Exhibit_J_Geotechnical_and_Stormwater_Evaluation_Report.pdf

January 21, 2026

Mr. Luke Kilic, P.E.

Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc.

300 Interchange Boulevard, Suite C Ormond Beach, Florida 32174

Reference: GEOTECHNICAL STORMWATER EVALUATION

Volusia County Dirt Bike Park New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida UES Project No. 25147.01596.000 and UES Report No. 2160933

Dear Mr. Kilic, UES Professional Solutions, LLC has completed the Geotechnical Stormwater Evaluation for the project located in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. We understand the subsurface conditions at the requested locations need to be evaluated for groundwater and subsurface evaluation purposes. We were provided with project information by you and Mr. Bill Lites with Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc. We were provided with an aerial photograph indicating the requested area to be evaluated by you. We were also provided with a survey indicating the ground surface elevations at Boring Locations B-1 through B-5 and seasonal high-water marks within the adjacent wetlands by Sliger & Associates, Inc.

We submitted our initial Geotechnical Evaluation on May 29, 2025. We were requested to perform five (5) more borings in December of 2025. We have revised the report submitted on May 29, 2025 to include the results of the additional borings (P-1 through P-5).

FIELD EXPLORATION

As requested, we performed ten (10) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings advancing to depths of approximately 20 and 35 feet each below existing grade. Borings B-1 through B-5 were performed in May of 2025 and Borings P-1 through P-5 were performed in January of 2026. The SPT borings were performed in accordance with the procedures of ASTM D-1586. The soil samples recovered from the soil test borings were returned to our laboratory and a UES Engineer visually examined and reviewed the field descriptions. The samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

FINDINGS

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The results of our borings, B-1 through B-5 and P-1 through P-5, generally indicate approximately 12 inches of topsoil underlain by very loose to very dense fine sand with trace silt (SP), fine sand with silt (SP-SM), silty fine sand (SM), weakly cemented silty fine sand (SM, HARDPAN) and clayey fine sand (SC) to the deepest boring termination depth of approximately 35.0 feet below existing grade.

We have included photographs of representative samples in Appendix B. Each photograph is labeled by sample number and the percent fines passing the No. 200 Sieve.

Volusia County Dity Bike Park UES Project No. 25147.01596.000 New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida UES Report No. 2160933 January 21, 2026

Groundwater was encountered between depths of approximately 1.6 and 4.2 feet below existing grade at our boring locations. Surface water and groundwater may perch above the silty and clayey soils after significant rainfall activity. It should be noted that each of our evaluations were performed during a relatively dry time period. Based on available published literature, existing site features, and the results of the borings we estimate the normal seasonal high groundwater level to be approximately two and a half feet above the measured levels at Boring Locations B-1 through B-5 and approximately one to two feet above the measured levels at Boring Locations P-1 through P-5. The ground surface elevation at boring locations P-1 through P-5 would be beneficial to allow us to identify any anomalies in both our measured and estimated seasonal high groundwater levels, as well as improve the usefulness of the groundwater information during the civil engineering design of the site. It should be noted that groundwater may perch above the silty fine sand (SM) weakly cemented silty fine and (SM, HARDPAN) and clayey fine sand (SC) subsequent to significant rainfall activity. It should also be noted the estimated seasonal high-water level does not provide any assurance that the groundwater level will not exceed the estimated level during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage be present, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels might once again exceed our seasonal high estimate.

STORMWATER DESIGNS RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL

For a dry bottom retention facility, performance will be significantly influenced by the soil permeability and the vertical separation between the bottom and the seasonal high groundwater level. A wet retention facility should be excavated to a depth necessary to obtain a sufficient water depth to limit growth of aquatic vegetation.

If requested, UES can assist in evaluating the facility design exfiltration rates, underdrains and/or groundwater baseflow as pond geometry and stormwater volume requirements become available.

PERMABILITY

Eleven (11) Laboratory Falling-head Saturated Vertical Permeability Tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil sample. The sample was obtained using thin-walled tube sampling techniques (Shelby Tube). The results of the test, in feet per day, describe the coefficient of hydraulic conductivity (Permeability) of the soil and are presented on the attached Subsurface Profiles. The measured permeability rate should not be construed to represent the actual pond exfiltration rates.

Upon evaluation of regional and local geology, we have evaluated that the characteristics of the soils within the vicinity of this project are comprised of sedimentary soils which often exhibit thin, alternating layers. Generally, in relatively homogeneous natural deposits where stratification may result from particle orientation, the Permeability in the Horizontal direction can be somewhat greater than that in the Vertical direction. Based on our experience, the estimated coefficient of Horizontal Permeability typically is on the order of 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the Vertical Permeability for SP-SM and SP soil types, respectively.

The weakly cemented silty fine sand (SM, HARDPAN) and clayey fine sand (SC), as encountered, is generally considered to be a confining layer The base of aquifer should be assumed at the top of the confining soil layers for pond modeling purposes. In addition, the silty fine sand (SM) is generally considered to have poor drainage characteristics. Partial removal of these soils may be required for pond recovery purposes. All pond fill and backfill material should be clean sandy soils having 5 percent or less fines passing a No. 200 sieve.

STATE ROAD 44

P-5P-4

P-2 P-3

P-1

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

GRAPHIC SCALE

0 400 800

(IN FEET)

1 INCH ~ 800 ft.~

PROJECT:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

TITLE:

REPORT NO.:

PROJECT NO.:

DATE:

DATE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

MKL

A-1

SCALE:

1" ~ 800'~

BP

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

SR 44 VC DIRT BIKE PARK PATH

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2160933 A25147.01596.00001/21/26

01/21/26

BORING LOCATION PLAN

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) BORING

LEGEND

N

WOH

WOH

+15.0'+15.0'

+20.0'+20.0'

+25.0'+25.0'

05/18/25 2.9'

E.O.B. @ 35.0'

B-1

+30.0'

+35.0'

+40.0'

+30.0'

+35.0'

+40.0'

TOPSOIL

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Groundwater Not Encountered Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

NE

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-2

PROJECT:

BP

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

SR 44 VC DIRT BIKE PARK PATH

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

01/21/26

01/21/26

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

+10.0'+10.0'

+5.0'+5.0'

Loose brown CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Medium dense brown CLAYEY fine SAND

(SC)

Medium dense gray CLAYEY fine SAND

(SC)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Dense gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

Very loose gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Loose gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Very dense gray fine SAND with SILT and trace SHELL fragments (SP-SM)

-200 = 13.0%

-200 = 16.8%

-200 = 15.0%

-200 = 19.2%

-200 = 23.3%

N

05/19/25 2.8'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

B-2

TOPSOIL

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Dense gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

Loose brown SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Very loose dark brown fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

Medium dense brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Loose light brown SILTY fine SAND (SM)

N

05/20/25 2.6'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

B-3

TOPSOIL

Medium dense gray fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

Loose gray CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Very loose brown SILTY fine SAND with trace ROOTS (SM)

Dense dark brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Very loose gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Medium dense brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

-200 = 14.0%

Loose gray SILTY fine SAND (SM)

-200 = 18.8%

-200 = 18.4%

-200 = 12.6%

-200 = 15.9%

Loose brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

-200 = 13.5%

-200 = 12.6% Loose brown SILTY fine SAND (SM)

EL. 38.70'

EL. 39.70'

EL. 39.95'

0.0'0.0'

Kv = 5.6 ft/day

-200 = 10.9%

-200 = 6.7%

-200 = 4.7%

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace SILT (SP)

-200 = 5.7%

Kv = 0.9 ft/day

Kv = 1.7 ft/day

Kv = 7.0 ft/day

Kv = 4.8 ft/day

Kv = 1.2 ft/day

2160933

A25147.01596.000

+25.0'+25.0'

+30.0'+30.0'

+35.0'

+40.0'

+45.0'

+35.0'

+40.0'

+45.0'

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Groundwater Not Encountered Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

NE

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-3

PROJECT:

BP

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

SR 44 VC DIRT BIKE PARK PATH

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2160933

A25147.01596.00001/21/26

01/21/26

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

N

05/20/25 2.7'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

B-5

TOPSOIL

Loose gray CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Loose dark gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Loose brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

N

05/20/25 4.2'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

B-4

TOPSOIL

Loose dark gray fine SAND with SILT and many ROOTS (SP-SM)

Very loose gray CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Loose dark gray fine SAND with SILT and some ROOTS (SP-SM)

Medium dense brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Loose brown CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Loose brown SILTY fine SAND (SM)

Loose gray CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

Loose dark brown fine SAND with SILT and trace ROOTS (SP-SM)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

-200 = 15.9%

-200 = 15.8%

-200 = 14.5%

-200 = 11.0% -200 = 12.4%

-200 = 11.9%

-200 = 16.8%

EL. 42.99'

EL. 40.43'

+20.0'+20.0'

-200 = 10.2%

-200 = 10.5%

-200 = 4.4%

Medium dense gray fine SAND with trace

SILT (SP)

Kv = 1.4 ft/day

Kv = 2.6 ft/day

Kv = 2.0 ft/day

Kv = 1.9 ft/day

Kv = 7.3 ft/day

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-4

PROJECT:

BP

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

SR 44 VC DIRT BIKE PARK PATH

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2160933

A25147.01596.00001/21/26

01/21/26

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Groundwater Not Encountered Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve % Moisture Content

(SP)

EOB

N

NE

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

MC

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

Weakly cemented fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM, Hardpan)

20' 20'

15' 15'

01/07/26 3.7'

P-1

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0' N

01/07/26 1.6'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

P-2

TOPSOIL

N

01/08/26 1.9'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

P-3 Loose brown fine SAND with SILT and trace ROOTS (SP-SM)

Loose brown CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Medium dense brown CLAYEY fine SAND

(SC)

Medium dense light gray fine SAND with trace SILT and few pieces of CLAYEY fine SAND (SP)

Medium dense light gray fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

Medium dense dark gray fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

TOPSOIL

Very loose dark gray fine SAND with SILT and trace ROOTS (SP-SM)

Very loose brown CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Medium dense brown CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Medium dense light gray SILTY

Dense light gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Medium dense light gray fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

Medium dense gray fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

-200 = 21.4%

-200 = 7.4%

-200 = 6.1%

-200 = 6.9%

-200 = 17.4%

-200 = 20.2%

-200 = 14.9%

-200 = 11.9%

-200 = 10.8%

-200 = 6.2%

MC = 28.6%

fine SAND (SM)

N

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

TOPSOIL

Loose dark brown weakly cemented SILTY fine SAND (SM, HARDPAN)

Loose brown SILTY fine SAND with

CLAY (SM)

Medium dense brown CLAYEY fine

SAND (SC)

Medium dense light brown fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

-200 = 11.2%

Weakly cemented SILTY fine SAND (SM, HARDPAN)

-200 = 19.5%

-200 = 20.1%

-200 = 28.9%

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

PROJECT NO.:

REPORT NO.:

MKL SCALE:

TITLE:

PAGE/FIG. NO.:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

NA (in feet) A-5

PROJECT:

BP

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

SR 44 VC DIRT BIKE PARK PATH

NEW SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA

2160933

A25147.01596.00001/21/26

01/21/26

NOTES:

Measured Groundwater Level 24 (+) Hours Subsequent to Time of Drilling Unified Soil Classification System End of Boring Penetr. Resistance, Blows/ft.

Groundwater Not Encountered Hand Auger Method Weight of Hammer Coefficient of Permeability, (ft/day) % Passing No. 200 Sieve

(SP)

EOB

N

NE

HA

WOH

Kv

-200

Fine SAND (SP)

Fine SAND with

SILT (SP-SM)

SILTY fine SAND (SM)

CLAYEY fine SAND (SC)

Topsoil (PT) ... some to many ORGANICS (PT), sometimes

DEBRIS

Weakly cemented fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM, Hardpan)

N

20' 5 20'

15' 15'

01/07/26 2.5'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

P-4

10'

5'

0'

10'

5'

0' TOPSOIL

N

01/08/26 2.8'

E.O.B. @ 20.0'

P-5 Loose brown fine SAND with SILT and few

ROOTS (SP-SM)

Loose brown SILTY fine SAND with trace ROOTS (SM)

Medium dense light brown CLAYEY fine

SAND (SC)

Dense brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Medium dense brown fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

TOPSOIL

Medium dense gray fine SAND with SILT

(SP-SM)

Loose dark brown SILTY fine SAND with

CLAY (SM)

Medium dense light brown SILTY fine

SAND (SM)

Dense gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

Loose gray fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

-200 = 12.6%

-200 = 14.2%

-200 = 6.0%

-200 = 6.2%

-200 = 16.8%

-200 = 12.5%

-200 = 9.4%

-200 = 6.0%

Medium dense light brown fine SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

KEY TO BORING LOGS

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP

SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES

GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines CLEAN

GRAVELS

GP

Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM Silty gravels and gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GRAVELS

50% or more of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

GRAVELS

WITH FINES

GC Clayey gravels and gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW** Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

CLEAN

SANDS

5% or less passing No.

200 sieve SP** Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM** Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

C O

A R

S E

G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

M or e th an

0% re ta in ed o n th e

N o.

s ie ve

SANDS

More than

50% of coarse fraction passes No.

4 sieve

SANDS with 12% or more passing No.

200 sieve SC** Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

ML

Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands

CL

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, lean clays

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit 50% or less

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

MH

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diamicaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays or clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity

FI

N

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

IO

LS

o r m or e pa ss es th e

N o.

s ie ve

SILTS AND CLAYS

Liquid limit greater than 50%

PT Peat, muck and other highly organic soils

*Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75 mm) sieve ** Use dual symbol (such as SP-SM and SP-SC) for soils with more than 5% but less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve

RELATIVE DENSITY

(Sands and Gravels)

Very loose – Less than 4 Blow/Foot Loose – 4 to 10 Blows/Foot

Medium Dense – 11 to 30 Blows/Foot Dense – 31 to 50 Blows/Foot

Very Dense – More than 50 Blows/Foot

CONSISTENCY

(Silts and Clays)

Very Soft – Less than 2 Blows/Foot Soft – 2 to 4 Blows/Foot Firm – 5 to 8 Blows/Foot Stiff – 9 to 15 Blows/Foot

Very Stiff – 16 to 30 Blows/Foot Hard – More than 30 Blows/Foot

RELATIVE HARDNESS

(Limestone)

Soft – 100 Blows for more than 2 Inches Hard – 100 Blows for less than 2 Inches

MODIFIERS

These modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Minor Constituents (Silt or Clay Size Particles) in the Soil Sample

Trace – 5% or less With Silt or With Clay – 6% to 11%

Silty or Clayey – 12% to 30% Very Silty or Very Clayey – 31% to 50%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Organic Components in the Soil Sample

Trace – Less than 3% Few – 3% to 4%

Some – 5% to 8% Many – Greater than 8%

These Modifiers Provide Our Estimate of the Amount of Other Components (Shell, Gravel, Etc.) in the Soil Sample

Trace – 5% or less Few – 6% to 12%

Some – 13% to 30% Many – 31% to 50%

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

N-Value No. of Blows of a 140-lb. Weight Falling 30 Inches Required to Drive a Standard Spoon 1 Foot

WOR Weight of Drill Rods

WOH Weight of Drill Rods and Hammer

Sample from Auger Cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Sample

Thin-wall Shelby Tube Sample (Undisturbed Sampler Used)

RQD Rock Quality Designation

Stabilized Groundwater Level

Seasonal High Groundwater Level (also referred to as the W.S.W.T.)

NE Not Encountered

GNE Groundwater Not Encountered

BT Boring Terminated

-200 (%) Fines Content or % Passing No. 200 Sieve

MC (%) Moisture Content

LL Liquid Limit (Atterberg Limits Test)

PI Plasticity Index (Atterberg Limits Test)

NP Non-Plastic (Atterberg Limits Test)

K Coefficient of Permeability

Org. Cont. Organic Content

G.S. Elevation Ground Surface Elevation

UES Professional Solutions, LLC: UES Professional Solutions, LLC

Title: Volusia County Dirt Bike Park

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

UES Project No. A25147.01596.000

UES Report No. 2160933 37

(1)

P1 - 2

Created:

Mon, 1/19/2026

Dark brown weakly cemented silty fine sand

(SM,HARDPAN) -200 = 19.5

(2)

P1-3

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

Brown silty fine sand with clay (SM) -200 = 20.1

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

UES Project No. A25147.01596.000

UES Report No. 2160933 37

(3)

P1-4

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

Brown clayey fine sand (SC) -200 = 28.9

(4)

P2-2

Brown clayey fine sand (SC) -200 = 21.4

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

UES Project No. A25147.01596.000

UES Report No. 2160933 37

(5)

P2-5

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

Light gray fine sand with silt (SP-SM) -200 = 7.4

(6)

P2-8

Dark gray fine sand with silt (SP-SM) -200 = 6.9

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

UES Project No. A25147.01596.000

UES Report No. 2160933 37

(7)

P3-2

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

Brown clayey fine sand (SC) -200 = 17.4

(8)

P3-7

Gray fine sand with silt (SP-SM) -200 = 10.8

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

UES Project No. A25147.01596.000

UES Report No. 2160933 37

(9)

P4-2

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

Brown silty fine sand with trace roots (SP-SM) -200 = 12.6

(10)

P4-3

Light brown clayey fine sand (SC) -200 = 14.2

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

UES Project No. A25147.01596.000

UES Report No. 2160933 37

(11)

P5-2

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

Dark brown silty fine sand (SM) -200 = 16.8

(12)

P5-4

Light brown silty fine sand (SM) -200 = 12.5

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

UES Project No. A25147.01596.000

UES Report No. 2160933 37

(13)

P5-7

Created: Mon, 1/19/2026

Gray fine sand with silt (SP-SM) -200 = 6.0

911 Beville Road, Suite 3, South Daytona, Florida 32119

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you;

• not prepared for your project;

• not prepared for the specific site explored; or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;

man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.

To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited;

encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.

To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;

none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

WARRANTY

Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report.

UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between these borings.

The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on-site observations and noting the characteristics of any variations.

CHANGED CONDITIONS

We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those present in this report.

No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions. Further, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences to monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report.

MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT

Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and opinions contained within this report based upon the data relating only to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences.

CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION

This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this project. If any changes in the design or location of the structure as outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions modified or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences.

USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS

Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction operations.

Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test caissons or other investigations to determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations.

STRATA CHANGES

Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available information and may not be shown at the exact depth.

OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING

Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however, lack of mention does not preclude their presence.

WATER LEVELS

Water level readings have been made in the drill holes during drilling and they indicate normally occurring conditions. Water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has been reviewed and interpretations made in this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations.

LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS

All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering Sciences to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no attempt was made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried objects. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report.

TIME

This report reflects the soil conditions at the time of exploration. If the report is not used in a reasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required.

CONSTRAINTS & RESTRICTIONS

The intent of this document is to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report.