56-1887-A_Volusia_County_W_ISB_at_Tomoka_Farms_Road_Culvert_SS.pdf

ECS Florida, LLC Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Report

Volusia County W. ISB at Tomoka Farms Road

West International Speedway and Tomoka Farms Road Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida 32124

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A

July 6, 2026

2330 South Nova Road, Suite A., South Daytona, FL 32119 • T: 386-944-9588 • www.ecslimited.com

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

July 6, 2026 Michael Molkenbur, P.E.

Prime AE Group 13901 Sutton Park Drive South Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32224

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A

Reference: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report Volusia County W. ISB at Tomka Farms Road West International Speedway and Tomoka Farms Road Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida 32124

Dear Mr. Molkenbur:

ECS Florida, LLC (ECS) has completed the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analyses for the above-referenced project. Our services were performed in general accordance with our agreed to scope of work. This report presents our understanding of the geotechnical aspects of the project along with the results of the field exploration and laboratory testing conducted, and our design and construction recommendations.

It has been our pleasure to be of service to you during the design phase of this project. We would appreciate the opportunity to remain involved during the continuation of the design phase, and we would like to provide our services during construction phase operations as well to verify subsurface conditions assumed for this report. Should you have any questions concerning the information contained in this report, or if we can be of further assistance to you, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted, ECS FLORIDA, LLC

Giovanni Mafiol, E.I. David Spangler, P.E.

Geotechnical Project Manager Chief Engineer GMafiol@ecslimited.com FL PE No. 58770 DSpangler@ecslimited.com mailto:DSpangler@ecslimited.com DSpangler New Stamp

DSpangler Signature without seal

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Location/Current Site Use/Past Site Use

2.2 Soil Survey Mapping

2.3 Proposed Construction

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Subsurface Characterization

3.2 Groundwater Observations

3.3 Laboratory Testing

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Headwall/Culvert Design Recommendations

4.1.1 Headwall/Culvert Foundations

4.1.2 Culvert Walls

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Subgrade Preparation

5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing

5.1.2 Subgrade Densification

5.1.4 Site Temporary Dewatering

5.2 Earthwork Operations

5.2.1 Structural Backfill and Fill Soils

5.3 Foundation and Slab Observations

6.0 CLOSING

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Diagrams

• Site Location Diagram

• Boring Location Diagram

Appendix B – Field Operations

• Reference Notes

• Exploration Procedures

• Boring Logs

Appendix C – Laboratory Testing

• Laboratory Testing Summary

Volusia County W. ISB at Tomoka Farms Road July 6, 2026 ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 2

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The following summarizes the main findings of the exploration, particularly those that may have a cost impact on the planned development. Further, our principal foundation recommendations are summarized. Information gleaned from the Executive Summary should not be utilized in lieu of reading the entire geotechnical report.

• Based on the results of our exploration, we consider the subsurface conditions at the sites of the headwall and culvert adaptable for support of the proposed structures on shallow foundations using the design parameters included in Section 4.0. Provided the site preparation and earthwork construction recommendations outlined in Section 5.0 of this report are performed, the parameters presented in Section 4.1 of this report may be used for foundation design.

• Construction of the Headwall/Culvert should be performed in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Design Standards latest edition.

• Subsurface conditions at the boring locations generally consisted of Fine Sand, Fine Sand with Silt, Fine Sand with Clay and Clayey Fine Sand (SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC) from existing ground to the termination depths of the boring (30 feet).

• The predominant Fine Sand (SP), Fine Sand with Silt (SP-SM), Fine Sand with Clay (SP-SC) and Clayey Fine Sand (SC) with less than 20 percent fines as encountered at the boring locations can be used as structural fill.

• ECS should be provided the opportunity to review the foundation plans and earthwork specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented. ECS should also be retained to perform the construction material testing and observations required for this project, to verify that our recommendations have been satisfied.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 3

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical information for the design of the proposed culvert foundation. The recommendations developed for this report are based on project information supplied by Prime AE Group, including the following documents.

• Tomoka Farms and Bellevue Intersection Improvements – 90% Construction Plans – Structures, prepared by Prime AE Group, dated March 3, 2026

Our services were provided in general accordance with our Proposal No. 56:3031-GP dated June 1, 2026, and as authorized by Michael Molkenburg with Prime AE Group on June 1, 2026, which includes our Terms and Conditions of Service.

The report includes the following items.

• A brief review and description of our field and laboratory test procedures and the results of testing conducted.

• A review of surface topographical features and site conditions.

• A review of area and site geologic conditions.

• A review of subsurface soil stratigraphy with pertinent available physical properties.

• Final copies of our soil test boring logs.

• Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills, including an evaluation of on-site soils for use as compacted fills and delineation of potentially unsuitable soils and/or soils exhibiting excessive moisture at the time of sampling.

• Recommended nominal bearing resistance and anticipated settlements for the proposed foundation construction.

• Soil design parameters for the headwall/culvert design.

• Evaluation and recommendations relative to groundwater control.

• Recommendations for site preparation and construction of compacted fills, including an evaluation of on-site soils for use as compacted fills.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 4

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION/CURRENT SITE USE/PAST SITE USE

The subject site is located at the northwest corner of Tomoka Farms Road and Bellevue Avenue Ext in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. The subject property comprises approximately 0.23 acres. A Site Location Diagram is presented as Figure 2.1.1 below and reproduced within Appendix A of this report.

Figure 2.1.1. Site Location

At the time of field work, the site was comprised of a grassed field bisected by a canal. There were existing culverts both on the east and west of the field. The site slopes slightly downward from the north and south portions of the site (high-side) to the canal bisecting the site (low-side) with existing grades varying between EL. +19 feet-datum and EL. +25 feet-datum. Our estimated surface elevations at our borehole locations are based on review of topographic information obtained from USGS TopoView and should be considered approximate and not used for design.

Based on review of aerial photographs dating back to 1957, the site was already developed with the existing canal bisecting the property and the east and west culverts already constructed. The site has remained in that condition through current day except for the gradual growth of vegetation on the east side of the property.

2.2 SOIL SURVEY MAPPING

Based on the Web Soil Survey for Volusia County, Florida, as prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), the predominant soil types anticipated

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 5

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP within the site area boundaries are described in the following table. The site area is illustrated superimposed on the USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Map in the following figure.

Web Soil Survey Data

Soil Type Constituents Drainage Class Water Table

49 – Pomona fine sand 0 to 50” Sand

50 to 70” Fine Sandy Loam Poorly Drained About 6 to 18 inches

Soil mapping of the site vicinity included soil types and numbers are presented in figure below, obtained from the USDA Web Soil site.

Site Soil Survey, Volusia County, Florida

2.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The following information explains our understanding of the planned development including proposed culvert and related infrastructure based on the following plans provided.

• Roadway Plan (4) Sheet 20, prepared by Prime AE Group, dated March 5, 2026

• Concrete Box Culvert Structural Plans & Elevation Sheet BX-1, prepared by Prime AE Group, dated March 3, 2026

We understand the development will consist of constructing a box culvert at the intersection Tomoka Farms Road and West International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Florida.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 6

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Our exploration procedures are explained in greater detail in Appendix B including the insert entitled Subsurface Exploration Procedures. Our scope of work included drilling one (1) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) boring to depths of approximately 30 feet below existing grades. Our borings were located with a handheld GPS unit and their approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A.

The accuracy of the test locations is consistent with the precision typically achievable using handheld GPS equipment and should be considered approximate. The boring location shown on our Boring Location Diagram and the elevations provided on our Boring logs have not been ground surveyed and therefore are considered approximate. The boring locations and elevations are not certified as correct by ECS.

3.1 SUBSURFACE CHARACTERIZATION

The soils encountered during this exploration are generally consistent with the Regional Geology and the published Soil Survey and are described within the table below.

Approximate Depth (ft)

Stratum Description Ranges of

SPT(1) N60-values (bpf)

0 – 4 I SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) -

4 - 30 II

Very Loose to Dense

SAND WITH CLAY (SP-SC) and CLAYEY SAND (SC) 2 to 41

Notes:

(1) Standard Penetration Testing using a Manual Hammer System.

A graphical presentation of the subsurface conditions is shown on the Subsurface Cross Section Diagram included in Appendix A.

3.2 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Water levels were measured at the time of field exploration on June 5, 2026. Groundwater depths measured at the time of drilling were found to be 7 feet below the ground surface.

Variations in long-term water table may occur because of changes in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, construction activities, and other factors. Based upon interpretation of the of the subsurface data, it appears that the seasonal high groundwater level is at a depth of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater found at these depths is believed to be the water table aquifer. We recommend the contractor verify groundwater conditions prior to construction.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 7

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

The laboratory testing consisted of selected tests performed on samples obtained during our field exploration operations. Classification and index property tests were performed on representative soil samples. The index testing program included natural moisture content tests (ASTM D 2216) and percent passing the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D 6913).

During the field exploration, ECS collected representative soils samples for environmental classification testing including pH, resistivity, chloride (Cl) and sulfate (SO4) content to determine the subsurface environmental classification in accordance with FDOT Structural Design Guidelines, dated January 2024, Criteria for Subsurface Environmental Classifications, and concrete exposure class in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-19. The laboratory test reports are attached to this addendum. The laboratory test results indicate the following for the site soils tested:

The near surface site soils obtained at Boring C-01 location is classified as slightly aggressive for steel and slightly aggressive for concrete based on FDOT Criteria for Substructure Environmental Classifications.

Each sample was visually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures) and including USCS classification symbols, and ASTM D2487 Standard Practice for Classification for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)). After classification, the samples were grouped in the major zones noted on the boring logs in Appendix B. The group symbols for each soil type are indicated in parentheses along with the soil descriptions. The stratification lines between strata on the logs are approximate; in situ, the transitions may be gradual.

4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 HEADWALL/CULVERT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the borings, we consider the subsurface condition adaptable for support of the proposed headwall/culvert on shallow foundations. The following design recommendations presents estimated soil parameters which can be used for design of the structure’s foundations. For design purposes, we recommend that the groundwater table be assumed to be at the ground surface. The parameters shown in the table below are based on empirical correlations between the results of the SPT boring (N-values) and various soil properties. In each case, N-values were averaged over the zone of interest. Included in the table are typical soil unit weight, angle of internal friction and cohesion. In addition, we recommend a value of 0.4 be used for the concrete/soil interface coefficient of friction, and an at-rest earth pressure coefficient of 0.5.

4.1.1 Headwall/Culvert Foundations

Provided subgrades and structural fills are prepared in accordance with Sections 125 and 455 of the current edition of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and including the complete over-excavation of any muck below the structure, the proposed structure can be supported by shallow foundations including continuous footings, and or the culvert base. We recommend the foundation design use the following parameters.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 8

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

Culvert/Wall Foundation Design Parameters

Design Parameter Culvert/Wall Footing

Minimum Width 24 inches

Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (below slab or finished grade)

24 inches

Estimated Maximum Total Settlement1 1 inch

Estimated Maximum Differential Settlement2 Less than ½ inches over 50 feet

Nominal Soil Bearing Resistance Culvert3 4,500 psf

Nominal Soil Bearing Resistance Wingwalls3 6,000 psf

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction 200 pci (lbs/cu. inch)

Acceptable Bearing Soil Material Medium Dense Fine Sand (SP) – Stratum I or Structural

Fill

(1)

1. Based on our experience with similar structures and presumed loading.

2. Based on variability in borings. Differential settlement can be re-evaluated once the foundation plans are more complete.

3. The Nominal Soil Bearing Resistance is an ultimate bearing pressure and an applicable reduction factor of 3 should be applied.

It is noted that muck was not encountered at our boring locations but may be present within the canal alignment. Where encountered within the culvert area, muck or other unsuitable soils (soft, unstable or compressible fine-grained soils) should be completely over-excavated below the structure and within a horizontal distance of 5 feet beyond the proposed structure. Any over-excavated materials should be backfilled with suitable engineered fill or No. 57 stone up to the original design bottom of footing/culvert elevation.

The culvert and wing walls should be constructed in accordance with Sections 125 and 455 of the current edition of the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, and the notes shown on the culvert data sheets in the project plans.

4.1.2 Culvert Walls

The culvert walls should be designed to withstand the lateral earth pressures exerted by the soil backfill within the Critical Zone. The Critical Zone is defined as the area between the back of the retaining wall structure and an imaginary line projected upward and rearward from the bottom back edge of the wall footing at a 45-degree angle. The pressure diagram is triangular. For walls that are restrained from movement at their tops, the "At-rest" (ko) soil condition should be used in the wall design and evaluation.

In the design of these culvert wall structures, the following soil parameters can be utilized. These parameters assume that Granular Soils meeting the requirements recommended herein for Wall Backfill will comprise the backfill in the Critical Zone.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 9

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

Culvert Wall Backfill in the Critical Zone

Soil Parameter Estimated Value

Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko) 0.5

Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure (Ka) 0.33

Retained Soil Moist Unit Weight (γ) 110 pcf

Cohesion (C) 0 psf

Angle of Internal Friction (φ) 30°

Friction Coefficient [Concrete on Soil] (μ) 0.40

Unfactored At-rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure (Drained Condition) 55H (psf)1

Unfactored Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure (Drained Condition) 37H (psf)1

Unfactored At-rest Equivalent Fluid Pressure (Un-Drained Condition) 90H (psf)1

Unfactored Active Equivalent Fluid Pressure (Un-Drained Condition) 80H (psf)1

1. “H” is height of retained soil.

The culvert should be designed to preclude water from passing under or around the culvert structure.

Additionally, the culvert walls should be drained so that hydrostatic pressures do not build up behind the walls above the water level. We anticipate that utilizing SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soils with a maximum of 10% fines should allow for the free draining of the material behind the wall. However, other drainage features may be installed behind the walls to provide a pathway for groundwater to pass from behind the walls.

5.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION

5.1.1 Stripping and Grubbing

Prior to construction, the location of existing underground utilities within the construction area should be established. Provisions should then be made to relocate interfering utilities to appropriate locations.

Underground pipes that are not properly removed or plugged may serve as conduits for subsurface erosion, which may subsequently lead to excessive settlement of overlying structures.

Proposed Culvert: Subgrade preparation should include stripping all vegetation, rootmat, topsoil, existing fill, and any soft or unsuitable materials within a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed building and other structures.

All encountered topsoil and unsuitable materials must be removed prior to placement of Engineered Fill or the construction of structures and pavements. Additionally, any existing underground utilities, structures, or tanks not incorporated into the new construction should be completely removed. ECS should be retained to verify that topsoil and unsuitable surface materials have been properly removed before Engineered Fill placement or construction begins.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 10

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

5.1.2 Subgrade Densification

Subgrade Compaction: After completing the clearing and stripping operations and installing the temporary groundwater control measures, the exposed surface should be compacted with a heavy vibratory drum roller having a minimum static, at-drum weight, on the order of 10 tons. Typically, the material should exhibit moisture contents within ±2 percentage points of the modified Proctor optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557) during the compaction operations. Compaction should continue until densities of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) have been achieved within the upper 2 feet of the compacted natural soils at the site. With the soils properly moisture conditioned, our experience indicates that at least eight overlapping passes in each direction of the vibratory roller should achieve the desired densification of the surficial very loose fine sands to depths of 4 feet or more. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) soundings, performed by hand, should also be carried out subsequent to the surface soil heavy compaction operations in the area of the buildings, to confirm densification of the very to loose soils within the upper 4 feet of the proposed foundation bottoms.

Should the bearing level soils experience pumping and soil strength loss during the compaction operations, compaction work should be immediately terminated, and (1) the disturbed soils should be removed and backfilled with compacted structural fill, or (2) the excess moisture content within the disturbed soils should be allowed to dissipate before recompacting.

We recommend subgrade materials exhibit moisture contents within ±2 percentage points of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content (ASTM D 1557) during the compaction operations.

Compaction should continue until densities of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) have been achieved within the upper 2 feet of the compacted natural soils at the site.

Should the bearing level soils experience pumping and/or soil strength loss during the compaction operations, compaction work should be immediately terminated, and (1) the disturbed soils should be removed and backfilled with compacted engineered fill, or (2) the excess moisture content within the disturbed soils should be allowed to dissipate before recompacting.

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 should be documented with photographs and survey (if deemed necessary). Compaction should cease if deemed detrimental to adjacent structures, and ECS should be contacted immediately. We recommend the vibratory roller remain a minimum of 50 feet from existing structures. Within this zone, use of a track-mounted bulldozer, or a vibratory roller operating in the static mode, is recommended.

5.1.4 Site Temporary Dewatering

Should groundwater control measures become necessary, dewatering methods should be determined by the contractor. Groundwater should be maintained at a minimum depth of 2 feet below the exposed subgrade to ensure dry conditions during proof compaction. Dewatering procedures required to achieve and maintain this condition are considered part of the contractor’s means and methods. We recommend the groundwater control measures, remain in place until compaction of the existing soils is completed.

The dewatering method should be maintained until backfilling has reached a height of 2 feet above the ground water level at the time of construction. The site should be graded to direct surface water runoff from the construction area.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 11

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

Dewatering systems are a critical component of many construction projects. Dewatering systems must be selected, designed, and maintained by a qualified and experienced (specialty or other) contractor familiar with the geotechnical and other aspects of the project. The failure to properly design and maintain a dewatering system for a given project can result in delayed construction, unnecessary foundation subgrade undercuts, detrimental phenomena such as ‘running sand’ conditions, internal erosion (i.e., ‘piping’), the migration of ‘fines’ down-gradient towards the dewatering system, localized settlement of nearby infrastructure, foundations, slabs-on-grade and pavements, etc.

Water discharged from any site dewatering system shall be discharged in accordance with all local, state and federal requirements. Note that discharge of produced groundwater to surface waters of the state from dewatering operations or other site activities is regulated and requires a permit from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This permit is termed a Generic Permit for the Discharge of Produced Groundwater from Any Non-Contaminated Site Activity. If discharge of produced groundwater is anticipated, we recommend sampling and testing of the groundwater early in the site design phase to prevent project delays during construction.

5.2 EARTHWORK OPERATIONS

5.2.1 Structural Backfill and Fill Soils

“Select” structural fill is defined as a non-plastic, inorganic, granular soil having less than 12 percent material passing the No. 200 mesh sieve and containing less than 4 percent organic material.

“Suitable” structural soils with more than 12 and less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve can also be used as structural fill but we caution that they may be more difficult to compact due to their nature to retain soil moisture, and may require drying.

Structural Fill Compaction Requirements: Materials satisfactory for use as structural fill should consist of soils with the following compaction requirements.

STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

Subject Requirement

Compaction Standard Modified Proctor, ASTM D1557

Required Compaction 95% of Max. Dry Density (general structural fill)

98% of Max. Dry Density (upper one foot below the proposed pavement base course and below concrete pavement)

Loose Thickness prior to compaction1

12 inches if vibratory drum roller compaction equipment is used 8 inches if vibratory drum roller is used in static mode

8 inches if track-mounted compaction equipment is used 6 inches if hand-held compaction equipment is used

1. Thickness should be reduced 2 inches for each method if “Suitable” structural fill is used.

Fill materials should not be placed on excessively wet soils. Excessively wet soils should be scarified, aerated, and moisture conditioned. Proper drainage should be maintained during the earthwork phases of construction to prevent ponding of water which has a tendency to degrade subgrade soils. The contractor should minimize dusting or implement dust control measures, as required.

ECS Project No. 56:1887-A Page 12

ECS Carolinas, LLP • ECS Florida, LLC • ECS Midwest, LLC • ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC • ECS Southeast, LLC • ECS Texas, LLP

We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. Moisture control may be difficult during extended periods of rain. The control of moisture content of soils containing more than 10% fines may be difficult when these soils become wet.

Further, such soils are easily degraded by construction traffic when the moisture content is elevated.

5.3 FOUNDATION AND SLAB OBSERVATIONS

Protection of Foundation Excavations: Exposure to the environment may weaken the soils at the footing bearing level if the foundation excavations remain open for too long a time. If the bearing soils are softened by surface water intrusion or exposure, the softened soils must be removed, or brought to within recommended compaction specifications, from the foundation excavation bottom immediately prior to placement of concrete. If the excavation must remain open overnight, or if rainfall becomes imminent while the bearing soils are exposed, a 1 to 3-inch thick “mud mat” of “lean” concrete should be placed on the bearing soils before the placement of reinforcing steel. Alternatively, the soil density and moisture content could be verified prior to concrete placement and additional removal / compaction activities deployed as necessary. Addition of compacted AASHTO #57 or #89 aggregate may be considered provided we are consulted.

Footing Subgrade Observations: Most of the soils at the foundation bearing elevation are anticipated to be suitable for support of the proposed structures. It is important to have ECS observe the foundation subgrade prior to placing foundation concrete, to confirm the bearing soils are what was anticipated.

6.0 CLOSING

ECS has prepared this report to guide the geotechnical-related design and construction aspects of the project. We performed these services in accordance with the standard of care expected of professionals in the industry performing similar services on projects of like size and complexity at this time in the region.

No other representation, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report.

The description of the proposed project is based on information provided to ECS. If any of this information is inaccurate or changes, either because of our interpretation of the documents provided or site or design changes that may occur later, ECS should be contacted so we can review our recommendations and provide additional or alternate recommendations that reflect the proposed construction.

We recommend that ECS review the project plans and specifications so we can confirm that those plans/specifications are in accordance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report.

Field observations, and quality assurance testing during earthwork and foundation installation are an extension of, and integral to, the geotechnical design. We recommend that ECS be retained to apply our expertise throughout the geotechnical phases of construction, and to provide consultation and recommendation should issues arise.

ECS is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on the data in this report.

Appendix A - Drawings and Reports Site Location Diagram Boring Location Diagram(s)

6/29/2026

Service Layer Credits: World Boundaries and Places: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

PROJECT NO.

SHEET

DATE

56:1887-A

1" = 100'

DS5

Prime AE Group, Inc.

N. Tomoka Rd & W. International Speedway, Daytona Beach, Florida

Volusia County W. ISB at Tomoka Farms Road

SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM

C-01

6/29/2026

Service Layer Credits: World Boundaries and Places: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

²

ENGINEER

SCALE

PROJECT NO.

SHEET

DATE

56:1887-A

1" = 20'

DS5

Prime AE Group, Inc.

N. Tomoka Rd & W. International Speedway, Daytona Beach, Florida

Volusia County W. ISB at Tomoka Farms Road

BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

Legend

Approximate Culvert Boring Locations - C

Appendix B - Field Operations Reference Notes Exploration Procedures Boring Logs

REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS

MATERIAL1,2

1Classifications and symbols per ASTM D 2488-17 (Visual-Manual Procedure) unless noted otherwise.

2To be consistent with general practice, “POORLY GRADED” has been removed from GP, GP-GM, GP-GC, SP, SP-SM, SP-SC soil types on the boring logs.

3Non-ASTM designations are included in soil descriptions and symbols along with ASTM symbol [Ex: (SM-FILL)].

4Typically estimated via pocket penetrometer or Torvane shear test and expressed in tons per square foot (tsf).

5Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refers to the number of hammer blows (blow count) of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon sampler required to drive the sampler 12 inches (ASTM D 1586). “N-value” is another term for “blow count” and is expressed in blows per foot (bpf). SPT correlations per 7.4.2 Method B and need to be corrected if using an auto hammer.

6The water levels are those levels actually measured in the borehole at the times indicated by the symbol. The measurements are relatively reliable when augering, without adding fluids, in granular soils. In clay and cohesive silts, the determination of water levels may require several days for the water level to stabilize. In such cases, additional methods of measurement are generally employed.

7Minor deviation from ASTM D 2488-17 Note 14.

8Percentages are estimated to the nearest 5% per ASTM D 2488-17.

Reference Notes for Boring Logs (09-02-2021).doc © 2021 ECS Corporate Services, LLC. All Rights Reserved

COHESIVE SILTS & CLAYS

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH, QP4

<0.25

0.25 - <0.50

0.50 - <1.00

1.00 - <2.00

2.00 - <4.00

4.00 - 8.00

>8.00

SPT5

(BPF)

CONSISTENCY7

(COHESIVE)

GRAVELS, SANDS & NON-COHESIVE SILTS

SPT5

DENSITY

<5 5 - 10

11 - 30 31 - 50

>50

Very Loose Loose

Medium Dense Dense

Very Dense

WATER LEVELS6

RELATIVE

AMOUNT7

Trace

With

Adjective (ex: “Silty”)

COARSE

GRAINED

(%)8

<5

FINE

GRAINED

(%)8

<5

DRILLING SAMPLING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION

DESIGNATION PARTICLE SIZES

Hollow Stem Auger Power Auger (no sample) Bulk Sample of Cuttings Wash Sample Shelby Tube Sampler Split Spoon Sampler

Rock Quality Designation % Rock Sample Recovery % Rock Core, NX, BX, AX Rock Bit Drilling Pressuremeter TestSS

ST

WS

BS

PA

HSA

RQD

PM

RD

RC

REC

Boulders Cobbles

Gravel:

Sand:

Silt & Clay (“Fines”) Fine Medium

Coarse Fine Coarse

0.074 mm to 0.425 mm (No. 200 to No. 40 sieve) <0.074 mm (smaller than a No. 200 sieve)

0.425 mm to 2.00 mm (No. 40 to No. 10 sieve)

2.00 mm to 4.75 mm (No. 10 to No. 4 sieve)

4.75 mm to 19 mm (No. 4 sieve to ¾ inch) ¾ inch to 3 inches (19 mm to 75 mm) 3 inches to 12 inches (75 mm to 300 mm) 12 inches (300 mm) or larger

>50 31 - 50 16 - 30

9 - 15 5 - 8 2 - 4 <2

Very Hard Hard

Very Stiff

Stiff Firm Soft

Very Soft

ASPHALT

CONCRETE

GRAVEL

TOPSOIL

VOID

BRICK

AGGREGATE BASE COURSE

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

MH

CL

CH

OL

OH

PT

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

SILTY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-silt mixtures

CLAYEY GRAVEL

gravel-sand-clay mixtures

WELL-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

POORLY-GRADED SAND

gravelly sand, little or no fines

SILTY SAND

sand-silt mixtures

CLAYEY SAND

sand-clay mixtures

SILT

non-plastic to medium plasticity

ELASTIC SILT

high plasticity

LEAN CLAY

low to medium plasticity

FAT CLAY

high plasticity

ORGANIC SILT or CLAY non-plastic to low plasticity

ORGANIC SILT or CLAY high plasticity

PEAT

highly organic soils

WL (First Encountered)

WL (Completion)

WL (Seasonal High Water)

WL (Stabilized)

FILL POSSIBLE FILL PROBABLE FILL ROCK

FILL AND ROCK

25 - 45

10 - 20

30 - 45

10 - 25

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURE:

STANDARD PENETRATION TESTING (SPT)

ASTM D 1586

Split-Barrel Sampling

Standard Penetra on Tes ng, or SPT, is the most frequently used subsurface explora on test performed worldwide. This test provides samples for iden fica on purposes, as well as a measure of penetra on resistance, or N-value. The N-Value, or blow counts, when corrected and correlated, can approximate engineering proper es of soils used for geotechnical design and engineering purposes.

• Involves driving a hollow tube (split-spoon) into the ground by dropping a 140-lb hammer a height of 30-inches at desired depth

• Recording the number of hammer blows required to drive split-spoon a distance of 18-24 inches (in 3 or 4 Increments of 6 inches each)

• Auger is advanced* and an addi onal SPT is per-formed

• One SPT typically performed for every two to five feet. An approximate 1.5 inch diameter soil sam-ple is recovered.

*Drilling Methods May Vary— The predominant drilling methods used for SPT are open hole fluid rotary drilling and hollow-stem auger drilling.

SPT Procedure:

CLIENT:

Prime AE Group, Inc.

PROJECT NO.:

56:1887-A

BORING NO.:

C-01

SHEET:

PROJECT NAME:

Volusia County W. ISB at Tomoka Farms Road

DRILLER/CONTRACTOR:

Allstate Geotechnical Drilling Inc.

SITE LOCATION:

N. Tomoka Rd & W. International Speedway, Daytona Beach, Florida, 32124 LOSS OF CIRCULATION

LATITUDE:

29.166526322

LONGITUDE:

-81.087065952

STRUCTURE: SURFACE ELEVATION:

24 BOTTOM OF CASING

D

EP

TH

(F

T)

SA

M

PL

E

N U

M

BE

R

SA

M

PL

E

TY

PE

SA

M

PL

E

D

IS

TA

N

C E

(IN

SA

M

PL

E

R

EC

O

VE

R Y

(IN

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

ST

R

AT

IG

R

AP

H Y

W

AT

ER

L

EV

EL

S

EL

EV

AT

IO

N (F

T)

BL

O

W S/

6" (T

C P/

R S/

M C

/S

PT

N

V

AL

U E)

0 10 20 30 40 50

SPT

0 20 40 60 80 100 Recovery % RQD %

0 1 2 3 4 5

QP

PL MC LL

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100 Fines% MC%

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

HA

HA

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

END OF BORING at 30.0 FT

(SP-SM) POORLY GRADED SAND

WITH SILT - fine sand, brown, moist.

(SC) CLAYEY SAND - fine sand, orangish light brown, moist, very loose.

(SP-SC) POORLY GRADED SAND

WITH CLAY - fine sand, light brown, wet, loose.

(SP-SC) POORLY GRADED SAND

WITH CLAY - fine sand, light gray, wet, very loose to loose.

(SP-SC) POORLY GRADED SAND

WITH CLAY - fine sand, light gray, wet, dense.

-5

2-2-2-3 (4)

3-3-3-4 (6)

4-4-5-6 (9)

1-1-1 (2)

1-1-1 (2)

2-2-3 (5)

15-20-21 (41)

16.6

20.1

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL TYPES. IN-SITU THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL

WL (First Encountered): 7 FT BORING STARTED: 06/05/2026 CAVE IN DEPTH: Not Observed

WL (Completion): BORING COMPLETED: 06/05/2026 HAMMER TYPE: Manual

WL (Seasonal High Water): 4 FT EQUIPMENT: LOGGED BY: DRILLING METHOD:

WL (Stabilized): Track Francisco Hand Auger (0'-4'), Continuous Spoon (4'-10'), Mud Rotary (10'-30')

GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOG

6/23/26, 1:36 PM Volusia County W. ISB at Tomoka Farms Road https://ecs-staging.tablogs.com/proxy/log_preview/58474?log_ids=469513&serverLocation=ECS&token=bpxksjDSCa%2FNfTb2SET5jmdkdjdmTXhuN… 1/1

Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Laboratory Testing Summary

S-3 20.1 16.6

Client:

Laboratory Testing Summary

Sample Location Sample

Number

Depth

(feet)

^MC

Soil

Type

Atterberg Limits **Percent

Passing

No. 200

Sieve

Moisture - Density

@ LBR (%)

#Organic

Content (%)

SC

PL PI

<Maximum

Density (pcf)

<Optimum

Moisture (%)

C-01 4-6

Notes:

See test reports for test method, ^ASTM D2216-19, *ASTM D2488, **ASTM D1140-17, @FM 5-515, #ASTM D2974-20e1 < See test report for D4718 corrected values

Definitions: MC: Moisture Content, Soil Type: USCS (Unified Soil Classification System), LL: Liquid Limit, PL: Plastic Limit, PI: Plasticity Index, CBR: California Bearing Ratio, OC: Organic Content

Project: Volusia County W. ISB at Tomoka Farms Road Project No.: 56:1887-A

Prime AE Group, Inc. Date Reported: 6/15/2026

Office / Lab Address Office Number / Fax

ECS Florida LLC - Daytona

Beach

2330 South Nova Road

Suite A

South Daytona, FL 32119

(386)944-9588

(386)944-9589

Tested by Checked by Approved by Date Received

RRawson RRawson RRawson 6/10/2026

LL

"Setting the Standard for Servioe"

.. Geotechnical • Construction Materials• Environmen al • Facilities

Project:

Project No.:

Work Order No.:

Sample#

Date Sampled:

Sampled By:

Volusia County WISB at Tomoka

Farms Road

56:1887-A

Location:

Corrosion Testing (FM5-550, 551, 552, 553) pH (FMS-550) Resistivity (FMS-551) Chlorides (FMS-552)

0-cm ppm

6/12/2026

Allstate Geotechnical - FV C-01

Sulfates (FMS-553)

<15 ppm C-01, 10 to 15 ft 7.46 5,400 <15