GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

SUWANNEE COUNTY FIRE STATION 2

11572 County Road 252

LIVE OAK, SUWANNEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

UES PROJECT NO. A26140.00037.000

UES REPORT NO. 26140.37.0.R1

PREPARED FOR:

Locklear & Associates, Inc.

210 SW 4th Avenue

Gainesville, FL 32601

PREPARED BY:

UES Professional Solutions, LLC 4475 SW 35th Terrace

Gainesville, Florida 32608

(352) 372-3392

February 25, 2025

February 25, 2025

Locklear & Associates, Inc.

210 SW 4th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601

Attention: Ms. Natalie Oliveira, E.I.

Project Engineer

Reference: Geotechnical Exploration Suwannee County Fire Station 2 11572 County Road 252 Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida UES Project No. A26140.00037.000

UES Report No. 26140.37.0.R1

Ms. Oliveira:

UES Professional Solutions, LLC (UES) has completed a geotechnical exploration at the above referenced site in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by you and was conducted as outlined in UES Proposal No. 261401.37.0.P1v2, dated January 26, 2026. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We have included our estimates of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations and geotechnical recommendations for site preparation procedures, foundation, pavement, and stormwater design parameters.

We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.

Respectfully Submitted, UES Professional Solutions, LLC

Certificate of Authorization No. 549

Keith L. Butts, P.E. Stephen R. Weaver, P.E.

Area Manager Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida P.E. No. 53986 Florida P.E. No. 37389

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by Keith L. Butts, PE on the date adjacent to the seal.

Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PURPOSE

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

5.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORINGS

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL

8.2 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL

9.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 STRUCTURAL AND GRADING INFORMATION

9.2 ANALYSIS

9.3 BEARING PRESSURE

9.4 FOUNDATION SIZE

9.5 BEARING DEPTH

9.6 BEARING MATERIAL

9.7 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES

9.8 FOOTING EVALUATIONS

9.9 FLOOR SLAB

10.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 PAVEMENT ASSUMPTIONS

10.2 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS

10.2.1 LAYER COMPONENTS

10.2.2 STABILIZED SUBGRADE

10.2.3 BASE COURSE

10.2.4 SURFACE COURSE

10.2.5 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER

10.2.6 LANDSCAPE AREAS

10.2.7 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC

11.0 SITE PREPARATION

12.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

12.2 SUITABILITY OF THE SITE SOILS FOR USE AS FILL MATERIALS

13.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

14.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A

Boring Location Plan ......................................................................................................................................... A-1 Boring Logs ........................................................................................................................... A-2 through A-8 Key to Boring Logs ................................................................................................................................................. A LBR Results……………. ................................................................................................................................................. A

APPENDIX B

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, Constraints and Restrictions, General Conditions .................................................................... B

Suwannee County Fire Station 2 UES Project No. A26140.00037.000 Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida UES Report No. 26140.37.0.R1

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

UES understands that the proposed project will include improvements to Fire Station 2 at 11572 County Road 252 in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida. At the time of our field exploration, the site was clear and grassed with several single-story structures. Based on a provided conceptual site plan drawing prepared by Locklear & Associates, Inc., undated, we understand the proposed development will include constructing one (1) single-story building with an approximate 8,000 square-foot footprint, paved parking and drive areas, and a stormwater management area. No other building information was available at the time of this report.

Our office was not provided with foundation plans or any other construction-related information other than that discussed herein. If our understandings and assumptions of project issues are incorrect our conclusions and recommendations will not be considered valid until we have had the opportunity to review all pertinent issues. Considering the limitations stated above and based on prior experience with structures of this type, we assumed the following structural loading conditions: ground floor slab loads not exceeding 200 psf, a maximum of 3 kips per linear feet (klf) on wall footings, and a maximum load of 50 kips on individual footings. We anticipate that building construction may require nominal structural fill placement operations (2 feet or less) for leveling of the proposed building footprint and building pad construction. We have assumed that the stormwater ponds will be shallow dry ponds with a depth of less than 5 feet below the existing grades.

If our foundation loading estimates and assumptions are incorrect, we should be advised so that we may review our engineering evaluations, conclusions and recommendations. The above constitutes all of the project information provided to our office at the time of this report preparation.

The recommendations presented within this report have been based upon the above provided information. Should any of the above information or assumptions made by UES be inconsistent with the planned development and construction, we request that you contact us immediately to allow us the opportunity to review the new information in conjunction with our report and revise or modify our engineering recommendations accordingly, as needed.

No site or project facilities/improvements, other than those described herein, should be designed using the soil information presented in this report. Moreover, UES will not be responsible for the performance of any site improvement so designed and constructed.

2.0 PURPOSE

The purposes of this exploration were:

• to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to potential problems that may impact the proposed development,

• to provide our estimates of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations and

• to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation, foundation, pavement, and stormwater design.

This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. We would be glad to provide you with a proposal for these services at your request.

Our exploration was not designed to specifically address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. This evaluation requires a more extensive range of field services than those performed in this study. We would be pleased to conduct an exploration to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you so desire.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject site is located at 11572 County Road 252 in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida. UES personnel visited the project site during the performance of the field portion of this geotechnical study. At the time of our field exploration, the site was clear and grassed with several single-story structures.

3.1 Soil Survey

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey describes one (1) soil type encountered within the project area. The soil type was Bonneau-Blanton- Padlock complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This complex is a combination of the different soils noted below.

Bonneau soil, 0 to 5 percent slopes is described as nearly level to gently sloping and well drained. The soil consists of fine sand in the upper 27 inches followed by fine sandy loam and sandy clay loam to a depth of 80 inches. The apparent high water level is between

3.5 and 5 feet below the ground surface.

Blanton soil, 0 to 5 percent slopes is described as nearly level to gently sloping and well drained. The soil consists of fine sand in the upper 41 inches followed by sandy loam and sandy clay loam to a depth of 80 inches. The apparent high water level is between 3.5 and 6 feet below the ground surface.

Padlock soil, 0 to 5 percent slopes is described as nearly level to gently sloping and moderately well drained. The soil consists of fine sand in the upper 5 inches, followed by sandy clay to a depth of 80 inches. The apparent high water level is between 1.5 and 3 feet below the ground surface.

4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The services conducted by UES during our geotechnical exploration were as follows:

• Drilled two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed building footprint to depths of 25 feet below existing land surface (bls).

• Drilled three (3) SPT borings within the proposed pavement areas to a depth of 5 feet bls.

• Drilled two (2) SPT borings within the stormwater pond area to a depth of 15 feet bls.

• Collected one (1) bulk subgrade sample for Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) testing.

• Secured samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory analysis and classification.

• Measured the existing site groundwater levels and provided an estimate of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations.

• Conducted laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their engineering properties.

• Assessed the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.

• Prepared a report that documents the results of our exploration and analysis with geotechnical engineering recommendations.

5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

5.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORINGS

The seven (7) SPT borings were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils).

The SPT drilling technique involved driving a standard split-barrel sampler into the soil by a 140-pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency. The soil samples recovered from the split-barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]).

The SPT soil borings were performed using a CME 45 trailer-mounted drilling rig using rotary drilling techniques to the termination depths. UES located the test borings in the field by using a handheld GPS receiver. No survey control was provided on-site, and our boring locations should be considered only as accurate as implied by the methods used.

The approximate boring locations for the previous and recent boreholes have been shown on the Boring Location Plan in Appendix A.

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples recovered from the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 “Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes” (Unified Soil Classification System). We selected representative soil samples from the borings for laboratory testing to aid in classifying the soils and to help to evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the site soils.

The results of these tests have been shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. A summary of the tests performed has been shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1 - LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES

Test Performed Number

Performed Reference

Grain Size Analysis (#200 wash only)

ASTM D 1140 “Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75 - µm) sieve”

Moisture Content 5 ASTM D 2216 “Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Mass”

Permeability 2 ASTM D 2434 “Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)”

Atterberg Limits 2 ASTM D 4318 “Standard Test method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils”

Limerock Bearing Ratio 1 FM 5-515 “Florida Method of Test for Lime Rock Bearing Ratio (LBR)”

7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater levels have been shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart has also been included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a geotechnical engineer. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring locations has been presented in Table 2. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs.

TABLE 2 - GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

Typical Depth (feet, bls)

Soil Description

Range of

SPT “N”

Values

(blows/ft) From To

Surface 2.5 to 6 Loose to medium dense, SAND, SAND with silt [SP, SP-SM] 3 to 11

2.5 to 6 25+ Loose to medium dense silty clayey SAND, clayey/very clayey SAND, silty SAND, and stiff sandy CLAY [SC, SM, CL]

3 to 32

*+ denotes maximum termination depth of the borings

8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL

The groundwater level was not encountered in the boreholes at the time of completion of drilling activities. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. Additionally, due to the shallow clayey soils there is the potential for a temporary perched groundwater condition to occur during and following heavy rain events.

8.2 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL

The typical wet season high groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season of the year, for existing site conditions, in a year with average normal rainfall amounts. Based on historical data, the rainy season in North Central Florida is between June to September and December to February of the year. In order to estimate the wet season water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined, including the following:

a. Measured groundwater level

b. Drainage characteristics of existing soil types

c. Season of the year (wet/dry season)

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

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

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

g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems

h. On-site types of vegetation

i. Area topography (ground surface elevations)

Based on this information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations will be 3 to 5 feet below the existing grades, and this may be the result of a temporary perched condition above the shallow clayey soil following heavy rain events. Please note, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following various intense storm events, may be somewhat higher than the estimated typical wet season high levels.

9.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations have been made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. The applicability of geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon project characteristics such as improvement locations, and grade alterations. UES must review the final site and grading plans to validate all recommendations rendered herein.

Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, which were not encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations.

9.1 STRUCTURAL AND GRADING INFORMATION

Foundation plans or other structural information were not provided at the time of this report but based on our experience with similar structures we assumed the following structural loading conditions: ground floor slab loads not exceeding 200 psf, a maximum of 3 kips per linear feet (klf) on wall footings, and a maximum load of 50 kips on individual footings. We anticipate that building construction may require nominal structural fill placement operations (2 feet or less) for leveling of the proposed building footprint and building pad construction.

Prior to finalizing any design, the structural/grading information outlined above should be confirmed by the Project Structural/Civil Engineer. This is crucial to our evaluation and estimates of settlements. If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, please inform UES immediately so that we may review and modify our recommendations as appropriate.

9.2 ANALYSIS

Recommendations for foundation design are dependent, among other factors, on the amount of total settlement and more importantly differential settlement between various structural elements that can be safely tolerated by a structure.

It should be noted that differential settlement underneath the proposed structure is a function of the uniformity or variability of the subsurface conditions within the zone of influence of the building footprint. The more uniform the subsurface conditions, the less the differential settlement. If the anticipated total and differential settlements estimated in Section 9.7 of this report exceed the tolerable limits as set forth by the Structural Engineer, we should be advised so that we may consider other foundation system alternatives.

We recommend that we be provided the opportunity to review the project plans and specifications to confirm that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. If the structural loadings or the building locations change significantly from those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our recommendations with respect to those changes. The discovery of any subsurface conditions during construction which deviate from those encountered in the borings should be reported to us immediately for observation, evaluation, and recommendations.

Based on the results of our exploration, we consider the subsurface conditions at the site adaptable for support of the proposed structure when constructed on a properly designed shallow foundation system with the understanding that some aesthetic cracking and other minor architectural type nuisance issues may occur during the useful life of the structure.

Provided the site preparation and earthwork construction recommendations outlined in Section 11.0 of this report are performed, the following parameters may be used for foundation design.

9.3 BEARING PRESSURE

Provided our suggested site preparation procedures are followed, we recommend designing shallow footing foundations for a maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable net bearing pressure is that pressure that may be transmitted to the soil in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The allowable bearing pressure should include dead load plus sustained live load. Per Section 1805.4.1 of the Florida Building Code (FBC), the foundations should be designed for the most unfavorable effects due to the combinations of loads specified in Section 1605.3 of the FBC.

9.4 FOUNDATION SIZE

The minimum widths recommended for any isolated column footings and continuous wall footings are 24 inches and 18 inches, respectively. Even though the maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the minimum size of the foundations to prevent “shear punch” deformations.

9.5 BEARING DEPTH

The exterior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 18 inches below the finished exterior grades and the interior foundations should bear at a depth of at least 12 inches below the finish floor elevation to provide confinement to the bearing level soils.

Stormwater should be diverted away from the building exteriors to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings.

9.6 BEARING MATERIAL

The bearing level soils should exhibit a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 (modified Proctor) to a depth of at least 2 feet below foundation level as described in this report. In addition to compaction, the bearing soils must exhibit stability and be free of "pumping" conditions.

9.7 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES

Post-construction settlement of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing soils to a depth of approximately twice the width of the footing; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundation; (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the Contractor, and (4) external factors, including but not limited to vibration from off-site sources and groundwater fluctuations beyond those normally anticipated for the naturally-occurring site and soil conditions which are present.

Our settlement estimates for the structure have been based upon adherence to our recommended site preparation procedures presented in this report. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post-construction settlement of the structure. Furthermore, should building loads change from those assumed by us, greater settlements may be expected.

Due to the sandy nature of the surficial soils following the compaction operations, we expect the majority of settlement to be elastic in nature and occur relatively quickly, on application of the loads, during and immediately following construction. Using the recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads, and the field and laboratory test data which we have correlated into the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate the total post-construction vertical settlement of the proposed structure to be on the order of 1 inch or less.

Differential settlement results from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Assuming our site preparation recommendations are followed, we anticipate post-construction differential settlement of less than ½ inch.

9.8 FOOTING EVALUATIONS

All footings excavations should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative prior to placement of concrete. It should be anticipated that undercutting of select areas may be required because of variations in the soil matrix, fill quality and/or contractor means and methods. If undercut, the unsuitable material may be replaced with No. 57 crushed stone, over-poured with concrete or placed back with structural fill.

9.9 FLOOR SLAB

The floor slab can be constructed as a slab-on-grade member using a modulus of subgrade reaction (K) of 125 pci provided the subgrade materials are compacted as outlined in Section 11.0. It is recommended the floor slab bearing soils be covered with an impervious membrane to reduce moisture entry and floor dampness. UES recommends the use of a vapor barrier which covers the bearing soils beneath ground supported floor slabs in accordance with Florida Building Code (FBC) requirements. The FBC recommends a minimum 6-mil thick polyvinyl chloride or polyethylene sheet membrane for this purpose. The performance of the vapor barrier is ultimately dependent upon its proper installation, including lapping and sealing plus repair of tears and punctures prior to placement of concrete.

10.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 PAVEMENT ASSUMPTIONS

We assume that a combination of flexible asphaltic and rigid concrete pavement sections will be used on this project. At the time of this report preparation, specific pavement design information was not provided to us. Our recommendations for both pavement types have been listed in the following sections.

10.2 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS

The test borings indicated that clayey soils were within 2.5 feet of the existing grades in some of the borings. A separation of 24 inches should be maintained between the bottom of the base course and top of the clayey soils, in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Standard Design 120 to prevent pumping of these soils under traffic which will cause premature deterioration of the pavement. Depending on final grades, the 24-inch separation between the bottom of the base course/concrete pavement and the top of the clayey soils could be achieved by raising the site grades, excavation and replacement of the clayey soils with an engineered fill, or a combination of both alternatives. Positive drainage around the pavement area should be established to prevent irrigation and stormwater from migrating into the pavement section. This may require the use of underdrains.

10.2.1 LAYER COMPONENTS

Based on the results of our soil borings, and our review of the FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual, our minimum recommended pavement component thicknesses have been presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3 - MINIMUM ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT COMPONENT THICKNESSES

Service Level

Layer Component

Surface Course (inches)

Base Course (inches)

Stabilized Subgrade (inches)

Light Duty (Automobile Traffic)

1½ 6 12

Heavy Duty (Truck Drives)

2 8 12

10.2.2 STABILIZED SUBGRADE

We recommend that the stabilized subgrade materials immediately beneath the base course exhibit a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 as specified by FDOT compacted to at least 98 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) value.

Based on the results of a LBR test performed on a sample collected from the upper 2 feet in the pavement area, the test result of 54 indicates that additional stabilization may not be required to achieve the recommended LBR of 40. Areas that do not meet the LBR requirements can be improved by blending on-site with imported stone. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the Contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions. Crushed limerock or crushed concrete base material could be used to stabilize the subgrade soils to meet the recommended LBR values stated previously.

Compaction testing of the stabilized subgrade should be performed to full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 5,000 square feet, or a minimum of 3 tests, whichever is greater.

10.2.3 BASE COURSE

We recommend the base course material for the pavement areas be limerock. The limerock should have a minimum LBR of 100 and should be mined from an FDOT-approved source. Place limerock in maximum 6-inch lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 98 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density.

Compaction testing of the base course should be performed to full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 5,000 square feet, or at least 3 tests, whichever is greater.

10.2.4 SURFACE COURSE

For the pavements, we recommend that the surfacing consist of FDOT SuperPave (SP) asphaltic concrete. The surface course should consist of FDOT SP-9.5 fine mix for light-duty areas and FDOT SP-12.5 and/or SP-9.5 fine mix for heavy duty areas. The asphalt concrete should be placed within the allowable lift thicknesses for fine Type SP mixes per the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 334-1.4 Thickness.

Please note that the asphaltic wearing surface for both heavy and light duty areas should have a “fine” gradation classification with a mix that is limited to a maximum of 20% reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP).

The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to an average field density of 93 percent of the laboratory maximum density determined from specific gravity (Gmm) methods, with an individual test tolerance of +2 percent and -1.2% of the design Gmm. Specific requirements for the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 334.

Note: If the Designer (or Contract Documents) limits compaction to the static mode only or lifts are placed one-inch thick, then the average field density should be 92 percent, with an individual test tolerance of + 3 percent, and -1.2% of the design Gmm.

After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one

(1) core per 10,000 square feet of placed pavement, or a minimum of two (2) cores per day’s production.

10.2.5 EFFECTS OF GROUNDWATER

One of the most critical influences on pavement performance in North Central Florida is the relationship between the pavement base course and the seasonal high groundwater level. Sufficient separation will need to be maintained between the bottom of base course and the anticipated seasonal high groundwater level. We recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the base course be separated by at least 18 inches for a limerock base course.

10.2.6 LANDSCAPE AREAS

Typical curbing has been extruded and placed on top the pavement surface. This type of curbing would not act as a horizontal cutoff for lateral migration of storm and irrigation water into the base material. Because of this, it has not been uncommon for base, subbase, and/or subgrade materials adjacent to curbing and/or irrigated landscape areas to become saturated, promoting subsequent localized pavement deterioration. Consequently, UES would recommend that all pavements abutting these areas be equipped with an underdrain system, that penetrates a minimum depth equal to the bottom of the stabilized subgrade, to intercept trapped shallow water, and discharge the water into a closed system or other acceptable discharge point.

Alternatively, curbing around any landscaped sections adjacent to the parking lots and driveways could be constructed with full-depth curb sections to reduce horizontal water migration. However, underdrains may still be required dependent upon the soil type and spatial relationships. UES should review final grading plans to evaluate the need and placement of pavement and landscape underdrains.

10.2.7 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC

Light duty roadways and incomplete pavement sections will not perform satisfactorily under construction traffic loadings. We recommend that construction traffic (construc-tion equipment, concrete trucks, sod trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, etc.) be re-routed away from these roadways or that the pavement section is designed for these loadings.

10.3 RIGID PAVEMENTS

Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that is strong, durable and handles heavy loads more effectively than asphalt pavement. We recommend preparing the proposed concrete pavement areas as recommend in Section 11.0 of this report with the following stipulations:

1. Prior to concrete placement, the subgrade soil should be densified as recommended in this report.

2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting corrected prior to placement of concrete.

3. The subgrade soil must be moistened prior to placement of concrete.

4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the thickened edges (curb or footing).

5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the seasonal high groundwater level by at least 18 Inches.

Based on the results of the soil borings, and a review of the FDOT Rigid Pavement Design Manual, we recommend using the minimum design shown in Table 4 for concrete pavements.

TABLE 4 - MINIMUM CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESSES

Location Minimum Pavement

Thickness Maximum Control

Joint Spacing Recommended Saw

Cut Depth

Light Duty 5 inches

12 feet x 12 feet 1¾ inches

Heavy Duty 7 inches

14 feet x 14 feet 2½ inches

We recommend using concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of at least 4000 pounds per square inch and containing fiber reinforcement. Layout of the Saw cut control joints should form square panels, and the depth of Saw cut joints should be ⅓ of the concrete slab thickness.

We recommend allowing UES to review and comment on the final concrete pavement design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of construction.

For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing of Non-Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products Association, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas", published by the Portland Cement Association.

Specimens to verify the compressive strength of the pavement concrete should be obtained at least every 50 cubic yards, or at least once for each day’s placement, whichever is greater.

11.0 SITE PREPARATION

We recommend normal, good practice site preparation procedures. These procedures include: stripping the project site of existing vegetation, topsoil, trees, and any other deleterious material, existing structures including foundations and any other appurtenances, compacting the subgrade and placing necessary fill or backfill to grade with engineered fill. A more detailed synopsis of this work is as follows:

1. Prior to construction, the location of any existing underground utility lines within the construction area should be established. Provisions should then be made to relocate interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It should be noted that if underground pipes are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve as conduits for subsurface erosion which may subsequently lead to excessive settlement of the overlying structure.

2. If required, perform remedial dewatering prior to beginning any earthwork operations. Dewatering operations should maintain the groundwater level a minimum of two feet below the bottom of any excavations. Dewatering systems should not be decommissioned until the excavation is backfilled two feet above the groundwater level at the time of construction. Further, the site should always be graded to prohibit ponding of stormwater runoff.

3. We recommend that any existing structures in close proximity (within 100 feet) to the proposed structure be monitored for cracks or signs of distress during adjacent new excavation and structure construction operations.

4. Strip the proposed construction limits of all grass, roots, topsoil, trees, existing structures including foundations and utilities, and other deleterious materials within 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structure area and 3 feet beyond pavement areas. Expect typical stripping at this site to depths of 4 to 6 inches. Deeper clearing and grubbing depths may be encountered where tree root systems exist and areas where deeper organic soils are encountered.

5. Following site clearing, grubbing, and rough grading, the project area should be proof-rolled using a large, fully loaded rubber-tired vehicle (dump truck) or similar equipment. Proof-rolling will help locate any surficial zones of especially loose or soft or unsuitable soils not encountered in the soil test borings and should help provide more uniformity in the sandy subsurface profile. Unusual or unanticipated conditions identified during this process must be immediately brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. Field density testing is not required during proof-rolling operations.

6. Weak subgrade soils identified during proof-rolling operations should be excavated and removed from the site and replaced with granular fill soils.

Granular soils used for this purpose should meet the material and placement specifications outlined below.

7. Proof-rolling operations should be followed by surface compaction operations.

Compaction operations should be implemented with a compactor of appropriate size. Surface compaction should be performed until an in-place soil density of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) is achieved to a depth of at least 2 feet.

8. Compaction operations should extend to the limits of the cleared/grubbed project areas. Typically, the soil should exhibit moisture contents within ± 2 percent of the modified Proctor optimum moisture content during compaction.

9. Should the bearing level soil experience pumping and soil strength loss during the compaction operations, compaction work should be immediately terminated and

(1) the disturbed soils removed and backfilled with dry structural fill soils which are then compacted, or (2) the excess pore pressures within the disturbed soils allowed to dissipate before recompacting.

10. Care should be exercised to avoid damaging any nearby structures while the compaction operation is underway. Prior to commencing compaction, occupants of adjacent structures should be notified, and the existing conditions of the structures be documented with photographs and survey (if deemed necessary).

Compaction should cease if deemed detrimental to adjacent structures. UES can provide vibration monitoring services to help document and evaluate the effects of the surface compaction operation on existing structures.

11. Test the subgrade for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per

2,500 square feet in building areas and 5,000 square feet in pavement areas, or a minimum of three test locations for building and three test locations for pavement, whichever is greater.

12. Place fill material, as required. Offsite fill material above the native clayey soils could contain less than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, as long as positive drainage is maintained, and water can’t become trapped within the fill mass.

Place backfill and fill in uniform 10- to 12-inch loose lifts and compact each lift to a minimum density of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density.

Verification testing should be performed prior to the next lift being placed.

13. Additionally, we recommend that you test every column footing, and one (1) test every 50 linear feet of continuous wall footings. Footings should be visually inspected and probed to verify stability.

12.0 PROPOSED STORMWATER POND

12.1 SUBSURFACE SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS

UES performs hydraulic conductivity tests, including the two most common, i.e., DRI and remolded laboratory permeability testing, using generally accepted practices of the local engineering community. These common tests are the quickest and most economical for stormwater pond design. However, the User of this information is cautioned that the potential variability of results and reproducibility associated with these types of tests can be significant. It is important to note that there are many factors influencing the permeability of a soil. These factors include, but are not limited to, soil grain size, soil particle arrangement and structure, dispersion of soil fines, density, and degree of saturation, soil heterogeneity, and soil anisotropy. Also, the permeability measured by such tests may not be representative of that of the total effective aquifer thickness. Factors of safety can compensate for part of the inherent test limitations, but the Designer must exercise judgment regarding final selection and applicability of provided soil design input parameters.

Should the modeling analysis indicate marginally acceptable compliance with Water Management District design criteria, it may be advisable to perform more extensive and representative in-situ permeability testing by collecting “undisturbed” horizontal and vertical soil samples and/or installing grouted piezometers or wells for slug testing. UES can perform these field tests if desired.

Additionally, the actual exfiltration rates from the pond may be influenced by pond geometry, natural soil variability, in-situ depositional characteristics and soil density, retention volume, and groundwater mounding effects. Also, it is important to note that the upper in-situ soil zone is usually altered during the excavation and grading operations by heavy, vibrating earthwork equipment. Due to these numerous factors cited above, published literature suggests that the permeability of a soil can only be estimated to within an order of magnitude. Therefore, appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design process.

The parameters associated with the field and laboratory tests for the borings within the pond location have been presented in Table 5: Stormwater Pond Soil Design Parameters.

Table 5 - Stormwater Pond Soil Design Parameters Boring (B-4 & B-5)

Approximate Test Depth, feet below existing grade 2 – 5

Estimated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity, feet per day* 12

Estimated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity, feet per day* 8

Base of Mobilized Aquifer or Restrictive/Confining layer, feet bls 6

Estimated Fillable Porosity, percentage* 25

Estimated Depth of Seasonal High Water Level, feet bls 5.5

* Representative of the sand and sand with silt material above the confining/restrictive layer

12.2 SUITABILITY OF THE SITE SOILS FOR USE AS FILL MATERIALS

The recovered soil samples were classified using visual and textural means, and limited laboratory testing. We offer the following guidelines for the use of on-site soil, such as those excavated from the proposed stormwater pond area, as fill material for the project.

Soil materials excavated and classified as fine sands to sand with silts and sand with clay (SP, SP-SM, SP-SC), with typically 12% fines or less (silt/clay fraction), may be considered suitable for use as utility trench backfill, as well as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, provided said materials are properly dried, placed, and compacted.

Soil materials excavated and classified as silty or clayey sand [SM, SC], with typically 12% to 25% fines, may also be considered suitable for use as building pad and pavement subgrade structural fill, after significant drying and some mixing with the fine sand material described above. Proper placement, proofrolling and compaction must also be performed.

Soil materials excavated and classified as clayey sand (greater than 25% fines), silt or clay (SC, ML, MH, CL, and CH) and any organic-laden soils (5% or greater organics by weight) should not be reused as fill beneath buildings or pavement sections. These materials could be used in green areas, if applicable and in non-structural applications where excessive ground subsidence will not create functional or aesthetic problems. It should be noted that silt and clay materials will retain water and if used may become saturated and soft for a significant period of time following a rain event.

Soil borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities.

Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.

13.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES

We recommend the Owner retain UES to provide inspection services during the site preparation procedures for confirmation of the adequacy of the earthwork operations.

Field tests and observations include verification of foundation and pavement subgrades by monitoring earthwork operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of compacted structural fill courses.

The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. The design is an on-going process throughout construction.

Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified to address site problems or construction changes, which may arise during construction, in a timely and cost-effective manner.

14.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Locklear & Associates, Inc., and other designated members of their Design/Construction Team associated with the proposed construction for the specific project discussed in this report. No other site or project facilities should be designed using the soil information contained in this report. As such, UES will not be responsible for the performance of any other site improvement designed using the data in this report.

This report should not be relied upon for final design recommendations or professional opinions by unauthorized third parties without the expressed written consent of Universal Engineering Sciences. Unauthorized third parties that rely upon the information contained herein without the expressed written consent of Universal Engineering Sciences, LLC assume all risk and liability for such reliance.

The recommendations submitted in this report have been based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations that may occur between the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report after performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations.

Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, UES does not recommend relying on our boring information for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities.

Therefore, UES will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.

All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for UES to attempt to locate any manmade buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore, no attempt was made by UES to locate or identify such concerns. UES cannot be responsible for any buried manmade objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested.

During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible problems. For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report, please review the document attached within Appendix B, "Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report", prepared by GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association.

A - 1

BORING LOCATION PLAN

NTS FIGURE NO:

DATE:

REPORT NO: 26140.37.0.R1

CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO:

DATE:

SCALE:

DRAWN BY: KD KB2/16/26

A

0.

7.

0- A

LIVE OAK, SUWANNEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

A26140.00037.000

2/16/26

SUWANNEE COUNTY FIRE STATION 2

11572 COUNTY ROAD 252

BORING NO: B-1

PROJECT SUWANNEE COUNTY FIRE STATION 2

PROJECT ADDRESS 11572 COUNTY ROAD 252

PROJECT CITY, COUNTY, STATE LIVE OAK, SUWANNEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CLIENT NAME LOCKLEAR AND ASSOCIATES PROJECT NO A26140.00037.000 REPORT NO. 26140.37.0.R1

LOCATION SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN DATE STARTED 02/05/2026 DATE COMPLETED 02/05/2026

SAMPLE METHOD ASTM D-1586 ELEV. N/A DRILLER/PM S. HILLIGOSS

WATER TABLE (FT.) N.E. DATE 02/05/2026 EST. S.H.G.W.T (FT.) 5' BORING DEPTH 25'

COMMENTS -

D

EP

TH

(F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

BLOW

COUNTS/6”

3-2-3

2-2-2

2-3-3

4-5-5

4-4-6

8-8-6

3-3-4

2-4-4

5-8-9

N -V

AL

U

E

W .T

SY

M

BO

L

MATERIALS DESCRIPTION

1.5

2.5

5.5

13.5

18.5

23.5

Brown SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Loose light brown SAND, with silt [SP-SM]

Loose light brown and tan SAND [SP]

Loose tan SAND [SP]

Medium dense brown silty clayey SAND [SM-SC]

Loose gray very clayey SAND [SC]

Loose gray and orange very clayey SAND [SC]

Medium dense orange and gray very clayey SAND

[SC]

Boring Terminated at 25'

-200