Attachment_F_-_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL

REPORT

Report Cover Page

Honore Ave Reclaimed Water Main Extension, Phase 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report

Sarasota County, Florida

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Prepared for:

Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.

1777 Main Street Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236

8260 Vico Court, Unit B Sarasota, FL 34240

P (941) 379-0621 Terracon.com

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Report Cover Letter to Sign

May 30, 2025

Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc.

1777 Main Street Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236

Attn: Mr. Dan Bornmann, E.I.

P: (941) 217-8991 E: Dan.Bornmann@kimley-horn.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Honore Ave Reclaimed Water Main Extension, Phase 2 Honore Avenue Sarasota County, Florida Terracon Project No. HC245024

Dear Mr. Bornmann:

We have completed the scope of Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PHC245018 dated March 10, 2025. This report presents the findings of subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork for the design and construction of sidewalk and drainage pipe for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Registry Number 8830

Melkin Fructuoso, P.E. Keith D. Bennett, P.E.

Project Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida Registration No.: 100214 Florida Registration No.: 33075

This report has been digitally signed and sealed by Keith D. Bennett, P.E. on the date adjacent to the seal.

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

Digitally signed by Keith Bennett DN: cn=Keith Bennett, o=TERRACON CONSULTANTS

INC,

email=keith.bennett@terracon.com Date: 2025.05.30 13:08:32 -04'00'

Keith Bennett

Geotechnical Engineering Report Honore Ave Reclaimed Water Main Extension, Phase 2 | Sarasota County, Florida May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i

Table of Contents

Introduction Project Description Site Conditions Geotechnical Characterization Geotechnical Overview

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Design Parameters Earthwork

Excavation Grading and Drainage Reclaimed Water Line Trench Backfill Earthwork Construction Considerations Groundwater Considerations Construction Observation and Testing

Trench Backfill Recommendations General Comments

Figures GeoModel

Attachments

Exploration and Testing Procedures Site Location and Exploration Plans Exploration and Laboratory Results Supporting Information

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Blue Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1

Introduction

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and Geotechnical Engineering services performed for the proposed a new reclaimed watermain to be located at Honore Avenue in Sarasota County, Florida. The purpose of these services was to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

Subsurface soil conditions Groundwater conditions Site preparation and earthwork Dewatering considerations

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of test borings, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of this report.

Drawings showing the site and boring locations are shown on the Site Location and Exploration Plan, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during our field exploration are included on the boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section.

Project Description

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed during project planning. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided

The following information was provided by Mr. Dan Bornmann, E.I. via e-mail on February 23, 2024. A supplemental e-mail with an updated scope of work request was provided by Mr. Mike Bennett on February 25, 2025.

Project Description

The project consists of the design of a new reclaimed watermain.

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2

Item Description

Proposed Structure

The project includes approximately 3,270 linear feet of 20-inch diameter pipe that will be either Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) or PVC.

The pipe is to be installed using a combination of cut and cover and horizontal directional drilling (HDD). The pipe installed by cut and cover techniques is to be about 6 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) and the HDD construction will be about 20 to 30 feet bgs.

Terracon should be notified if any of the above information is inconsistent with the planned construction, especially the grading limits, as modifications to our recommendations may be necessary.

Site Conditions

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located on Honore Avenue near Ranch Road in Sarasota County, Florida. See Site Location

Existing Improvements

None

Current Ground Cover

The site is a roadway section of asphalt pavement and short grasses on the sides.

Existing Topography

Review of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Elevation Model indicates the site is relatively level with ground surface elevations ranging from about +13 to +15 feet-NAVD.

Geotechnical Characterization

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of the site. Conditions observed at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in the Exploration Results and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures attachment of this report.

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3

As part of our analyses, we identified the following Model Layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the Model Layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model Layer

Layer Name General Description

1 Sand Poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM)

2 Silty Sand Silty sand (SM)

3 Clayey Clay Clayey sand (SC)

4 Clay Clay (CH)

5 Limestone Limestone, recovered in the split-spoon sampler as silt or clay with limestone fragments and shell

1. Soft limestone refers to material containing limestone with SPT N-values less than or equal to 50 blows per foot (ref. Florida Department of Transportation Soils and Foundations Handbook). Hard limestone corresponds to N-values >50 blows per foot. The description of “relative hardness” should not be applied to constructability items such as excavating drilling.

Geotechnical Overview

The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings, provided that the recommendations provided in this report are implemented in the design and construction phases of this project.

In general, the borings found loose to medium dense poorly graded fine sand with varying amounts of silt and clay from the surface to a depth of about 10 to 12 feet bgs followed by soft to hard limestone to a depth of about 32 to 38 feet bgs. Frequently the surface of the is of the Hard limestone with refusal blowcount “N” values. However, the top of the limestone was not always in the “refusal” category. The limestones were sometimes underlain by stiff to hard plastic clays to the maximum borehole termination depth of 50 feet bgs. A few of the borings found a seam of silt within the limestone layer from a depth of about 14 to 28 feet bgs.

Based on the planned HDD depth of at least 18 feet (but noted as 20 to 30 feet bgs), typical HDD construction procedures should be sufficient for the installation of the new force main piping until encountering the top of the hard limestone. When encountering the limestone (and in particular the hard limestone, the drilling may become more difficult and require more specialized drilling bits to penetrate. Also depending upon the “approach” angle of the drill, there can be a tendency to “skip” along the surface of the limestone rather than penetrating through to the intended depth. The selected HDD

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 4 contractor should be aware of this and account for it in their cost and processes. We did not encounter any losses of circulation in our drilling in the limestone.

The contractor should anticipate the following subsoil conditions during HDD operations:

Saturated, loose, fine-grained sands which are prone to instability during excavation or directional drilling.

Very hard drilling at the depths where the limestone formation is encountered.

The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (presented in the Exploration Results), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Design Parameters

The soil parameters shown in the table below are based on an empirical correlation (ref:

Florida Department of Transportation Soils and Foundations Handbook, 2024, and FHWA NHI-05-042, 2006, Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Volume I, and may be used for the design of the below grade piping in the vicinity of the SPT borings.

Boring No.

USCS

Classification

SPT

N-

Values

Total Weight (pcf)

Submerged Weight (pcf)

Friction Angle (phi)1

Cohesion (psf)2

Coefficients

Active (Ka)

Passive (Kp)

At-Rest (K0)

B-1

SP-SM 23 122 59 34 - 0.29 3.50 0.44

SM 8 104 42 30 - 0.33 3.00 0.50

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

LS 9 106 44 1,000 1.00 1.00 1.00

B-2

SP-SM 14 113 51 32 - 0.31 3.19 0.48

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

LS 21 120 58 2,000 1.00 3.00 1.00

B-3

SP-SM 29 126 64 35 - 0.26 3.73 0.42

SM 16 116 53 32 - 0.31 3.26 0.47

LS 36 130 68 3,500 1.00 3.00 1.00

B-4

SP-SM 38 130 68 38 - 0.24 4.11 0.39

LS 43 130 68 4,500 1.00 3.00 1.00

B-5

SP-SM 55 130 68 38 - 0.24 4.20 0.38

SM 31 127 65 35 - 0.27 3.69 0.43

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5

LS 32 128 66 3,000 1.00 3.00 1.00

B-6

SP-SM Hand Auger to 10 feet

SC No Information

LS 18 118 55 38 - 1.00 1.00 1.00

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

LS 17 117 54 1,500 1.00 1.00 1.00

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

CH 10 120 58 - 1,250 1.00 1.00 1.00

B-6A

SP-SM 16 116 53 32 - 0.31 3.26 0.47

SC 18 118 55 33 - 0.30 3.32 0.46

LS 17 117 54 1,500 1.00 1.00 1.00

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

LS 16 116 53 1,500 1.00 1.00 1.00

LS 10 108 45 1,000 1.00 1.00 1.00

B-7

SP-SM Hand Auger to 10 feet

SM 6 100 38 30 - 0.34 2.94 0.51

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

CH 17 125 63 - 2,125 1.00 1.00 1.00

B-7A

SP-SM 7 102 40 30 - 0.34 2.97 0.50

SM 14 113 51 32 - 0.31 3.19 0.48

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

CH 28 130 68 3,500 1.00 1.00 1.00

B-8 SP-SM Hand Auger to 10 feet

SC 13 112 50 31 - 0.32 3.16 0.48

LS 13 112 50 5,000 1.00 1.00 1.00

B-8A

SP-SM 14 113 51 32 - 0.31 3.19 0.48

SC 20 119 57 33 - 0.30 3.39 0.46

LS 25 123 61 39 - 1.00 3.00 1.00

B-9

SP-SM 31 127 65 36 - 0.26 3.81 0.42

SC 9 106 44 30 - 0.33 3.03 0.50

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

LS 30 127 64 3,000 1.00 3.00 1.00

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

CH 19 127 65 - 2,250 1.00 1.00 1.00

B-10

SP-SM 11 109 47 31 - 0.32 3.09 0.49

SM 10 108 45 31 - 0.33 3.06 0.49

LS 19 118 56 4,000 1.00 1.00 1.00

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

LS 17 117 54 1,500 1.00 1.00 1.00

LS 100 130 68 10,000 1.00 5.00 1.00

LS 23 122 59 2,000 1.00 3.00 1.00

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 6

B-11

SP-SM 13 112 50 31 - 0.32 3.16 0.48

SM 6 100 38 30 - 0.34 2.94 0.51

SC 11 109 47 31 - 0.32 3.09 0.49

B-12

SP-SM 14 113 51 32 - 0.31 3.19 0.48

SC 11 109 47 31 - 0.32 3.09 0.49

1. Based on Florida Department of Transportation Soils and Foundations Handbook 2024.

2. Based on FHWA NHI-05-042, 2006, Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Volume I.

3. LS is Limestone. There is no USCS Classification for Limestone.

4. Refusal is defined as 50 blows for 6” or less on the sampler.

Estimated shear modulus values based on depth and location are also provided in the following table.

Boring No.

Depth (feet) USCS1

Relative Density /

Consistency

Average Shear Modulus, G (psf) 2

Range Average

B-6

0 to 10 SP-SM Hand Auger to 10 feet

10 to 12 SC No SPT Information

12 to 22 LS Soft 596,000 738,000 671,000

22 to 26 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

26 to 34 LS Soft 629,000 688,000 649,000

34 to 38 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

38 to 50 CH Medium to very stiff 156,000 333,000 256,000

B-6A

0 to 8 SP-SM Medium dense 198,000 338,000 276,000

8 to 12 SC Medium dense 273,000 273,000 273,000

12 to 24 LS Soft 636,000 681,000 664,000

24 to 28 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

28 to 44 LS Soft 590,000 829,000 728,000

44 - 50 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

B-7

0 to 4 SP-SM Hand Auger to 10 feet

4 to 10 SM

10 to 14 SM Loose 160,000 160,000 160,000

14 to 16 LS Soft 576,000 576,000 576,000

16 to 22 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

22 to 38 CH Very stiff to hard 333,000 333,000 333,000

38 to 50 CH Medium to stiff 115,000 237,000 163,000

B-7A 0 to 10 SM Loose to medium dense 169,000 319,000 214,000

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 7

10 to 18 SM Medium dense 188,000 208,000 198,000

18 to 22 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

22 to 50 CH Very stiff to Hard 333,000 333,000 333,000

B-9

0 to 4 SP-SM Dense 176,000 176,000 176,000

4 to 18 SC Medium dense 169,000 217,000 192,000

18 to 24 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

24 to 28 LS Soft 700,000 757,000 729,000

28 to 30 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

30 to 32 LS Soft 729,000 729,000 729,000

32 to 34 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

34 to 50 CH Stiff to very stiff 298,000 333,000 327,000

B-10

0 to 4 SP-SM Loose to medium dense 160,000 226,000 193,000

4 to 18 SM Loose to medium dense 169,000 328,000 201,000

18 to 34 LS Soft 681,000 576,000 672,000

34 to 36 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

36 to 40 LS Soft 636,000 681,000 659,000

40 to 44 LS Hard 1,214,000 1,214,000 1,214,000

44 to 50 LS Soft 607,000 686,000 667,000

1. LS is Limestone. There is no USCS Classification for Limestone.

2. Based on FHWA NHI-05-042, 2006 and 2016, Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, Volume I. Limestone was considered as gravel.

Earthwork

Earthwork outside the reclaimed pipeline is expected to be relatively minor. Mostly the work will consist of excavating for the pipe and its backfill and primarily of restoring the roadway back to its original condition.

Excavation

We anticipate that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment though larger backhoes may be required if limestone is encountered. Excavations below about 6 to 8 feet may encounter limestone. The surface of the limestone is frequently refusal limestone and will be more difficult to excavate and the rate of excavation will be slower.

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 8

Grading and Drainage

All grades must provide effective drainage away from the work area during construction

Reclaimed Water Line Trench Backfill

Any soft or unsuitable materials encountered at the bottom of storm pipe trench excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill or bedding material in accordance with public works specifications. This recommendation is particularly applicable to work requiring grade control and/or in areas where subsequent grade raising could cause settlement in the subgrade supporting the storm pipe. Trench excavations should not be conducted below a downward 1:1 projection from existing pavements or foundations without engineering review of shoring requirements and geotechnical observation during construction.

Model Layer 1 on-site materials are considered suitable for backfill of storm pipe trenches from 1 foot above the top of the pipe to the final ground surface, provided the material is free of organic matter and deleterious substances. The Model Layer 2 soils can be used to backfill above the groundwater table at the time of construction.

Trench backfill should be mechanically placed and compacted as discussed earlier in this report. Compaction of initial lifts should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. Flooding or jetting for placement and compaction of backfill should not be permitted.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Excavations for the proposed reclaimed water pipe are anticipated to be accomplished with conventional construction equipment. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water in excavations. Water collecting over or adjacent to construction areas should be removed.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local and/or state regulations.

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.

Excavations or other activities resulting in ground disturbance have the potential to affect adjoining properties and structures. Our scope of services does not include review of

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 9 available final grading information or consider potential temporary grading performed by the contractor for potential effects such as ground movement beyond the project limits.

A preconstruction/precondition survey should be conducted to document nearby property/infrastructure prior to any site development activity. Excavation or ground disturbance activities adjacent or near property lines should be monitored or instrumented for potential ground movements that could negatively affect adjoining property and/or structures.

Groundwater Considerations

The Contractor should be prepared to implement a dewatering program for excavations made below existing site grades, such as those for installation of stormwater pipes. Based on observations at our soil borings, it is anticipated that groundwater will likely be encountered in excavations on site. Dewatering procedures used by the contractor will be dependent on a number of factors such as the areas and depths of excavations, prevalent groundwater conditions, and prevalent weather conditions at the time of construction.

Dewatering procedures employed should be capable of maintaining groundwater levels at least 2 feet below the lowest point of the excavation being dewatered, or as deep as required to achieve the required compaction or suitable subgrade conditions. In addition, the dewatering procedures should be maintained until all construction operations are above the groundwater levels that existed prior to dewatering, or until all structural bearing subgrades are adequately protected.

We expect that installation of deeper drainage pipes and drainage structures will require vacuum-type dewatering systems such as wellpoints or horizontal sock-type vacuum dewatering systems. Groundwater control in shallower excavations in sandy soils can typically be accomplished by excavating sumps in non-structural bearing areas of the excavation and pumping of the accumulated water from the sumps as needed to maintain a dry excavation.

To facilitate construction operations and aid long term performance of grade supported structures on the project site, additional measures may be necessary to manage the shallow groundwater conditions. Such measures may include, but may not be limited to, the following:

The use of clean granular backfill materials, such as sands with less than 5% passing the No. 200 mesh sieve or No. 57 gradation crushed washed stone, to facilitate backfill operations near or below groundwater levels.

The proper scheduling of construction operations to minimize the potential effects of groundwater conditions on excavation and construction operations. Such scheduling should be performed in a manner as to minimize the amount of time for which excavations are allowed to remain open and subgrades exposed, and to expedite the backfill or construction operations as quickly as is practical. Therefore, all materials and equipment required to perform any excavation or construction

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 10 operations should be available and ready on the site prior to and at the time of the operations.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (or others under their direction). Observation should include documentation of adequate compaction of trench materials along with replacement of any pavement section required.

Each lift of structural fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Where not specified by local ordinance, one density and water content test should be performed for every 100 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill and a minimum of one test performed for every 12 vertical inches of compacted backfill.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.

Trench Backfill Recommendations

Any open trench (excavation) areas should be accomplished in the dry (i.e. not in saturated or submerged conditions). Dewatering to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of all excavations should be performed prior to placement of backfill materials.

Should the excavation bottom become unstable due to persistent moisture or hydrostatic pressure, the bottom should be “over-excavated” a minimum of 12 inches (deep) and replaced with clean gravel (FDOT No. 57 Stone).

Backfill below the existing water level at the time of construction should consist of relatively clean sands or gravels, with a maximum of 15% passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve and no particle size larger than 1 inch in any dimension. Backfill above the existing water level at the time of construction should consist of non-plastic sands or gravels with particle sizes of less than 1 inch in any dimension. The fill should be placed in the dry in lifts that do not exceed 12 inches in vertical measure. Each lift should be compacted to at least 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Backfill in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 98% density (ASTM D-1557).

The GeoModel Layer 1 soils should generally meet the backfill gradation requirements of a maximum of 15% passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. The GeoModel Layer 2 soils should generally will not meet the backfill gradation requirement of a

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 11 maximum of 15% passing the US No. 200 sieve and non-plastic and are not recommended for use.

The GeoModel Layer 3 and 4soils generally do not meet the Fine content or plasticity requirements for re-use as backfill and would need to be replaced with a non-plastic fill if encountered.

Stratum No. 6 is limestone . The limestone is varies from what has been described as “soft” and “hard”. Regardless of the soft or hard description both would require more than normal effort (i.e. time and wear and tear on equipment) during excavation with the hard being the more difficult. This should be accounted for in their bid. A note to this effect should be placed in the plans. When found, the excavated limestone material should not be re-used for backfill.

As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during pipe installation operations. The utility contractor, by contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations, as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

Temporary Dewatering

Dewatering will be needed to facilitate earthwork and underground construction operations for this project. The necessity for dewatering will be dependent on the depth of excavation below existing grade and the groundwater levels at the time of construction. Actual dewatering “means and methods” should be left up to a contractor experienced in installation and operation of dewatering systems. The contractor should provide a dewatering plan for review and comment by the engineer prior to the installation of the dewatering systems.

General Comments

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration.

Variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 12 and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing. Site safety and cost estimating including excavation support and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. Construction and site development have the potential to affect adjacent properties. Such impacts can include damages due to vibration, modification of groundwater/surface water flow during construction, foundation movement due to undermining or subsidence from excavation, as well as noise or air quality concerns. Evaluation of these items on nearby properties are commonly associated with contractor means and methods and are not addressed in this report. The owner and contractor should consider a preconstruction/precondition survey of surrounding development. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Figures

Contents:

GeoModel

D

EP

TH

B

EL

O

W G

R A

D E

(F ee t)

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5

Legend

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

GeoModel

Honore Avenue | Sarasota, FL Terracon Project No. HC245024

Honore Ave RCWM Ext Ph.2

8260 Vico Ct, Unit B Sarasota, FL

First Water Observation

Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time.

Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details.

Poorly-graded Sand with Silt Silty Sand

Limestone Weathered Limestone

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM)

3 Clayey sand ( SC)

4 Clay (CH)

2 Silty sand (SM)

5 Limestone, recovered in the split-spoon sampler as limestone fragments

Sand

Clayey Sand

Clay

Silty Sand

Limestone Formation

8 8

18.1

19.4

D

EP

TH

B

EL

O

W G

R A

D E

(F ee t)

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-6 B-6A B-7 B-7A B-8

Legend

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

GeoModel

Honore Avenue | Sarasota, FL Terracon Project No. HC245024

Honore Ave RCWM Ext Ph.2

8260 Vico Ct, Unit B Sarasota, FL

First Water Observation

Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time.

Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details.

Poorly-graded Sand with Silt Clayey Sand

Weathered Limestone Limestone

Fat Clay Silty Sand

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM)

3 Clayey sand ( SC)

4 Clay (CH)

2 Silty sand (SM)

5 Limestone, recovered in the split-spoon sampler as limestone fragments

Sand

Clayey Sand

Clay

Silty Sand

Limestone Formation

12.5

37.5

48.3

9.5

9.5

17.5

22.5

9.5 10

D

EP

TH

B

EL

O

W G

R A

D E

(F ee t)

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-8A B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12

Legend

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

GeoModel

Honore Avenue | Sarasota, FL Terracon Project No. HC245024

Honore Ave RCWM Ext Ph.2

8260 Vico Ct, Unit B Sarasota, FL

First Water Observation

Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time.

Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details.

Poorly-graded Sand with Silt Clayey Sand

Weathered Limestone Limestone

Fat Clay Silty Sand

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM)

3 Clayey sand ( SC)

4 Clay (CH)

2 Silty sand (SM)

5 Limestone, recovered in the split-spoon sampler as limestone fragments

Sand

Clayey Sand

Clay

Silty Sand

Limestone Formation

9.5

12.5

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Attachments

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Exploration and Testing Procedures

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Approximate Boring

Depth (feet) Location

9 20 Planned cut-and-cover locations

61 50 Planned HDD locations (B-6 and B-7; B-9 and B-10)

1. Continuous sampling occurred in all borings, though you may note that B6, B7, & B8 were redrilled and are shown twice as the original drilling occurred on 5 foot centers below 10 feet. However, we are including both sets of boring logs.

Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the boring layout using handheld GPS equipment (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±10 feet) and referencing existing site features. If elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend boring be surveyed.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a truck-mounted, rotary drill rig using continuous SPT sampling initially followed by slurry with temporary casing as needed to maintain the borehole. Continuous sampling occurred in all borings, though you may note that B6, B7, & B8 were redrilled and are shown twice as the original drilling occurred on 5 foot centers below 10 feet. However, we are including both sets of boring logs. In the split barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon for each six-inch penetration interval is recorded. The 2nd and 3rd six-inch increments are added together and reported as the Standard Penetration (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with bentonite chips after their completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials observed during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests. The laboratory testing program included the following types of tests:

Water content Percent Fines Atterberg limits

The laboratory testing program included review of soil samples by an engineer. Based on the results of our field and laboratory programs, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Site Location and Exploration Plans

Contents:

Site Location Exploration Plan

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

Site Location

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

Exploration Plan

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

Exploration and Laboratory Results

Contents:

Boring Logs (B-1 through B-12)

Supporting Information

Contents:

General Notes Unified Soil Classification System

May 30, 2025 | Terracon Project No. HC245024

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Unified Soil Classification System Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using

Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification Group

Symbol Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu<4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu<6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than

Inorganic:

PI > 7 and plots above “A” line J CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic: < 0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N

Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic silt K, L, M

Organic: < 0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P

Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or

“with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

DxD

)(D