Appendix A-Seneca Commerce Park Lots J&K-GER 20240086.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

434.847.7796

WWW.HANDP.COM

PREPARED FOR

Campbell County 85 Carden Lane – P.O. Box 100 Rustburg, VA 24588

DATE

Apri l 02, 2024

PROJECT NAME

SENECA COMMERCE PARK

LOTS J&K

CAMPBELL COUNTY, VA

PROJECT NO.

20240086

C O

M M

O

N W

EALTH OF V

IR

G

IN

IA

P R

O

F

ESSIONAL ENGI

N

E E R

C O

M M

O

N W

EALTH OF V

IR

G

IN

IA

P R

O

F

ESSIONAL ENGI

N

E E R

Lic. No. 032685

DANIEL GLENN DAVISGLENN E. COOKE

Lic. No. 060997 04/02/2024

Geotechnical Engineering Report Seneca Commerce Park Lots J&K — Campbell County, VA

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TRANSMITTAL LETTER ..........................................................................................................i

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.0 SUMMARY

3.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Existing Subgrade Conditions

5.2 Existing Fill Soils

5.3 Residual Soil Conditions

5.4 Partially Weathered Rock

5.5 Auger Refusal/Hard Rock

5.6 Subsurface Water Conditions

6.0 LABORATORY RESULTS

7.0 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Earthwork & Grading

7.1.1 Structural Fill Placement

7.2 Foundations & Grade Slabs

7.2.1 Foundation Support

7.2.2 Interior Grade Slabs

7.2.3 Seismic Site Class Rating

7.2.4 Lateral Earth Pressures

7.3 Flexible & Rigid Pavements

8.0 LIMITATIONS

Table 1: Test Boring Elevation Datum Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Results Table 3: Density Testing Frequency Table 4: Lateral Earth Pressures Table 5: Flexible Pavement Sections Table 6: Rigid Pavement Sections

Figure 1: Excerpt from Site Plan (by P&O) Figure 2: Excerpt from Geology Map

Appendix A.........................................................................................Test Boring Location Map Appendix B.......................................................................................................Test Boring Logs Appendix C....................................................................................Test Boring Profile Diagrams Appendix D................................................................Atterberg Limits & Sieve Analysis Results Appendix E..........................................................................................Standard Proctor Results Appendix F..............................................................................................................CBR Results Appendix G..........................................................................................Expansion Index Results

April 02, 2024

Ms. Nina Rezai Director of Economic Development Campbell County 85 Carden Lane – P.O. Box 100 Rustburg, VA 24588

Sent via email to: nrrezai@co.campbell.va.us

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Seneca Commerce Park—Lots J&K Campbell County, VA H&P Project #: 20240086

Dear Nina:

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. (H&P) has completed the subsurface investigation for the proposed Seneca Commerce Park Lots J&K project located off of Ewing Drive in Campbell County, Virginia. This report presents our understanding of the project requirements, the results of the work performed, and associated recommendations.

The investigation encompassed the following scope of services:

• Twenty-five (25) standard penetration test (SPT) borings

• Measurements for potential groundwater and borehole cave-in depths

• Laboratory testing (5 classifications, 3 standard Proctors, 2 expansion indices, 3 CBRs, & 30 natural moistures)

• Geotechnical investigative report preparation

H&P appreciates the opportunity to complete this study for you. Should you have any questions in reference to the findings and results of this investigation, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

Glenn E. Cooke, P.E. J. Kenneth Meritt, P.G., P.E.

Project Manager Vice President—Director of Geotechnical and Materials Testing attachments:

C O

M M

O

N W

EALTH OF V

IR

G

IN

IA

P R

O

F

ESSIONAL ENGI

N

E E R

C O

M M

O

N W

EALTH OF V

IR

G

IN

IA

P R

O

F

ESSIONAL ENGI

N

E E R

Lic. No. 032685

DANIEL GLENN DAVISGLENN E. COOKE

Lic. No. 060997 04/02/2024 mailto:nrrezai@co.campbell.va.us

Geotechnical Engineering Report Seneca Commerce Park-Lots J&K— Campbell County, VA

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 1

Seneca Commerce Park-Lots J&K Campbell County, Virginia

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Campbell County is planning to combine and develop two (2) lots (J&K) located off Ewing Drive. Civil plans, prepared by Perkins & Orrison (P&O), show a new 102,500 square-foot building pad footprint with parking in the front and a large heavy duty asphalt area in the rear to accommodate heavy truck traffic. Other civil related improvements include, but are not limited to, a new site entrance, stormwater basin, and utility infrastructure. An excerpt from the site plan is shown in Figure 1 below. Borings are also depicted in Figure 1 for reference.

Figure 1: Excerpt from Preliminary Site Plan (by P&O)

2.0 SUMMARY

As part of this investigation, H&P reviewed USGS and geological mapping, aerial imagery, and a site plan by Perkins & Orrison (P&O). Subsurface exploration and site characterization were done by performing twenty-five (25) standard penetration test (SPT) borings. Laboratory soils testing was performed to determine soil classification, in-place moisture conditions, maximum dry density at optimum moisture conditions, CBR values for pavement design, and shrink/swell potential by means of expansion index testing. Notable laboratory test results included a medium to high potential for shrink/swell soil conditions, elevated moisture conditions, and a low CBR value.

LOT K LOT J

B-04

B-05 B-06

B-11 B-12

B-07

B-13 B-14 B-15

B-08 B-09 B-10

B-16

B-22

B-25

B-21B-20

B-24

B-19

B-23

B-17 B-18

B-03

B-01

B-02 N

O R

TH

Geotechnical Engineering Report Seneca Commerce Park-Lots J&K — Campbell County, VA

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 2

Boring results revealed a topsoil layer ranging from 12 to 24 inches thick followed by a soil overburden profile comprised of residual soil conditions with variable soil stiffness/density across the site. In general, the west side of the proposed building pad demonstrated soft conditions whereas the east side was generally considered firm.

Furthermore, many of the boreholes showed marginal soil stiffness where the upper few feet were considered stiff before transitioning to medium-stiff. Other notable findings included auger refusal at 5 out of 25 borehole locations and evidence of groundwater at 22 out of 25 locations. Auger refusal depths ranged from 17 to 22 feet below existing grades. Groundwater was relatively shallow, especially at B-04 and B-10 where the seasonal water table measured only 1.7 feet below existing grades. Plans show the areas with the shallowest groundwater to receive fill, which should provide some separation; however, subgrade stabilization and/or the installation of a permanent underdrain system may be necessary. Other areas where cut excavations are planned are expected to result in excavations that could be more susceptible to encountering groundwater. These areas include B-05 and B-06.

Based on the proposed grading plan, a significant amount of earthwork and grading will be required to reach design grades. Cut excavations are expected to result in final soil subgrades that are high moisture as well as on-site borrow soils that are high in moisture and will be difficult to dry back to a moisture content suitable to achieve proper compaction in a timely manner. H&P recommends grading operations be performed in summer months to help the drying process. Another option is to use a chemical additive such as lime to treat the high moisture soils. Lime improves soil workability by expediting the drying process. While this approach can help maintain the scheduling expectations, it will present added cost. If Campbell County would like to further explore the lime stabilization approach, H&P can help by determining an appropriate application rate and by contacting contractors experienced in lime stabilization to put together a cost estimate. Additional information, including recommendations for subgrade preparation, new fill placement, and slope construction can be found in the Earthwork & Grading Section of this report.

Settlement calculations were performed based on assumed maximum column loads ranging from 100 to 150 kips.

Due to soft soil conditions, results indicated excessive settlements may occur. For this reason, H&P recommends performing dilatometer (DMT) testing to better predict settlements. Based on our understanding of the project, the county plans to initiate an early grading plan ahead of the building design phase. H&P recommends DMT testing be done immediately following grading operations. This will allow for the newly placed fill to also be evaluated by DMT testing. Additional information is provided in the Foundations & Grade Slabs Section of this report.

3.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES

A total of twenty-five (25) standard penetration test (SPT) borings were performed as part of the field investigation.

Borehole locations were surveyed in the field by H&P survey personnel. Structure borings were assigned termination depths of 30 feet; however, one was taken to 35 feet and five (5) were terminated after auger refusal occurred prior to reaching the target 30-foot depth. The remaining borings were performed for civil related improvements and were taken to 15 feet. Measurements for potential groundwater conditions and/or cave-in depths were recorded at the completion of each test boring and then most boreholes were left open for a minimum 24± hours to allow for more stabilized readings to be collected. Following final readings, all boreholes were backfilled using soil cuttings.

The test borings were performed in accordance with generally accepted practices using a low ground pressure rubber track-mounted CME 55 drill rig. Continuous flight hollow-stem augers were advanced to pre-selected depths, the center plug removed, and a disturbed soil sample recovered with a standard split-spoon sampler (1.375-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D.) in accordance with ASTM D 1586. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is conducted with a weight of 140 pounds that is freely dropped from a height of 30 inches to drive the sampler into the soil to be sampled.

Continuous sampling was generally performed in the upper 8 feet with the quantity of applied blows required to drive the sampler four consecutive 6-inch increments recorded. Standard sampling was initiated beginning at 9 feet and continued throughout the remaining length with the quantity of applied blows required to drive the sampler three consecutive 6-inch increments recorded. The quantity summed of the second and third increments for continuous and standard sampling equates to the Standard Penetration Resistance N-value in units of blows per foot (bpf). The N-value is a measure of in-situ soil conditions and has been correlated with engineering properties of soils for design purposes.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 3

While the SPT test does not provide direct evaluation of soil parameters, generalized correlations have been empirically developed for soil modulus, friction angle, and cohesion that are used to evaluate foundations, slopes, and other soil supported structures. For design purposes, the N-value is often corrected to account for energy level (N60) and existing overburden pressure (N1,60). Other factors for rod length and the borehole diameter are also considered. A correction factor of 1.3 was assumed based upon the use of an automatic hammer and a split-spoon sampler deemed to be in fair condition. N-values referenced in this report have not been corrected.

Representative soil specimens from each SPT test were containerized in labeled glass jars and transported to our Lynchburg laboratory for additional review and laboratory testing. There, a Professional Geologist reviewed and visually classified the samples using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The jar samples will remain at our Lynchburg laboratory for 90 days. Afterwards, the samples will be discarded unless a written request to retain the samples is received. Five (5) bulk soil samples were also collected for laboratory testing. Applicable ASTM test standards are listed below, results are summarized in Table 2 of the Laboratory Results Section, and detailed results are appended.

• Atterberg Limit Analysis ASTM D 4318 • CBR VTM-8 (modified)

• Sieve Analysis ASTM D 6913 • Expansion Index ASTM D 4829

• Standard Proctor ASTM D 698 • Natural Moisture ASTM D 2216

Additional natural moisture analyses (ASTM D 2216) were performed on select split-spoon samples. The results are shown on the Test Boring Logs in Appendix B.

4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Geologically, the project site is located in the Blue Ridge province. Based on the Geologic Map of the Roanoke 30x60 Minute Quadrangle, the underlying bedrock in the area of study has been mapped as Cambrian-aged metamorphic rock units belonging to the Bassett Formation. The primary lithologies for the project area include gneiss and amphibolite type rocks. An excerpt (Figure 2) from the referenced map with the approximate site location annotated is shown below.

Figure 2: Excerpt from Geologic Map

A transitional zone termed "weathered rock" is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. Weathered rock is defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with Standard Penetration Test resistance greater than 50 blows in 6 inches. Because weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the presence of less resistant rock types, the profile of the weathered rock and hard rock is typically irregular and erratic, similar to that described for the rock types themselves. Also, it is not unusual to find lenses and boulders of hard rock in zones of weathered rock within the soil mantel, well above the general bedrock level.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 4

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions encountered during the exploration are summarized in the following paragraphs with specific descriptions found on the Test Boring Logs in Appendix B. Transitions between soil strata, as shown on the logs, are a function of the sample interval, actual changes are often less distinct and can be difficult to discern. Although the logs are representative of the subsurface conditions at the locations shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions at other locations.

5.1 Existing Subgrade Conditions

The existing subgrade conditions at most borehole locations consist of organic bearing topsoil with an estimated thickness measuring 12 inches; however, thicker organic bearing zones were noted at B-10 (24 inches) and at B-16 (18 inches). Given the agricultural use of the site, notably thick topsoil zones should be anticipated when estimating the amount to be stripped.

5.2 Existing Fill Soils

Existing fill soils were found in the upper 2 feet of B-04. These soils were classified as Elastic SILT (MH) type soils with soft consistency.

5.3 Residual Soil Conditions

Residual soils that have weathered in-place due to the decomposition of the parent metamorphic rock underlying the site were found at all boring locations. Boring results revealed a residual soil profile with a layered sequence common to the area. Cohesive Elastic SILT (MH) soils were primarily encountered in the upper subgrade followed by fine-grained Sandy SILT (ML) soils that transitioned with depth to coarse-grained Silty SAND (SM) soils. The consistency of the cohesive and fine-grained soils ranged from soft to very-stiff with N-values ranging from 2 to 29 bpf. The relative density of the coarse-grained soils ranged from medium-dense to very-dense with N-values ranging from 12 to 57 bpf. Overall, soil stiffness/density varies across the site. As previously described, soft soils that could lead to excessive settlements were found at boreholes on the west side of the building pad. Alternatively, stiffer conditions were noted on the east side. Other notable findings included high moisture contents that are expected to cause construction delays as contractors work to dry the soils to an acceptable moisture content.

5.4 Partially Weathered Rock

As described in the Regional Geology Section, weathered rock or partially weathered rock (PWR) are descriptions generally used when SPT N-values exceed 50 blows for a given 6-inch increment. Other evidence, such as increased applied down pressure to advance the augers and slow drilling can also be used to estimate the depth and layer thickness of weathered rock. Typically, the rock structure is preserved, and the material will crush to a sandy silt or silty sand type soil. Based on the previously described criteria, subsurface strata that classified as partially weathered rock conditions were encountered at 11 out of 25 boring locations at depths ranging from 14.5 to 29 feet below existing grades.

5.5 Auger Refusal/ Apparent Hard Rock Conditions

Auger refusal occurred at 5 out of 25 borehole locations at depths ranging from 17.7 to 26 feet below existing grades.

Based on the local geology, it would not be uncommon to encounter isolated anomalies or rock pinnacles in unexplored areas of the site.

5.6 Subsurface Water Conditions

Measurements for potential groundwater conditions were collected after each borehole was complete. During the investigation, the field crew also looked for other signs of potential groundwater conditions, such as very-moist/wet SPT soil samples and free moisture on the split-spoon sampler or rods. Measurable groundwater was found at 17 out of 25 borehole locations at depths ranging from 1.7 to 19 feet below existing grades. H&P suspects groundwater is present at other locations and that the boreholes caved-in at or just above the groundwater table. These locations are noted in red on Table 1 on the following page. Groundwater observed less than 2 feet below existing grades was noted at borehole locations B-04 and B-10 and at B-06 groundwater was found at 3 feet below grade.

Contractors should be prepared to implement dewatering measures, if necessary. Additional information related to groundwater can be found on page 6 of this report.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 5

Table 1: Test Boring Elevation Datum

TEST EXISTING TOTAL BOTTOM OF AUGER BORING

BORING GROUND BORING BORING REFUSAL CAVE-IN

LOCATION ELEVATION DEPTH (ft) ELEVATION ELEVATION DEPTH (ft)

B-01 870.0 15.5 854.5 — — 10.8 859.2 10.8 B-02 866.6 15.5 851.1 — — 9.3 857.3 11.0 B-03 860.1 15.5 844.6 — — 6.0 854.1 11.0 B-04 854.5 15.5 839.0 — — 1.7 852.8 11.0 B-05 872.7 30.5 842.2 — — 15.2 857.5 21.7 B-06 862.3 30.5 831.8 — — 3.0 859.3 24.6 B-07 862.3 30.0 832.3 — — 10.5 851.8 22.3 B-08 864.7 30.5 834.2 — — 16.8 847.9 24.7 B-09 857.3 25.8 831.5 25.8 831.5 14.5 842.8 19.0 B-10 852.8 17.7 835.1 17.7 835.1 1.7 851.1 14.0 B-11 869.3 30.5 838.8 — — 19.3 850.0 21.5 B-12 860.5 30.5 830.0 — — 17.2 843.3 24.7 B-13 858.6 24.6 834.0 24.6 834.0 13.5 845.1 20.7 B-14 864.3 30.0 834.3 — — 18.8 845.5 22.0 B-15 861.6 30.0 831.6 — — 14.0 847.6 21.8 B-16 856.2 26.0 830.2 26.0 830.2 10.0 846.2 20.0 B-17 867.0 35.5 831.5 — — 18.0 849.0 29.2 B-18 853.1 30.5 822.6 — — 13.7 839.4 23.3 B-19 856.5 30.0 826.5 — — 19.0 837.5 21.8 B-20 862.3 30.5 831.8 — — — — 21.3 B-21 861.0 30.0 831.0 — — — — 21.3 B-22 858.9 24.6 834.3 24.6 834.3 — — 18.3 B-23 853.0 15.5 837.5 — — 9.0 844.0 9.0 B-24 850.4 15.5 834.9 — — 9.7 840.7 9.7 B-25 835.2 15.5 819.7 — — 9.5 825.7 9.5

ESTIMATED

GROUNDWATER

ELEVATION

ESTIMATED

GROUNDWATER

DEPTH (ft)

AUGER

REFUSAL

DEPTH (ft)

Note: Groundwater levels in Red were estimated based on elevated moisture conditions and adjacent borehole readings.

6.0 LABORATORY RESULTS

The following table summarizes the results of each laboratory soils analysis performed along with the location, depth range, and corresponding method for which each specimen was collected. Formal laboratory results are appended.

Table 2: Laboratory Results

LL PL PI

B-01 1-6 Bulk MH w / SAND 58 41 17 80.5 39.7 27.3 95.1 14.5 — B-04 1-6 Bulk CL w / SAND 43 18 25 74.5 27.2 12.0 109.1 1.6 — B-07 2-6 Bulk MH 64 43 21 87.2 42.6 — — — 64, Medium B-20 2-6 Bulk MH 63 54 9 87.7 44.4 — — — 84, Med to High B-21 1-6 Bulk MH 64 50 14 87.2 41.1 28.1 82.3 3.6 —

TEST

BORING

DEPTH

RANGE

(ft)

SAMPLE

METHOD

USCS

SYMBOL

-#200

SIEVE

MAX DRY

DENSITY

(pcf)

STANDARD PROCTOR

EXPANSION

INDEX

CBR

AT

0.1"

OPTIMUM

MOISTURE

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

NATURAL

MOISTURE

CONTENT

• Atterberg Limit Analysis ASTM D 4318 • CBR Analysis VTM-8 (modified)

• Sieve Analysis ASTM D 6913 • Expansion Index ASTM D 4829

• Standard Proctor ASTM D 698 • Natural Moisture ASTM D 2216

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 6

7.0 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this section is to provide geotechnical recommendations related to the development of lots J and K.

The recommendations were formed based on the provided site plan by P&O as well as the results of this subsurface investigation.

7.1 Earthwork & Grading

The earthwork and grading section of this report is intended to address subgrade preparation work, new fill placement, and slope construction.

• A comprehensive study should be performed to determine the identity and location of any utilities within the limits of disturbance (LoD). Although the site is relatively remote, removal/relocation of existing utility infrastructure may be required.

• All organic bearing topsoil should be removed from areas planned for building pad construction, pavement areas, and hardscape elements. Topsoil may be used to cap off “green space” but is not acceptable for structural fill applications. Most boreholes revealed approximately 12 inches of topsoil but boreholes with 18 and 24 inches of topsoil were also encountered. As stated previously, given the agricultural use of the site, notably thick topsoil zones should be anticipated when estimating the amount to be stripped. Stripping and grubbing as well as tree and stump removal will also be necessary to adequately clear the site ahead of site grading.

• Due to shallow groundwater, contractors should be prepared to implement temporary and permanent dewatering measures. The shallowest groundwater conditions were found at B-04 and B-10. Borehole B-04 was performed in the main entrance and B-10 was performed in the southeast corner of the proposed building pad. Both of these locations are in areas planned for fill placement but may require subgrade stabilization and/or an underdrain system to facilitate fill operations. Based on the topsoil thickness at these locations, it is possible that stripping operations may penetrate the groundwater table, especially at B-10 where 24 inches of topsoil was noted. H&P can provide recommendations in the field regarding the need for subgrade stabilization and/or underdrain system.

Other areas where groundwater appears more likely to be encountered are B-05 and B-06 in the building pad as well as area where deeper underground utilities will be installed.

• Properly prepared subgrades should be verified via proof-roll observation by a qualified geotechnical representative. This is an important step to verify firm subgrade conditions are present before new fill placement and/or following cut excavations. Proof-rolling should be done with a fully loaded tandem dump truck. During the proof-rolling process, it is recommended that a roller pattern be established that will maximize the densification of the subgrade before fill placement. Proof-rolling should be performed during favorable weather conditions and not while the site is wet because of recent precipitation. Areas that pump, rut, weave, or otherwise deemed unsuitable or unstable by the geotechnical representative, should be excavated and replaced as directed by the geotechnical representative.

• The majority of the soil types in the project area are moisture sensitive and difficult to work with during periods of wet weather. Attempts to work wet soils can result in deterioration of otherwise suitable soil conditions or deterioration of previously placed and properly compacted fill. The avoidance of such deterioration and subsequent over-excavation and replacement should be the responsibility of the grading contractor. Excessively wet or excessively dry soils should not be used as fill materials unless the soils are properly dried or wetted to an acceptable moisture content. The use of on-site soils is contingent on the contractors’ ability to moisture condition the soil to within a few percentage points of the optimum moisture content, as well as apply the necessary compactive effort adequate to achieve minimum compaction requirements. A moisture content range of plus 2 to minus 3 percentage points from the optimum moisture content is recommended to achieve target densities. To do so, moisture conditioning should be expected, especially considering much of the upper subgrade soils demonstrated elevated moisture conditions. Moisture conditioning of soils, in particular clay bearing soils, can be time consuming, thus resulting in construction delays. Common methods for drying include scarification, disking, and aeration. Drying times can vary significantly depending on air temperatures, season, exposure to precipitation, and the amount of available space to spread the material thin enough to allow for sufficient drying. As mentioned in the Summary Section, moisture conditioning may be expedited by adding a chemical additive such as lime. If Campbell County would like to further explore this option, H&P can help by determining an appropriate application rate and by contacting contractors experienced in lime stabilization to put together a cost estimate.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 7

• Fill placement for slopes is considered structural fill and should be placed beginning at the toe of proposed slopes and keyed into the existing side slopes at regular intervals (5 feet horizontal for every 3 feet of vertical change in elevation). This is an important step for slope stability and should be properly executed when applicable.

Compaction of the outer face of the slopes using tracked equipment is another important component to ensuring fill is properly placed. H&P also recommends fill slopes be over filled 1.5± feet beyond design grade then clipped with a track dozer to the design grade to ensure that the outer edge of the slope is properly compacted. Appropriate measures should be taken to prevent excess surface stormwater from impacting any new slopes. Surface protection measures, including erosion control fabric and protective vegetation cover, should be implemented immediately following slope construction.

• Compacted structural fill may be constructed using on-site soils that are clean and free of debris and other deleterious materials. If soils are needed from an off-site borrow source, suitable soils include cohesive and non-cohesive soils with low to medium plasticity as defined by USCS. For the local area, these soils generally include CL, ML, SC, and SM. Other soil types may be considered based on soil properties and intended use but are subject to approval.

• Site grading should promote positive drainage away from proposed structures and not allow ponding of water on building pads or other prepared soil subgrades. A 2% slope is recommended. Soil subgrades should be sealed using a smooth drum roller to promote drainage and minimize infiltration before exposure to precipitation. For areas requiring additional fill placement, sealed subgrades should be scarified to help bond the subsequent fill layer.

7.1.1 Structural Fill Placement

Proper placement of structural fill material is essential to the performance of newly placed fill soils. Compaction increases shear strength and reduces compressibility, thus improving the engineering properties of the soil mass.

The following are recommendations for properly placing compacted structural fill.

Structural fill material under and within 15 feet of building pads should be placed uniformly in horizontal lifts, with a maximum 8-inch loose thickness, and compacted to at least 98% of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor).

Structural fill material for slopes, roadways/parking lots, utilities, and other civil improvements should be placed uniformly in horizontal lifts, with a maximum 8-inch loose thickness, and compacted to at least 95% of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). Please note, the upper 12 inches of roadways and parking lots should be compacted to 98%.

Table 3: Recommended Minimum Density Test Frequencies Location of Fill Placement Minimum Test Frequency

Building Pads One (1) compaction test per 1,500 square feet per lift Slopes/Retaining Walls One (1) compaction test per 2,000 square feet per lift Roadways/Parking Lots One (1) compaction test per 2,500 square feet per lift Utilities One (1) compaction test per 50 lineal feet per lift

A minimum of three (3) compaction tests are recommended per lift, regardless of the area or length.

Cohesive clay bearing soils that are present on-site are considered appropriate for construction of a stormwater management basin. Based on our experience, these soils typically demonstrate low permeability resulting in slower infiltration rates and longer retention times. Embankment fill for the basin should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts, with an 8 inch loose thickness, and compacted to at least 95% of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). Backfill material for pipes and structures within the embankment should be of the same type and quality as specified for the adjoining fill material. The fill for pipes and structures should be placed in horizontal lifts no greater than 4 inches in thickness and compacted using hand tampers or other manually directed compaction equipment. The material should completely fill the haunches and all spaces under and beside the pipe.

Proper fill placement for haunches improves the soil bearing and helps minimize seepage along the outside of the pipe.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 8

7.2 Foundations & Slabs-on-Grade

Recommendations for foundation support for the proposed building were formed based on the assumed function of the building, a finished floor elevation of 862 feet, estimated maximum building loads, estimated settlements, and subsurface exploration findings. At the time this report was prepared, a structural engineer had yet to be retained.

Subsequently, H&P assumed the following loads listed below. In the event that actual loads differ, H&P request the opportunity to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report.

Assumed Maximum Loads Column Loads: 100 to 150 kips Wall Loads: 5 klf

7.2.1 Foundation Support

Settlement computations for the proposed structure were evaluated by modeling an idealized subsurface profile using SPT N-values with foundation loads supported on a conventional shallow strip footing foundation system. In areas where fill placement is planned, an additional 100 kips was included in the settlement calculations to account for the weight of some of the deepest fill areas (10± feet of fill). Assumed N-values, representative of properly placed fill, were assigned to the new fill profile. Settlement calculations indicated excessive total settlements of approximately 2 inches, particularly in areas such as B-05, B-06, B-07, and B-18 where soft soil conditions were found. The findings suggest a ground improvement program, such as densely compacted aggregate piers, may be necessary to mitigate excessive settlements. To verify predicted settlements, H&P recommends performing additional geotechnical work that would primarily involve dilatometer (DMT) testing and possibly some additional borings. DMT testing will help to better predict expected settlements and should be performed following grading operations and determination of actual design loads. H&P can prepare a proposed scope of work once this information has been established.

Geotechnically, minimum footing depths are typically controlled by frost depth, shrink/swell potential, bearing capacity (settlement), or a combination thereof. Due to the moderate to high shrink/swell potential, H&P recommends exterior footings be placed a minimum of 36 inches below final adjacent exterior grades.

All footing subgrades should be tested by a qualified geotechnical representative to ensure the allowable soil bearing capacity is achieved. If soft conditions are encountered during construction, undercutting and/or stabilization may be required. Excavations for footings should be made in such a way as to provide bearing surfaces that are firm and free of loose, wet, or otherwise disturbed soils. All footing subgrades should be compacted using manually operated vibratory equipment to promote the densification of any loose or disturbed materials resulting from the excavation.

Concrete for footings should be placed the same day as the bearing surface is prepared to prevent softening due to overnight rain or other moisture.

7.2.2 Interior Grade Slabs

Interior floor slabs may be designed as slab-on-grade. For a stone base, H&P recommends using compacted #21A/B size aggregate as opposed to #57 stone. Compacted #21A/B stone will provide a stiff uniform bearing layer for the slab while also protecting the underlying soil subgrade, especially considering the building will likely not have a floor slab poured during initial construction. Experience has shown that trapped water often accumulates in open-graded #57 stone and can lead to softening and subsequent deterioration of the underlying soil subgrade, especially when subjected to construction equipment traffic such as manlifts and telehandlers. Based on the CBR results and on-site soil conditions, a subgrade modulus (k) of 115 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design of subgrades prepared and verified per the recommendations described in this report. The thickness of the stone will be dependent on the intended use. For the office portion of the building, 4 inches of stone is considered sufficient; however, the stone thickness for the remaining portion should be sized according to intended use and loading conditions. Prior to stone placement, the soil subgrade should be proof-rolled in accordance with the recommendations described in this report. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) considers a proof-roll the most effective means of evaluating soil subgrades for grade slabs.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 9

7.2.3 Site Class Seismic Rating

A site class seismic rating was determined using the average standard penetration resistance procedure. Although this approach requires a boring reach a depth of 100 feet below existing grade, auger refusal on apparent bedrock occurred at five (5) locations and based on our experience with the local geology, it is reasonable to assume that refusal occurred on bedrock and that the bedrock profile continues throughout the remaining 100-foot length. Based on this assumption and a weighted analysis of SPT N-values, a site class seismic rating of “D” was determined. The mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at short periods is SS = 0.167. The mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at one-second periods is S1 = 0.07. Site coefficient values of Fa = 1.6 and Fv = 2.4 correspond to the site class and mapped spectral response accelerations.

7.2.4 Lateral Earth Pressures

The parameters shown in Table 4 were determined using Rankine’s earth pressure theory and may be used to evaluate earth pressures on concrete/masonry foundation with level backfill conditions. Cohesive soils, such as the on-site clay bearing soil types, should not be used in the backfill zone. The backfill soils should be granular in composition and capable of meeting or exceeding the parameters listed under the Approved Soils column below.

More favorable parameters, in terms of friction angle and unit weight, may be obtained by using an alternate backfill material such as VDOT #57 stone. If #57 stone is used for backfilling, the stone should extend from the back of the heel of the footing at angle of 65 degrees from horizontal.

Table 4: Lateral Earth Pressures Material #57 Stone Approved Soils Active (KA) 0.22 0.36

At-Rest (KO) 0.36 0.53

Moist Unit Weight – (m) 110 pcf 120 pcf

Cohesion (C) 0 psf 0 psf

Angle of Internal Friction (’) 40 28

Coefficient of FrictionA 0.40 0.40 A. To be used for evaluating sliding between a concrete retaining wall foundation and properly prepared soil subgrade

Proper drainage should be installed behind exterior walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. The drainage system should include a minimum 12-inch wide chimney type drainage layer of #57 stone with a minimum 4-inch perforated pipe at the base of the wall to convey water to a proper discharge outlet. A geo-textile filter fabric should be installed to provide separation between the #57 stone and soil with the intent of preventing fines from migrating into the stone.

The effect of surcharge loads should be added to the recommended earth pressures to determine the total applied lateral stress subjected on the wall. This includes earth pressures induced by compaction equipment. The use of heavy equipment adjacent to retaining walls can result in increased lateral earth pressures and subsequent excess wall movements. Lightweight hand-operated equipment should be used for compaction. Heavy equipment should not be utilized within the construction zone measured at a 45-degree angle from the base of the wall structure.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 10

7.3 Flexible & Rigid Pavements

Pavement design recommendations were evaluated using VDOT’s Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia. Given the anticipated industrial/manufacturing function of the new facility, H&P assumed all vehicles subjected to the heavy duty asphalt pavement areas will consist of heavy truck traffic with an estimated 50 trucks per day. As part of the evaluation, laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was completed on three (3) bulk soil samples. Test results returned CBR values of 1.6, 3.6, and 14.5 which are considered low to good. Based on the results of our assessment, the following pavement sections are recommended for the site.

Table 5: Flexible Asphalt Pavement Sections

Pavement Section Standard

Duty (inches)

Heavy Duty

(inches) Surface SM-9.5A 1.5 2 Base BM-25.0 3 4 Subbase 21A/B 6 8 Total Thickness 10.5 14

The following recommended rigid pavement section is for standard duty pavement applications for passenger car traffic. A structural engineer should specify the required concrete pavement section for areas subject to heavy truck traffic.

Table 6: Rigid Concrete Pavement Section

Pavement Section Standard

Duty (inches)

Concrete (Reinforced with Fiber or Welded-Wire) 7 VDOT size 21A/B Aggregate 6 Total Thickness 13

Recommended minimum design parameters:

• 28-day compressive strength 4,500 psi • Entrained Air Content 4.5% to 7.5%

• Water-Cement Ratio 0.45 • Maximum joint spacing of 15 feet

According to ACI, proper spacing of jointing is critical to effectively control cracking due to tensile stresses created by retrained shrinkage and warping or curling caused by moisture or temperature differentials. There are three (3) types of joints that are commonly used in concrete pavement, contraction joints, construction joints, and isolation (expansion) joints. Refer to ACI literature to determine appropriate joint types and placement locations.

Final soil subgrades for areas receiving flexible and rigid pavement surfaces should be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined by a standard Proctor (ASTM D 698). A proof-roll should be completed on the soil subgrade prior to placement of any crushed stone. Proof-rolling should be completed in the same manner as described in the Earthwork and Grading Section of this report. Crushed stone subgrades should be compacted to 98% of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by a standard Proctor or as determined by a roller pattern.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Page 11

8.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Campbell County Economic Development and their authorized representatives with respect to the proposed Seneca Commerce Park Lots J&K project located in Campbell County, Virginia. The specific application of this report is to provide general subsurface information to design the foundation system for the above referenced site elements in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the data obtained from the previously described subsurface exploration programs, and industry standard accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The conclusions and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions that could exist in unexplored areas of the site. Should such variations become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to reevaluate our conclusions and recommendations based upon on-site observations of the conditions.

In the event that changes are made to the location of the proposed structure or other planned improvements, the recommendations presented in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and/or verified in writing. We should also be given the opportunity to review the completed construction plans. This review is generally necessary to ensure the recommendations and comments provided herein have been understood and properly implemented.

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. Appendix

Appendix A

Test Boring Location Map

PROJECT #:

LAT.

LONG.

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SHEET #:

EN

G

IN

EE

R

IN

G

S U

R

VE

YI

N

G

L

AN

D D

EV

EL

O

PM

EN

T

E

N

VI

R O

N M

EN

TA

L G

EO

TE

C H

N

IC

AL

C O

N

ST

R U

C

TI

O N

T

ES

TI

N

G

IN

SP

EC

TI

O N

C

U

LT

U R

AL

R

ES

O

U R

C

ES

L A

N G

H O

R N

E R

O A

D

LY

N C

H B

U R

G V

A

4.

7.

H

A N

D P.

C O

M

THIS SHEET IS INTENDED TO BE REPRODUCED AT 11"X17". REPRODUCTION OF THIS SHEET AT A DIFFERENT SIZE THAN INTENDED SHALL VOID THE SCALE SHOWN ON THE SHEET.

IN

SP

IR

ED

R

ES

PO

N

SI

VE

TR

U

ST

ED

LOT K LOT J

ATTACHMENT 1

Test Boring Location (Approximate)

B-# Test Boring Number

20240086

37°14'08.9"N 79°10'48.3"W

03/22/2024

P&O

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O C

A T

IO

N

M A

P S

E N

E C

A C

O M

M E

R C

E P

A R

K

LO

T S

J

K C

A M

P B

E

LL

C O

U N

T Y

, V A

B-04

B-05 B-06

B-11 B-12

B-07

B-13 B-14 B-15

B-08 B-09 B-10

B-16

B-22

B-25

B-21B-20

B-24

B-19

B-23

B-17 B-18

B-03

B-01

B-02

Appendix B

Test Boring Logs

58 41 17

WOH

1.0

6.0

15.5

12 inches of Topsoil

RESIDUUM: Red ELASTIC SILT (MH), very moist moist

Olive Yellow Brown Sandy SILT (ML), contains relict structure, very moist

Boring Terminated at 15.5 feet.

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING DETAILS:

PROJECT NO.

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

M

IN

U S

N O

SI

EV

E

SHEET 1 of 1

PI

N - Standard Penetration Test Resistance (ASTM D 1586) R.Q.D. - Rock Quality Designation

Seneca Park Parcels J&K - Campbell County EDA

Cave-in at 10.8 feet

Drilled by D. Cash using B51 Mobile and Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Augers. Boring completed 2/26/2024.

20240086

10.8

NOTES:

Campbell County, Virginia

PROJECT:

LOG OF BORING B-01

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

2524 Langhorne Road Lynchburg, VA 24501 http://www.HandP.com

870.0

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AFTER 24 HRS (ft):

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AT COMPLETION (ft):

PROPOSED SUBGRADE ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH (ft):

PLLL

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

PL

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

LIMITS

ATTERBERG

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

LAB DATAFIELD DATA

N -v al u e

PE

R C

EN

T R

EC

O

V

ER

Y

R .Q

.D

BL

O

W C

O U

N T

SA

M

PL

ES

Campbell County Dept. of Economic Development

Fax: (434) 847-0047 Telephone: (434) 847-7796

D

EP

T H fe et

SO

IL

S

YM

BO

L

EL

EV

A T

IO

N fe et

15.5

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

-G C

6.

G P

J

/2 8/

WOH

1.0

12.0

15.5

12 inches of Topsoil

RESIDUUM: Red ELASTIC SILT (MH), moist contains quartz rock fragments decreasing plasticity, contains relict structure

Reddish Yellow, very moist

Reddish Yellow, SILT (ML), contains relict structure, very moist

Boring Terminated at 15.5 feet.

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING DETAILS:

PROJECT NO.

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

M

IN

U S

N O

SI

EV

E

SHEET 1 of 1

PI

N - Standard Penetration Test Resistance (ASTM D 1586) R.Q.D. - Rock Quality Designation

Seneca Park Parcels J&K - Campbell County EDA

Cave-in at 11 feet

Drilled by D. Cash using B51 Mobile and Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Augers. Boring completed 2/26/2024.

20240086

9.3

NOTES:

Campbell County, Virginia

PROJECT:

LOG OF BORING B-02

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

2524 Langhorne Road Lynchburg, VA 24501 http://www.HandP.com

866.6

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AFTER 24 HRS (ft):

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AT COMPLETION (ft):

PROPOSED SUBGRADE ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH (ft):

10.5

PLLL

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

PL

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

LIMITS

ATTERBERG

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

LAB DATAFIELD DATA

N -v al u e

PE

R C

EN

T R

EC

O

V

ER

Y

R .Q

.D

BL

O

W C

O U

N T

SA

M

PL

ES

Campbell County Dept. of Economic Development

Fax: (434) 847-0047 Telephone: (434) 847-7796

D

EP

T H fe et

SO

IL

S

YM

BO

L

EL

EV

A T

IO

N fe et

15.5

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

-G C

6.

G P

J

/2 8/

1.0

15.5

12 inches of Topsoil

RESIDUUM: Red ELASTIC SILT (MH), moist dry to moist

Olive Grayish Brown decreasing plasticity

Yellowish Brown, contains relict structure

Boring Terminated at 15.5 feet.

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING DETAILS:

PROJECT NO.

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

M

IN

U S

N O

SI

EV

E

SHEET 1 of 1

PI

N - Standard Penetration Test Resistance (ASTM D 1586) R.Q.D. - Rock Quality Designation

Seneca Park Parcels J&K - Campbell County EDA

Cave-in at 11 feet

Drilled by D. Cash using B51 Mobile and Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Augers. Boring completed 2/26/2024.

20240086

NOTES:

Campbell County, Virginia

PROJECT:

LOG OF BORING B-03

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

2524 Langhorne Road Lynchburg, VA 24501 http://www.HandP.com

860.1

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AFTER 24 HRS (ft):

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AT COMPLETION (ft):

PROPOSED SUBGRADE ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH (ft):

PLLL

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

PL

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

LIMITS

ATTERBERG

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

LAB DATAFIELD DATA

N -v al u e

PE

R C

EN

T R

EC

O

V

ER

Y

R .Q

.D

BL

O

W C

O U

N T

SA

M

PL

ES

Campbell County Dept. of Economic Development

Fax: (434) 847-0047 Telephone: (434) 847-7796

D

EP

T H fe et

SO

IL

S

YM

BO

L

EL

EV

A T

IO

N fe et

15.5

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

-G C

6.

G P

J

/2 8/

43 18 25

1.0

2.0

9.0

15.5

12 inches of Topsoil

PROBABLE FILL: Red ELASTIC SILT (MH), moist

RESIDUUM: Gray FAT CLAY (CH), very moist

Olive Grayish Brown Silty SAND (SM), contains mica, moist

Boring Terminated at 15.5 feet.

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING DETAILS:

PROJECT NO.

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

M

IN

U S

N O

SI

EV

E

SHEET 1 of 1

PI

N - Standard Penetration Test Resistance (ASTM D 1586) R.Q.D. - Rock Quality Designation

Seneca Park Parcels J&K - Campbell County EDA

Cave-in at 11 feet

Drilled by D. Cash using B51 Mobile and Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Augers. Boring completed 2/19/2024.

20240086

1.7

NOTES:

Campbell County, Virginia

PROJECT:

LOG OF BORING B-04

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

2524 Langhorne Road Lynchburg, VA 24501 http://www.HandP.com

854.5

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AFTER 24 HRS (ft):

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AT COMPLETION (ft):

PROPOSED SUBGRADE ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH (ft):

PLLL

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

PL

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

LIMITS

ATTERBERG

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

LAB DATAFIELD DATA

N -v al u e

PE

R C

EN

T R

EC

O

V

ER

Y

R .Q

.D

BL

O

W C

O U

N T

SA

M

PL

ES

Campbell County Dept. of Economic Development

Fax: (434) 847-0047 Telephone: (434) 847-7796

D

EP

T H fe et

SO

IL

S

YM

BO

L

EL

EV

A T

IO

N fe et

15.5

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

-G C

6.

G P

J

/2 8/

1.0

6.0

30.5

12 inches of Topsoil

RESIDUUM: Red ELASTIC SILT (MH), moist

Reddish Brown Sandy SILT (ML), contains mica, moist with Sand, contains manganese staining, very moist

Boring Terminated at 15.5 feet.

Sandy, Orangish Grayish Brown

Grayish Brown

Orangish Brown, WET SPOON

Boring Terminated at 30.5 feet.

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING DETAILS:

PROJECT NO.

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

M

IN

U S

N O

SI

EV

E

SHEET 1 of 1

PI

N - Standard Penetration Test Resistance (ASTM D 1586) R.Q.D. - Rock Quality Designation

Seneca Park Parcels J&K - Campbell County EDA

Cave-in at 21.7 feet

Drilled by D. Cash using B51 Mobile and Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Augers. Boring completed 2/26/2024.

20240086

15.2

NOTES:

Campbell County, Virginia

PROJECT:

LOG OF BORING B-05

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

2524 Langhorne Road Lynchburg, VA 24501 http://www.HandP.com

872.7

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AFTER 24 HRS (ft):

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AT COMPLETION (ft):

PROPOSED SUBGRADE ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH (ft):

18.3

PLLL

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

PL

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

LIMITS

ATTERBERG

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

LAB DATAFIELD DATA

N -v al u e

PE

R C

EN

T R

EC

O

V

ER

Y

R .Q

.D

BL

O

W C

O U

N T

SA

M

PL

ES

Campbell County Dept. of Economic Development

Fax: (434) 847-0047 Telephone: (434) 847-7796

D

EP

T H fe et

SO

IL

S

YM

BO

L

EL

EV

A T

IO

N fe et

30.5

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

-G C

6.

G P

J

/2 8/

WOH

1.0

19.0

24.0

29.5

30.5

12 inches of Topsoil

RESIDUUM: Red ELASTIC SILT (MH), moist with Sand, very moist contains manganese staining

Olive Grayish Brown Sandy SILT (ML), contains manganese staining, very moist

Olive Gray ELASTIC SILT (MH), very moist

Grayish Brown Sandy SILT (ML), moist

Boring Terminated at 30.5 feet.

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING DETAILS:

PROJECT NO.

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

M

IN

U S

N O

SI

EV

E

SHEET 1 of 1

PI

N - Standard Penetration Test Resistance (ASTM D 1586) R.Q.D. - Rock Quality Designation

Seneca Park Parcels J&K - Campbell County EDA

Cave-in at 24.6 feet

Drilled by D. Cash using B51 Mobile and Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Augers. Boring completed 2/26/2024.

20240086

3.0

NOTES:

Campbell County, Virginia

PROJECT:

LOG OF BORING B-06

DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM

Hurt & Proffitt, Inc.

2524 Langhorne Road Lynchburg, VA 24501 http://www.HandP.com

862.3

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AFTER 24 HRS (ft):

GROUNDWATER DEPTH AT COMPLETION (ft):

PROPOSED SUBGRADE ELEVATION:

BORING DEPTH (ft):

17.0

PLLL

PL

A

ST

IC

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

PL

A

ST

IC

L

IM

IT

LIMITS

ATTERBERG

LI

Q

U

ID

L

IM

IT

M O

IS

T U

R E

C O

N T

EN

T

LAB DATAFIELD DATA

N -v al u e

PE

R C

EN

T R

EC

O

V

ER

Y

R .Q

.D

BL

O

W C

O U

N T

SA

M

PL

ES

Campbell County Dept. of Economic Development

Fax: (434) 847-0047 Telephone: (434) 847-7796

D

EP

T H fe et

SO

IL

S

YM

BO

L

EL

EV

A T

IO

N fe et

30.5

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

-G C

6.

G P

J

/2 8/

64 43 21

50/4"

WOH

WOH

50/4"

1.0

19.0

24.0

29.0

30.0

12 inches of Topsoil

RESIDUUM: Reddish Brown ELASTIC SILT (MH), moist

Very moist decreasing plasticity

Olive Brown, contains manganese staining

Orangish Brown

Grayish Brown Sandy SILT (ML), contains mica, very moist

Gray Silty SAND (SM), contains mica, WET SPOON, very moist

Partially Weathered Rock: Gray Silty SAND (SM), contains mica, very moist

Boring Terminated at 30.0 feet.

SURFACE ELEVATION:

DRILLING DETAILS:

PROJECT NO.

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

M

IN

U S

N O

SI

EV

E

SHEET 1 of 1

PI

N - Standard Penetration Test Resistance (ASTM D 1586) R.Q.D. - Rock Quality Designation

Seneca…