Brickyard_Road_Pipe_Crossing_-_GEOTECHNICAL_ENGINEERING_REPORT.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING

REPORT

Brickyard Road Pipe Crossing Escambia County, Florida

PREPARED FOR:

Sigma Consulting Group, LLC 3298 Summit Boulevard, Suite 32

Pensacola, Florida 32503

NOVA Project Number: 10116-2024012

July 23, 2024

P R O F E S S I O N A L | P R A C T I C A L | P R O V E N

5 0 0 1 C o m m e r c e P a r k C i r c l e , P e n s a c o l a , F l o r i d a 3 2 5 0 5 t . 8 5 0 . 6 0 7 . 7 7 8 2 / f . 8 5 0 . 2 4 9 . 6 6 8 3 / u s a n o v a . c o m

July 23, 2024

Sigma Consulting Group, Inc.

3298 Summit Boulevard, Suite 32

Pensacola, Florida 32503

Attention: Mr. Jason L. Lashley, P.E.

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report

BRICKYARD ROAD PIPE CROSSING

Escambia County, Florida

NOVA Project Number 10116-2024012

Dear Mr. Lashley:

NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC (NOVA) has completed the authorized Geotechnical

Engineering Report for the planned infrastructure improvements in Escambia County, Florida.

The work was performed in general accordance with NOVA Proposal Number 10116-2024012, dated January 8, 2024. This report briefly discusses our understanding of the project at the time of the subsurface exploration, describes the consulting services provided by NOVA, and presents our findings.

We appreciate your selection of NOVA and the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, NOVA Engineering and Environmental LLC

Jesse A. James, P.E. William L. Lawrence, P.E.

Senior Engineer Principal Engineer

Florida Registration No. 90470 Florida Registration No. 60147

Copies Submitted: via electronic mail service

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT

1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 PROJECT SITE

2.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 AREA GEOLOGY

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

5.2 EXCAVATION

5.3 FILL PLACEMENT

6.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figures and Maps

Appendix B – Subsurface Data

Appendix C – Laboratory Data

Geotechnical Engineering Report July 23, 2024

Brickyard Road Pipe Crossing NOVA Project Number 10116-2024012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section provides information relating to our contract, the purpose of our work, and a summary of our understanding of the project,

1.1 NAME AND LOCATION OF PROJECT

The alignment of study generally extends beneath an existing CSX right of way parallelling Brickyard Road, several hundred feet south of Barth Road, in unincorporated Escambia County, Florida. The location of the alignment of study is indicated on the Site Location Map in Appendix A.

1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF STUDY

Our work on this project was as described in our Proposal Number 10116-2024012, dated January 9, 2024. The primary objectives of this work were to perform a geotechnical exploration along the alignment of study and to assess these findings as they relate to geotechnical aspects of the planned site development. The authorized geotechnical engineering services included a site reconnaissance, soil test borings and sampling, engineering evaluation of the field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. As authorized per the above referenced proposal, this completed geotechnical report includes:

➢ A description of the site, fieldwork, laboratory testing and general soil conditions encountered, as well as a Boring Location Plan and individual Test Boring Records.

➢ Site preparation considerations that include geotechnical discussions regarding site stripping and subgrade preparation and engineered fill/backfill placement.

➢ Recommendations for controlling groundwater and/or run-off during construction, and the potential need for a permanent dewatering system based on the anticipated post construction groundwater levels.

➢ Suitability of on-site soils for re-use as structural fill and backfill. Additionally, the criteria for suitable fill materials will be provided.

➢ Recommended quality control measures (i.e. sampling, testing, and inspection requirements) for site grading and utility construction.

The assessment of the presence of wetlands, floodplains, or water classified as state waters was beyond the scope of this exploration. Additionally, the assessment of site environmental conditions, including the detection of pollutants in the soil, rock, or groundwater, at the site was also beyond the scope of this geotechnical exploration and evaluation.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Our understanding of this project is based on discussions with the Client, review of the provided site plan, a site reconnaissance during boring layout, and our experience with similar projects.

2.1 PROJECT SITE

The alignment of study generally extends beneath an existing CSX right of way parallelling Brickyard Road, several hundred feet south of Barth Road, in unincorporated Escambia County, Florida.

2.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

The planned improvements will include installing a stormwater conduit within the proposed easement that is anticipated to be embedded on the order of 10 feet below existing site grades.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

3.1 AREA GEOLOGY

The site is located in the Escambia County, Florida area and according to the United

States Geological Survey (USGS), is situated within the greater Gulf Coastal Plain region.

The site is generally covered with Alluvium sediments of the Pleistocene/Holocene periods underlain by the Citronelle formation of the Pliocene/Pleistocene periods. The alluvial sediments typically consist of siliciclastics that are fine to coarse quartz sand containing clay lenses and gravel in places. Sands consists primarily of very fine to very coarse poorly sorted quartz grains; gravel is composed of quartz, quartzite, and chert pebbles. In areas of the Valley and Ridge province gravels are generally composed of angular to sub-rounded chert, quartz, and quartzite pebbles. Coastal deposits in the

Escambia County area include fine to medium quartz sand with shell fragments and accessory heavy minerals along Gulf beaches and fine to medium quartz sand, silt, clay, peat, mud and ooze in the Mississippi Sound, Little Lagoon, bays, lakes, streams, and estuaries. The Citronelle formation consists primarily of varicolored/mottled lenticular beds of poorly sorted sand, clayey sand, clay, and clayey gravel. Limonite pebbles and lenses of limonite cemented sand occur locally in weathered Miocene exposures.

Surficial soils in the region are primarily siliciclastic sediments deposited in response to the renewed uplift and erosion in the Appalachian highlands to the north and sea-level fluctuations. The extent and type of deposit is influenced by numerous factors, including mineral composition of the parent rock and meteorological events.

3.2 FIELD EXPLORATION

Our field exploration was conducted on July 18, 2024, and included performing:

• Two 5-foot-deep auger borings (designated as B-1 and B-2 in the attached Appendix) along the proposed stormwater conveyance alignment of study.

Boring locations were established in the field by NOVA personnel using a handheld GPS device and estimating distances and angles from site landmarks. Prior to initiating field testing, underground utilities were marked by Sunshine 811. Any required underground utility related adjustments of the boring locations were then made at the time of the field exploration. The approximate boring locations are shown in Appendix B. If increased accuracy is desired by the Client, test locations and elevations may be surveyed.

The Test Boring Records in Appendix B present the soil conditions encountered in the borings. These records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on the field exploration data, visual examination of the split-barrel samples, laboratory test data, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. The stratification lines and depth designations represent approximate boundaries between various subsurface strata. Actual transitions between materials may be gradual. The groundwater levels reported on the Test Boring Records represent measurements made at the completion of each test boring, following a suitable stabilization period. The test borings were subsequently backfilled with soil cuttings from the drilling process for safety concerns.

Auger Borings

The auger borings were performed using the guidelines of ASTM Designation D-1452, "Soil Exploration and Sampling by Auger Borings". A manually advanced 3¼-inch diameter orchard-type auger was utilized with disturbed samples acquired continuously for the full depth of the boring. Representative portions of the soil samples, obtained from the sampler, were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and laboratory testing.

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

Following completion of the field work, soil and rock samples obtained in the field were returned to our office for classification and laboratory testing assignment. These tests included the following:

• Manual/Visual Soil Classification

• Moisture Content

• Percent Fines

The purpose of the testing program was to classify the subsurface materials relative to the Unified Classification System and to determine their physical characteristics including strength, and compressibility. Detailed descriptions of the tests conducted are presented in Appendix C. The soil samples will be discarded 30 days following the submittal of this report, unless you request otherwise.

3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following paragraphs provide generalized descriptions of the subsurface profiles and soil conditions encountered by the borings conducted during this exploration.

Native Soils

Beneath up to 12 inches of gravel-laden topsoil, the test borings generally encountered mixed strata of fine-grained clayey sand and sandy clay (USCS classifications of SC and

CL, respectively) to a depth of about 5 feet below existing grade (BEG), where the boreholes collapsed due to groundwater intrusion.

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater in the Escambia County, Florida area typically occurs as an unconfined aquifer condition. Consequently, the groundwater table is expected to be a subdued replica of the original surface topography. Recharge is provided by the infiltration of rainfall and surface water through the soil overburden. More permeable zones in the soil matrix can affect groundwater conditions.

A stabilized groundwater table was measured in the test borings at a uniform depth of about 3 feet BEG at the time of our final field exploration, which occurred during a period of relatively normal seasonal rainfall and within a pattern of frequent (daily) rain events.

Groundwater levels vary with changes in season and rainfall, construction activity, surface water runoff, and other site-specific factors. Groundwater levels in the Escambia

County area are typically lowest in the late fall to winter and highest in the early spring to mid-summer with annual groundwater fluctuations by seasonal rainfall; consequently, the water table may vary at times.

Based on comparisons of current annual monthly rainfall data to historical rainfall data extending back 50+ years in time, we estimate that the normal permanent seasonal high groundwater (SHGW) table for this site at the measured depth measured at each boring location at the time of our field exploration, during the wet season.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The following assessment is based on our understanding of the proposed construction, site observations, our evaluation and interpretation of the field data obtained during this exploration, our experience with similar subsurface conditions, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices.

Based on the results of our field exploration and our understanding of the project, the proposed drainage improvements are deemed feasible.

Groundwater was encountered in the test borings at a depth of about 3 feet BEG at the time of drilling. Depending on the desired invert elevations for the proposed utility conduits, groundwater should be expected to impact the construction.

Contractors should be prepared to employ appropriate dewatering measures to perform required tasks in below-grade areas in the dry, with the actual measures employed being dependent on prevailing groundwater levels at the time of construction as well as the depth below groundwater that construction would be required to occur.

Based on visual examination and limited laboratory soil testing results, the majority of the on-site near surface soils can be categorized as SC or CL, or fine-grained clayey sands and sandy clay based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which are not suitable for reuse as structural fill given their high fines content and sensitivity to changing moisture conditions.

We note that subsurface conditions in unexplored locations may be different from those encountered at the test locations considered and discussed herein. If such variations are noted during construction, or if project development plans are changed, we request the opportunity to review the changes and amend our recommendations, if necessary.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SITE PREPARATION

We anticipate that site grading will closely match existing grades along the alignment of study. The new pipe crossing has been assumed to have an invert elevation on the order of 10 feet below existing grade (BEG).

Prior to proceeding with construction, all topsoil and vegetation, trees and associated root systems, and any other deleterious non-soil materials found to be present within the proposed stormwater conduit alignments should be stripped from the proposed construction areas. Debris-laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed of off-site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations. All existing utility locations should be reviewed to assess their impact on the proposed construction and relocated/grouted in-place as appropriate.

5.2 EXCAVATION

Excavations greater than five feet deep should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including OSHA (29CFR Part 1926), excavation safety standards. It should be noted that the Contractor is solely responsible for site safety. This information is provided only as a service and under no circumstances should NOVA be assumed to be responsible for construction site safety. Each excavation should be observed and classified by an OSHA-competent person. All excavations below the groundwater level are classified as OSHA Class C soils for excavation purposes.

After stripping and trench excavation, a NOVA geotechnical engineer should carefully evaluate the exposed soils. We recommend undercutting the proposed pipe trench areas approximately ½ foot below the proposed pipe bearing elevation and installing structural backfill for use as pipe bedding materials. Sewer pipe installation should be constructed in general compliance with ASTM D 2321, standard practice for underground installation of pipe for sewers and other gravity flow applications.

Trench and Pipe Bedding

After site stripping and trench excavation, a NOVA geotechnical engineer should carefully evaluate the soils exposed at the bottom-of-pipe elevations.

Additional recommendations (e.g., undercutting below the proposed pipe bearing elevation and replacing unsuitable soils with structural backfill, or possibly “choking” aggregate into the yielding subgrade soils to stiffen them up) will be rendered in the field should such action be deemed necessary.

Select backfill and pipe bedding materials should consist of relatively clean sands with less than 12 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve), and free of non-soil materials and rock fragments larger than 3 inches in diameter. Structural backfill and pipe bedding materials should be placed in thin, horizontal loose lifts (maximum 6-inch) and compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 98 percent of the Modified

Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).

Groundwater Control

A stabilized groundwater table was at depths of about 3 feet BEG at the time of our final field exploration, which occurred during a period of above normal seasonal rainfall.

Contractors should be prepared to employ appropriate dewatering measures to perform required tasks in below-grade areas in the dry, with the actual measures employed being dependent on prevailing groundwater levels at the time of construction as well as the depth below groundwater that construction would be required to occur.

Design of a temporary dewatering system is usually the responsibility of the contractor.

However, based on our experience with similar conditions, and in consideration of potential excavation depths below the groundwater table, we anticipate that a well point dewatering system could potentially be necessary to properly control groundwater.

Since well point system construction is partially dependent on the technique and experience of the contractor, we believe the system should only be installed by a contractor with a minimum of 5 years of experience in dewatering system design and installation specific to the Florida Panhandle region. Design flexibility should be allowed for the specialty contractor to choose the most appropriate dewatering system, including the well depths and spacing.

At the time of construction, groundwater must be lowered and continuously maintained at a minimum depth of 3 feet below the desired working elevation to permit subgrade preparation, excavation, and construction.

The dewatering system should be installed and operational prior to excavation beneath the water table. The dewatering system should also remain in continuous operation until the installation is complete. Although dewatered, the subgrade will remain saturated and susceptible to damage caused by construction traffic. Undercutting, stabilization, and replacement of unstable soils should be assumed to be necessary.

Drawdown: The radius of influence for the temporary dewatering wells or well points is dependent on the depth of the well and the hydraulic conductivity of the materials that are being dewatered. In coastal plain geology, the influence can extend laterally significantly in relation to the dewatering depth, with the greatest impact typically in the area extending laterally approximately three times the depth of drawdown. We recommend that the dewatering subcontractor prepare and include dewatering drawdown calculations in their design / construction submittal.

Adjacent Structures: The effects of the temporary dewatering on the nearby existing buildings and utilities should be considered during the design of the dewatering system. Groundwater drawdown reduces the buoyant forces in the soil mass, thus increasing the effective weight of the soil and resulting in consolidation (settlement) of the soil due to its increased self-weight.

As previously noted, groundwater levels are subject to seasonal, climatic, and other variations and may be different at other times and locations. The extent and nature of any dewatering required during construction will be dependent on the actual groundwater conditions prevalent at the time of construction and the effectiveness of construction drainage to prevent run-off into open excavations.

Excavation bracing (shoring) design and installation is typically the responsibility of a specialty contractor working for the general contractor. Permanent installations will require design review and comment by the Structural Engineer and the Geotechnical

Engineer.

Since successful excavation bracing system construction is partially dependent on the technique and experience of the contractor, we believe the system should only be installed by a contractor with a minimum of 5 years of experience in tieback wall, soil nailing or other specialty bracing system installation. Design flexibility should be allowed for the specialty contractor to choose the most appropriate bracing system, including the method of forming the anchor and the required embedment length.

Temporary Excavation Bracing

Design of an excavation system uses earth pressures that are a function of both the soil properties and the installation methodology. The lateral earth pressures on these wall systems are typically not calculated using the classic triangular earth pressure distribution (equivalent fluid pressure) used in conventional wall design and presented in the table below, but are more frequently a trapezoidal earth pressure loading, as illustrated on the following page.

The actual selection of the bracing system is dependent on the subsurface conditions and movements of the retained soil mass due to the flexibility of the system, and changes in the groundwater level. Bracing system design must also consider the impact on nearby streets, buildings, and utilities.

At this site, excavation bracing systems will be constructed immediately adjacent to existing structures. Significant dewatering will be required that will induce soil settlement and can change the stresses on the bracing system. Consequently, we anticipate that the bracing system rigidity and groundwater control may form the basis for excavation bracing method selection and design.

Earth Pressure

Condition

Earth Pressure

Coefficient

Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf)

Above Water Table Below Water Table

Active (Ka) 0.33 40 80

At-Rest (Ko) 0.50 60 89

Passive (Kp) 3.00 150* TBD**

Passive earth pressure is frequently used in retaining wall design to resist active earth pressures.

Wall movements required to develop full passive earth pressures are significantly greater than movements necessary for active earth pressures. Consequently, this passive pressure value has been reduced by at least 50% for wall design

* Passive earth pressure for submerged wall design shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.

We recommend a value of 0.35 as the coefficient of friction (sliding resistance) between wall foundations and the underlying residual or fill soils. These design values do not contain a safety factor.

Our lateral earth pressure recommendations assume that:

• The ground surface adjacent to the wall is level.

• Soil backfill weight is a maximum of 120 pcf.

• Heavy construction equipment does not operate within 5 feet of the wall

• A constantly functioning drainage system is installed between the wall and the soil backfill to prevent hydrostatic pressures from acting on the wall.

• Foundations or other significant surcharge loads are located outside the wall a distance at least equal to the wall height.

• For active earth pressure, the wall must rotate about its base, with top lateral movements of about 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height.

• For passive earth pressure to develop, the wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

5.3 FILL PLACEMENT

Soil Suitability

The majority of on-site near surface soils can be categorized as SC or CL, or fine-grained clayey sands and sandy clay based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

These soil types are not suitable for re-use as structural fill due to their high fines contents and sensitivity to changing moisture conditions.

We recommend that NOVA be engaged to monitor all excavation and backfilling operations, in order to delineate between suitable and unsuitable soils at the time of construction, and to document compliance with project documents.

Select backfill and pipe bedding materials should consist of relatively clean sands with less than 12 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve), and free of non-soil materials and rock fragments larger than 3 inches in diameter. Soils with fines between

13 and 25 percent may also be used, but strict moisture control will be required.

All imported materials to be used for backfill or compacted fill construction should be evaluated and, if necessary, tested by NOVA prior to their being imported to determine if they are suitable for their intended use.

Fill materials that contain organic debris (organic contents greater than 3 percent) or construction debris/rubble are not suitable for reuse as structural fill. Prior to construction, bulk samples of the proposed fill materials should be laboratory tested to confirm their suitability.

Organic and/or debris-laden material is not suitable for re-use as structural fill. Topsoil, mulch, and similar organic materials can be wasted in architectural areas. Debris-laden materials should be excavated, transported, and disposed of off-site in accordance with appropriate solid waste rules and regulations.

Soil Compaction

Structural backfill and pipe bedding materials should be placed in thin, horizontal loose lifts (maximum 6-inch) and compacted to a minimum soil density of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).

Stormwater pipe installation should be performed in general compliance with ASTM D-

2321, Standard Practice for Underground Installation of Pipe for Sewers and Other

Gravity Flow Applications.

Fill materials used in structural areas should have a target maximum dry density of 95 pcf or greater. If lighter weight fill materials are used, the NOVA geotechnical engineer should be consulted to assess the impact on design recommendations.

Soil moisture content should be maintained within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content. We recommend that the grading contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both drying and wetting fill soils. Soils excavated from below the water table will likely require significant efforts to adjust the moisture contents prior to reuse as fill.

A NOVA soils technician, who can assess suitability of materials used, and uniformity and appropriateness of compaction efforts, should observe all filling and subgrade preparation. Field tests, using thin-wall tube, nuclear or sand cone testing methods

(ASTM D-2937, D-6938, or D-1556, respectively) should also be performed. When filling in small areas, at least one test per day per area should be required.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report represent our professional opinions concerning subsurface conditions at the site. The opinions presented are relative to the dates of our site work and should not be relied on to represent conditions at significantly later dates or at locations not explored. The opinions included herein are based on information provided to us, the data obtained at specific locations during the study and our experience. If additional information becomes available that might impact our geotechnical opinions, it will be necessary for NOVA to review the information, reassess the potential concerns, and re-evaluate our conclusions and recommendations.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is the possibility that conditions between test locations will differ from those encountered at specific test locations, that conditions are not as anticipated by the designers and/or the contractors, or that either natural events or the construction process have altered the subsurface conditions. These variations are an inherent risk associated with subsurface conditions in this region and the approximate methods used to obtain the data. These variations may not be apparent until construction.

This report is intended for the sole use of Sigma Consulting, Inc. for the above noted project.

The scope of work performed during this study may not satisfy other user’s requirements. Use of this report or the findings, conclusions or recommendations by others will be at the sole risk of the user. NOVA is not responsible or liable for the interpretation by others of the data in this report, nor their conclusions, recommendations or opinions.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, our conclusions derived and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the State of Florida. This warranty is in lieu of all other statements or warranties, either expressed or implied.

APPENDIX A

Figures and Maps

Scale: Not To Scale PROJECT LOCATION MAP Date Drawn: February 7, 2024 Brickyard Road Pipe Crossing Drawn By: N. Turan Molino, Escambia County, Florida Checked By: W. Lawrence NOVA Project Number 10116-2024012

5001 Commerce Park Circle Pensacola, Florida 32505

850.607.7782 ♦ 850.249.6683

APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION

APPENDIX B

Subsurface Data

Scale: Not To Scale BORING LOCATION PLAN

Date Drawn: July 19, 2024 Brickyard Road Pipe Crossing

Drawn By: E. Sharpe Molino, Escambia County, Florida

Checked By: W. Lawrence NOVA Project Number 10116-2024012

5001 Commerce Park Circle

Pensacola, Florida 32505

850.607.7782 ♦ 850.249.6683

LEGEND

B-x = 5-ft. Structural Auger Boring

B-2

B-1

KEY TO BORING LOGS

Medium Stiff

FI

N E -G R A

IN

E D S O

IL

S or m or e pa ss es th e N o.

si ev e*

C O A R S E -G R A

IN

E D S O

IL

S

M or e th an re ta in ed on th e th e N o.

si ev e*

GRAVEL and TOPSOIL (Approx. 12 inches)

Light brown low-plasticity CLAY (CL)

Boring Terminated at 5 ft.

PROJECT: Brickyard Road Pipe Crossing PROJECT NO.: 10116-2024012

CLIENT: Sigma Consulting Group, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Molino, Escambia County, Florida

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-1

LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade

DRILLER: E. Sharpe LOGGED BY: E. Sharpe

DRILLING METHOD: Auger Boring DATE: July 18, 2023 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING>

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

M S

L

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le T yp e

N -V a lu e

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

%<#200

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic a ti v e o f th e s it e

GRAVEL and TOPSOIL (Approx. 12 inches)

Brown/light brown fine-grained clayey SAND (SC)

Boring Terminated at 5 ft.

PROJECT: Brickyard Road Pipe Crossing PROJECT NO.: 10116-2024012

CLIENT: Sigma Consulting Group, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Molino, Escambia County, Florida

TEST BORING

RECORD

B-2

LOCATION: Per Boring Location Plan ELEVATION: Existing Grade

DRILLER: E. Sharpe LOGGED BY: E. Sharpe

DRILLING METHOD: Auger Boring DATE: July 18, 2023 DEPTH TO - WATER> INITIAL: 3 ft. AFTER 24 HOURS: CAVING>

D e p th

(f e e t)

E le va ti o n

(f t-

M S

L

Description

G ra p h ic

G ro u n d w a te r

S a m p le T yp e

N -V a lu e

10 20 30 40 50 70 90

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NATURAL MOISTURE

BLOW COUNT

%<#200

T h is i n fo rm a ti o n p e rt a in s o n ly t o t h is b o ri n g a n d s h o u ld n o t b e i n te rp re te d a s b e in g i n d ic a ti v e o f th e s it e

APPENDIX C

Laboratory Data

Lab Summary – Page 1 of 1

SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION & INDEX TESTING

Brickyard Road Pipe Crossing

Molino, Escambia County, Florida

NOVA Project Number 10116-2024012

SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION AND INDEX TESTING

Boring

No.

Sample Depth

(ft. BEG)

Natural

Moisture

Percent Fines

(%- #200)

USCS

Soil

Classification

B-1 1-5 26 51 CL

B-2 1-5 24 29 SC

LABORATORY TESTING

A laboratory testing program was conducted to characterize materials which exist at the site using the recovered samples. Selected test data are presented on the Test Boring Records attached in the Appendix. The specific tests are briefly described below. All soil samples will be properly disposed of 30 days following the submittal of this NOVA subsurface exploration report unless you request otherwise.

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Soil classification provides a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the engineer to apply past experience to current problems. In our explorations, samples obtained during drilling operations are observed in our laboratory and visually classified by an engineer. The soils are classified according to consistency, color and texture. These classification descriptions are included on our Test Boring Records. The classification system discussed above is primarily qualitative; laboratory testing is generally performed for detailed soil classification. Using the test results, the soils were classified using the Unified Soil Classification

System. This classification system and the in place physical soil properties provide an index for estimating the soil's behavior.

MOISTURE CONTENT

The moisture content is the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles and was conducted in general accordance with

ASTM D-2216.

PERCENT FINES

The percent fines is defined as the percentage of the total dry soil mass which passes a #200 sieve. This test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D-1140.