyond the scope of this

evaluation, Madrid field personnel indicated that a potable water supply well may be

located within a distance of approximately 50 feet from the proposed location for the

septic system. We note that no measurements between the well and proposed septic

system area were completed by Madrid. However, typically, a distance of at least 100

linear feet is recommended between septic system / drainfield areas and water supply

wells. The designer may wish to re-evaluate the septic system positioning prior to

construction. It is noted that the shallow depth to seasonal water will likely require a

mounded septic system and/or pump station to function correctly.

Based on anticipated loading conditions, inadequate bearing capacity is not

anticipated to be an issue provided our recommendations presented herein are

implemented. The following discussion and recommendations are based on our

understanding of the proposed development, the data obtained from the site

exploration, experience with similar conditions, and generally accepted principles and

practices of geotechnical engineering.

4.2 Restroom Facility Shallow Foundation Analysis and Evaluation

Following site preparation activities, all thickened edge foundations should be a

minimum of 18 inches wide with a minimum depth of foundation of 12 inches below final

grade. Based on the existing soil conditions, and assuming the recommendations

provided are implemented including proof-rolling and compaction criteria presented

subsequently, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,700 pounds per foot is

appropriate for existing soil conditions at the SPT boring location. This bearing




Page 6

pressure should result in foundation settlement within tolerable limits (i.e., 1 inch or less

total and with less than ½-inch differential). This assumes no more than 1-foot of fill is

required for general site grading. A slightly higher allowable bearing pressure of 2,000

psf is applicable if the footing embedment is increased to 18 inches.

It should be noted that given the potential variability of subsurface conditions,

limited field and laboratory data, and limitations of the numerical model, settlement

predictions developed by Madrid are approximate. Actual settlements observed during

loading will depend on variations in subsurface conditions.

4.3 Site Preparation

4.3.1 Clearing and Stripping

All development areas should be cleared of any trees, scrub vegetation, existing

debris and organic topsoil stripped as necessary to remove roots and other deleterious

material to the satisfaction of Madrid. Topsoil is anticipated to be on the order of about

6 inches, but may be deeper at isolated locations, and should be discarded or may be

stockpiled for future reuse in landscape areas if desired. In addition, any abandoned

utilities should be removed as open conduits can lead to soil erosion and a loss of

support beneath foundations. Any remnant tree stumps that are encountered during

construction should be removed from within the restroom facility limits.

4.3.2 Proof-Rolling

After clearing and grubbing, the building pad area, including up to 5 feet

horizontally from the plan limits, should be methodically proof-rolled with compaction

equipment or with heavy construction equipment (i.e. large vibratory smooth roller)

capable of achieving the required compaction. Rolling should continue until a density of

at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density (ASTM D-1557) is

achieved over the subgrade areas. Any soft, rolling or otherwise suspect areas should

be investigated and any unsuitable soils and/or unstable soil conditions should be

removed and replaced with structural fill as described in Section 4.3.3.

4.3.3 Earthwork and Compaction

All subgrade soils within 24 inches below building footings should meet gradation

(no more than 12 percent fines or 4 percent organics) and compaction requirements.

This may require excavation and re-compaction. Based on the boring logs, the in-situ

sandy soils (SP, SP-SM) should meet the gradation requirements of no more than 12

percent fines but may require moisture conditioning and compaction to achieve

minimum density requirements. Subgrade soils should be inspected to verify that they




Page 7

meet the gradation and organic content requirements, compacted to at least 95 percent

of the modified Proctor maximum dry density, and tested to verify in-place density to a

depth of 12 inches.

Fill placement should be completed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness

and compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. If

compaction cannot be achieved at 12 inch lifts, thinner lifts may be required. Prior to

construction, bulk samples representative of anticipated subgrade and fill soils should

be collected and subjected to Modified Proctor testing as appropriate. Existing sandy

soils may require moisture conditioning to permit adequate compact

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

We recommend implementing a comprehensive quality assurance program to

verify that all foundation construction be conducted in accordance with the

recommendations herein and the appropriate plans and specifications. It is strongly

recommended that Madrid be retained to perform materials testing and inspection

services to observe that the subsurface conditions are as we have discussed herein and

that foundation construction is in accordance with our recommendations. Madrid cannot

accept responsibility for any conditions which deviate from those described in this report

if not engaged to provide construction observation and testing for this project.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for G. Batista & Associates for the proposed

restroom facility and associated septic system at the Bryant Road Seminole Tribe of

Florida Reservation Land. The recommendations presented herein are based on

Madrid’s interpretation and understanding of site conditions and other information

provided by the client. This report is intended for use by the designers of this project; it

is not a specification document and is not intended for use as a part of the

specifications. Varying degrees of non-uniformity of the horizontal and vertical soil

conditions are likely to exist between testing locations. Any variations in structure

location or anticipated loading and/or design conditions from those indicated in this

report should be brought to Madrid’s attention as such changes may affect Madrid’s

conclusions and recommendations. The study reported herein has been conducted in

accordance with the generally accepted standards, principles and practices in the

geotechnical engineering profession. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Madrid is not responsible for the independent conclusions, opinions, and/or

recommendations made by others based on the field investigation data presented in this

report. This study is based on a relatively shallow exploration and is not intended to be

an evaluation for sinkhole potential. This study does not include an evaluation of the




Page 8

environmental (ecological or hazardous/toxic material related) condition of the site or

subsurface.

[_

§̈¦4

§̈¦4

UV33

33

Moo

re

Old

Pol

k C

ity

Tom Costine

Wal

t Will

iam

s

Bry

ant

Cypress Trails

Tom

kow

Pinetop

Fox

Cen

tral

Appa lachian

Pin

econe

Har

tzog

Pin

e Tr

ee

Wilder

Farri

ngton

Country Trails

Foxtown

Abilene

Li

medale

Mal

t ais

EgretCost ine

Hagan

Scand

inavia

Sa nta Fe

Driggers

Ridgegreen

Haynes

Commerce

Church

Pine Glen

Overland

Haymarket

Coyote

Portage

Red River

Orangedale

K ins man

Viking

Odom

Dodge

Gib

s on

Oak

s

Odo

niel

Epicenter

Longhorn

Timber idge

Gra

d y M

ock

Sherwood Lakes

Woodsridge

Nature

Lake

land

Spe

ed

As hbury

Spruce

Mar

gate

Bob W

hite

B ig B end

Lady Bowers

Costine Meadows

Durham

Pineford

Big Ben

Pinebend

Epi

cent

er

Wilder

Epicenter

0 4,000

Feet

4



Sources: GIS Information (ESRI)

FIGURE 1Location MapSeminole Reservation Site ALakeland, Florida

Drawn By: BJN Checked By: JED

MEG Project Number

13269 Notes:

2030 State Road 60 EastBartow, Florida 33830863 533-9007 Fax: 863 533-8997EB-0006509

Lakeland,Polk County

[_7

7

6

7

7

9

33

17

6

6

33

9

6

6

32

59

1715

6

69

14

13

32

7

4

26

6

6

32

32

9

9

9

9

6

15

32

6

6

6

6

40

17

14

99

47

25

25

6

36

32

17

6

33

336

59

7

13

59

59

33

36

6

6

36

99

25

0 1,000

Feet

4



Sources: GIS Information (ESRI)

FIGURE 2NRCS/USDA Soils MapSeminole Reservation Site ALakeland, Florida

Drawn By: BJN Checked By: JED

MEG Project Number

13269 Notes:

2030 State Road 60 EastBartow, Florida 33830863 533-9007 Fax: 863 533-8997EB-0006509

LegendSoilsmusym, MUNAME

13, SAMSULA MUCK

14, SPARR SAND, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES

15, TAVARES FINE SAND, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES

17, SMYRNA AND MYAKKA FINE SANDS

25, PLACID AND MYAKKA FINE SANDS, DEPRESSIONAL

26, LOCHLOOSA FINE SAND

32, KALIGA MUCK

33, HOLOPAW FINE SAND, DEPRESSIONAL

36, BASINGER MUCKY FINE SAND, DEPRESSIONAL

4, CANDLER SAND, 5 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES

40, WAUCHULA FINE SAND

47, ZOLFO FINE SAND

59, ARENTS-URBAN LAND COMPLEX, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES

6, EATON MUCKY FINE SAND, DEPRESSIONAL

7, POMONA FINE SAND

9, LYNNE SAND

99, WATER

RonaldRudner

Arrow

RonaldRudner

Text Box

Proposed area for Bathroom Facility to perform "Soil test"

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

Existing one story house

ByronAndino

Line

ByronAndino

Polygonal Line

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

Proposed area for septic tank to perform percolation test

ByronAndino

Line

ByronAndino

Polygonal Line

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

Lakeland Restroom Facility GRAPHIC "A" PROPOSAL No. 1

ByronAndino

Rectangle

ByronAndino

Line

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

NORTH

MADRID ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 2030 State Road 60 East

Bartow, Florida 33830

(863)533-9007 FAX: (863)533-8997

Project Number: 13269 Date Tested:

Project Name: Seminole Reserve Site A Tested By:

Project Location: Lakeland, Florida

Client: G. Batista & Associates Page 1 of 1

SPT-1 2-4' 117 135.49 115.70 7.66 84.5% 18.3% 109.37 5.9%

SPT-1 13.5-15' 110 172.28 149.24 7.66 86.0% 16.3% 93.10 39.7%

10/12/2017

WG

ASTM C117-13 MOISTURE / PERCENT < No. 200 SIEVE

WC+SW

(g)

WC+SD

(g)

WC

(g)

Solids

Content

(%)

Moisture

Content

(%)

WC+SR

(g)

<#200

(%)Sample

Cont.

Name

Retained Sample of WeightS

SampleDry of WeightS

Sample Wetof WeightS

Container of WeightW

R

D

W

C

=

=

=

=

( )SS

100S

W(%) Content Moisture

100S

S(%) Content Solids

D

OH

W

D

2*

*

−

=

=

Your FULL SERVICE Geotechnical Partner!

MBE/DBE/SBE -- Geotech -- CEI -- Drilling -- Soils/Materials Testing Labs

www.madridengineering.com



863/533-9007 FAX: 863/533-8997

Project Number: 13269 Date Tested: 10/13/2017

Project Name: Seminole Reserve Site A Tested By: Doug P.

Project Location: Lakeland, FL

Client: G. Batista& Associates

Boring Number: TP-1 Vertical Sample Interval: 2.5' - 3'

Soil Description: Gray sand USCS Code: SP

< #200 sieve: 4.4 %

Post-Test Moisture (From -200): 19.1 %

1232.85 g Natural Moisture: 16.1 %

1264.98 g

1062.12 g

Diameter of Permeameter: 7.30 cm

Height of soil in Permeameter: 14.96 cm

Area of soil in Permeameter: 41.85 cm2

Post-Test Unit Weight of soil: 2.02 g/cm3 126.1 pcf (post-test)

122.9 pcf (in-situ)

Permeability determination 105.9 pcf (dry)

Length of soil in Permeameter, l : 14.96 cm

Cross sectional Area, A : 41.85 cm2

1 3.5 62.75 1800 25.7 3.56E-03 0.8893 0.23395722 8.33E-04

2 4 73.09 1800 25.7 3.63E-03 0.8893 0.26737968 9.70E-04

3 4.5 82.56 1800 26.1 3.64E-03 0.8694 0.30080214 1.10E-03

4 5 93.05 1800 26.1 3.70E-03 0.8694 0.3342246 1.24E-03

5

Average Permeability: 3.19E-03 cm/s 4.5 in/hr

Weight of soil dry:

ASTM D2434-68 CONSTANT HEAD PERMEABILITY

Unit weight determination

Weight of in-situ soil:

Weight of post-test soil:

Sample Density

Trial No.Head, h

(cm)

Flow,

Q out

(cm3)

Time, t

(s)

Temp, T

(°C)

Permeability

at T , k T

(cm/s)

Ratio of

Viscosity,η

η T :η 20°C

3.21E-03

Hydraulic

Gradient, i

Velocity, v

(cm/sec)

Permeability at 20°C,

k 20°C

(cm/s)

3.17E-03

3.23E-03

3.17E-03

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.E+00 2.E-04 4.E-04 6.E-04 8.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-03 1.E-03

Hy

dra

uli

c G

rad

ien

t, i

Velocity, v (cm/sec)

Verification of Laminar Flow Regime






863/533-9007 FAX: 863/533-8997

Project Number: 13269 Date Tested: 10/13/2017

Project Name: Seminole Reserve Site A Tested By: Doug P.

Project Location: Lakeland, FL

Client: G. Batista & Associates

Boring Number: TP-1 Horizontal Sample Interval: 2.5' - 2.5'

Soil Description: Very Dark Grayish Brown sand USCS Code: SP-SC

< #200 sieve: 6.9 %

Post-Test Moisture (From -200): 30.4 %

1141.57 g Natural Moisture: 24.2 %

1198.38 g

919.00 g

Diameter of Permeameter: 7.31 cm

Height of soil in Permeameter: 15.29 cm

Area of soil in Permeameter: 41.97 cm2

Post-Test Unit Weight of soil: 1.87 g/cm3 116.6 pcf (post-test)

111.1 pcf (in-situ)

Permeability determination 89.4 pcf (dry)

Length of soil in Permeameter, l : 15.29 cm

Cross sectional Area, A : 41.97 cm2

1 3.5 38.7 1800 25.7 2.24E-03 0.8893 0.22890778 5.12E-04

2 4 44.59 1800 25.7 2.26E-03 0.8893 0.26160889 5.90E-04

3 4.5 50.63 1800 26.1 2.28E-03 0.8694 0.29431001 6.70E-04

4 5 57.69 1800 26.1 2.34E-03 0.8694 0.32701112 7.64E-04

5

Average Permeability: 2.00E-03 cm/s 2.8 in/hr

Weight of soil dry:

ASTM D2434-68 CONSTANT HEAD PERMEABILITY

Unit weight determination

Weight of in-situ soil:

Weight of post-test soil:

Sample Density

Trial No.Head, h

(cm)

Flow,

Q out

(cm3)

Time, t

(s)

Temp, T

(°C)

Permeability

at T , k T

(cm/s)

Ratio of

Viscosity,η

η T :η 20°C

2.03E-03

Hydraulic

Gradient, i

Velocity, v

(cm/sec)

Permeability at 20°C,

k 20°C

(cm/s)

1.99E-03

2.01E-03

1.98E-03

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.E+00 1.E-04 2.E-04 3.E-04 4.E-04 5.E-04 6.E-04 7.E-04 8.E-04 9.E-04

Hy

dra

uli

c G

rad

ien

t, i

Velocity, v (cm/sec)

Verification of Laminar Flow Regime




RonaldRudner

Arrow

RonaldRudner

Text Box

Area of existing trees to be removed

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

Existing one story house

ByronAndino

Polygonal Line

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

Lakeland Restroom Facility

ByronAndino

Rectangle

ByronAndino

Line

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

NORTH

ByronAndino

Line

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

ByronAndino

Typewritten Text

SILT FENCE LAYOUT

N

SITE PLAN LEGEND

SHEET#

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G - C

ON

ST

RU

CT

IO

N

DA

VIE

, F

L 33314

96

10

B

RY

AN

T R

OA

D

LA

KE

LA

ND

, F

L 3

38

09

SIT

E P

LA

N

seminole tribe of florida - semtribe.com · sheet a-1 floor plan shows a removable grate at entry...

Documents