Exhibit_O_-_Geotechnical_Report_26-B-51IF.pdf

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway • Tampa, Florida 33637

Phone (813) 989-1354 • Fax (813) 989-1355

August 15, 2025

SCS Engineers 3922 Coconut Palm Drive, Suite 102 Tampa, Florida 33619

Attn: Fauve Herron, E.I.

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report

Volusia County Landfill Expansion Volusia County, Florida Tierra Project No. 6511-24-178

Ms. Fauve Herron:

Tierra, Inc. has completed geotechnical engineering services for the above-mentioned project.

The results of our field exploration program and geotechnical recommendations are presented in this report.

Should there be any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (813) 989-1354. Tierra would be pleased to continue providing geotechnical services throughout the implementation of the project. We look forward to working with you on this and future projects.

Respectfully Submitted, TIERRA, INC.

This item has been digitally signed and sealed by Kevin H. Scott on the date adjacent to the seal. Signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

Kevin L. Hill, E.I. Kevin H. Scott, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer Intern Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida License No. 65514

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

1.2 Project Description

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 REVIEW OF PUBLISHED DATA

3.1 Regional Geology

3.2 USDA Soil Survey

3.3 USGS Quadrangle Map

3.4 Review of Potentiometric Surface Information

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

4.1 Boring Location Plan

4.2 Soil Borings

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.1 General

5.2 Test Designation

6.0 RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

6.1 General Subsurface Conditions

6.2 Groundwater Information

7.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

7.2 On Site Soil Suitability

7.3 Site Preparation

7.4 Shallow Foundation Considerations – Ancillary Structures

7.5 Pavement Design Considerations

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 General

8.2 Fill Placement and Subgrade Preparation

8.3 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns

8.4 Structural Fill

8.5 Excavations

9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A

Key Sheet Boring Location Plan Soil Profiles

APPENDIX B

Summary of Laboratory Test Results for Soil Classification Consolidation Test Results

APPENDIX C

Shelby Tube Sample Photographs

APPENDIX D

Well Completion Reports

Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Volusia County Landfill Expansion Volusia County, Florida Tierra Project No.: 6511-24-178

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

Authorization to proceed with this project was issued by SCS Engineers in accordance with our Subconsultant Agreement.

1.2 Project Description

Based on the information provided, the project site is located at 1990 Tomoka Farms Road in Port Orange, Florida. It is our understanding that the proposed project will consist of roadway project, a proposed surface impoundment for leachate storage (approximately 3 acres) and a new landfill expansion area (approximately 242 acres) which includes the first landfill cell (approximately 30 acres). This report has been prepared to present geotechnical data and recommendations to support the design of the proposed projects.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The objective of our study was to obtain information concerning subsurface conditions at the site in order to base engineering estimates and recommendations in each of the following areas:

1. Feasibility of utilizing the anticipated shallow spread foundation system for support of the proposed leachate surface impoundment and associated truck loading station adjacent to the pond. Suitability of a slab-on-grade.

2. Design parameters required for the proposed leachate surface impoundment and associated truck loading station adjacent to the pond foundation systems, including allowable bearing pressure, foundation levels, and soil compaction recommendations.

3. General location and description of potentially deleterious materials discovered in the borings, which may interfere with construction progress and structure performance, including existing fills or surficial organics.

4. Identification of groundwater levels. Estimation of the seasonal high groundwater levels.

5. Pavement design parameters and geotechnical construction considerations.

In order to meet the preceding objectives, we provided the following services:

1. Performed site reconnaissance. Coordinated utility clearance via Sunshine One Call.

2. Executed a program of subsurface exploration consisting of six (6) hand auger borings to depths ranging from 3 to 7 feet below existing grade and fifty-one (51) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths ranging from 25 to 100 feet below the existing grade within the proposed paved areas, leachate surface impoundment area and landfill expansion area.

3. Installed 16 temporary groundwater monitoring wells.

Volusia County, Florida

4. Collected groundwater measurements at the boring locations.

5. Visually examined all recovered soil samples in the laboratory and classify the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

6. Prepared an engineering report summarizing the results of the geotechnical study in accordance with the scope of services herein that summarizes the course of study pursued, the field data generated, the subsurface conditions encountered along with our geotechnical recommendations in each of the pertinent topic areas.

The scope of our services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site. Also, the scope of our services did not include determination of sinkhole potential. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for the information of our client.

3.0 REVIEW OF PUBLISHED DATA

3.1 Regional Geology

Volusia County is within the lower Atlantic Coastal Plain. The surface is covered with sandy marine sediments of Pleistocene to Recent age. The broad, nearly level marine terraces, relict shorelines, and karst ridges that characterize the landscape are Pleistocene age. The areas adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean and St. Johns River are of more recent geologic origin.

The geologic material can be divided into an upper sequence of unconsolidated or poorly consolidated clastic deposits and a lower sequence of carbonate rocks. The upper unit of the rock unit dips eastward towards the coast at about 3 feet per mile. At the coast, the depth to rock is about 100 feet. At the eastern edge of the DeLand Ridge, the depth to rock is about 65 feet. The thickness of the clastic deposits varies from 50 to 100 feet under the DeLand Ridge because of differences in local relief.

The carbonate rocks of the lower sequence are limestone and dolomite of middle and upper Eocene age. These rocks are also known as the Floridan Aquifer. Downward movement of slightly acidic groundwater has resulted in the formation of solution caverns that hold and transmit large quantities of water.

The clastic unit ranges in age from Miocene to Recent. The material is mostly sand, especially at the surface, but it contains discontinuous and interfingering lenses and beds of clay and shells. In places the shell beds are as much as 50 feet thick..

3.2 USDA Soil Survey

Based on a review of the Volusia County Soil Survey, it appears that there are five (5) primary soil-mapping units noted within the project footprint. The general soil descriptions are presented in the following paragraphs and table, as described in the Soil Survey.

Volusia County, Florida

Arents (Unit 3): The Arents component makes up 51 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on fills, rises on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of altered marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is very low.

Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, nor is it ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 24 inches during June, July, August, September, and October. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 0 percent.

EauGallie fine sand (Unit 20): The EauGallie, non-hydric component makes up 70 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flatwoods on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained.

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, nor ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 12 inches during January, February, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent.

Pineda-Pineda, wet, fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Unit 45): The Pineda component makes up 45 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flatwoods on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, nor ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 12 inches during June, July, August, September, October, and November. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent.

The Pineda, wet component makes up 40 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent.

This component is on flats on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches.

The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, but it is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 0 inches during July, August, September, and October. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent.

Pomona fine sand (Unit 49): The Pomona, non-hydric component makes up 70 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flatwoods on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained.

Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, nor is it ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 10 inches during June, July, August, and September. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent.

The Pomona, hydric component makes up 10 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flats on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material

Volusia County, Florida consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, nor is it ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 4 inches during June, July, August, and September. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent.

Riviera fine sand (Unit 55): The Riviera, hydric component makes up 55 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flats on marine terraces on coastal plains.

The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, nor ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 3 inches during June, July, August, September, and October. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent.

The Riviera, non-hydric component makes up 20 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flats on marine terraces on coastal plains. The parent material consists of sandy and loamy marine deposits. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded, nor ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 10 inches during June, July, August, September, and October. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent.

Volusia County, Florida

USCS AASHTO

Depth

(feet) Months

0-10 SP-SM, SP A-1-b, A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

10-32 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

32-60 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

0-10 SP, SP-SM A-1-b, A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

10-32 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

32-60 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

0-9 SP, SP-SM A-3 6.0 - 20.0

9-21 SP, SP-SM A-3 6.0 - 20.0

21-35 SM, SP-SM A-3, A-2-4 0.6 - 6.0

35-52 SP-SM, SP A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

52-61 SC, SC-SM, SM A-2-4, A-2-6 0.6 - 6.0

61-65 SM, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 2.0 - 6.0

0-9 SP, SP-SM A-3 6.0 - 20.0

9-21 SP, SP-SM A-3 6.0 - 20.0

21-35 SM, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 0.6 - 6.0

35-52 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

52-61 SC, SC-SM, SM A-2-6, A-2-4 0.6 - 6.0

61-65 SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 2.0 - 6.0

0-1 SP-SM, SM A-3, A-2-4 6.0 - 20.0

1-5 SM, SP-SM A-3, A-2-4 6.0 - 20.0

5-36 SM, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

36-54 CL, SC, SC-SM A-4, A-2-4, A-6 2.0 - 6.0

54-80 SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 2.0 - 6.0

0-1 SM, SP-SM A-3, A-2-4 6.0 - 20.0

1-5 SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

5-36 SM, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

36-54 CL, SC, SC-SM A-4, A-2-4, A-6 2.0 - 6.0

54-80 SP-SM, SM A-2-4, A-3 2.0 - 6.0

0-5 SP, SP-SM A-3, A-2-4 6.0 - 20.0

5-18 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

18-45 SM, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 0.6 - 20.0

45-50 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 2.0 - 20.0

50-60 SC, SC-SM, SM A-2, A-4, A-6 0.2 - 2.0

60-70 SC, SC-SM, SM A-2, A-4, A-6 0.2 - 2.0

0-5 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

5-18 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

18-45 SM, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 0.6 - 20.0

45-50 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 2.0 - 20.0

50-60 SC, SC-SM, SM A-6, A-4, A-2 0.2 - 2.0

60-70 SC, SC-SM, SM A-2, A-4, A-6 0.2 - 2.0

0-16 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

16-25 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

25-38 SC, SC-SM, SM A-2-4, A-2-6 2.0 - 6.0

38-43 SC, SC-SM A-2-6, A-2-4 2.0 - 6.0

43-64 SP, SP-SM A-1, A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

0-16 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

16-25 SP, SP-SM A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

25-38 SM, SC-SM, SC A-2-4, A-2-6 2.0 - 6.0

38-43 SC, SC-SM A-2-4, A-2-6 2.0 - 6.0

43-64 SP, SP-SM A-1, A-2-4, A-3 6.0 - 20.0

Soil Classification Depth

(in) Permeability (in/hr)

(20)

EauGallie, non-hydric - EauGallie, hydric

0.5-1.5

0.0-0.5

Jan-Feb, Jun-

Dec

Jun-Sep

(3)

Arents - Arents

1.5-3.0

2.0-4.0

Jun-Nov

Jun-Dec

Summary of USDA Soil Survey

Volusia County, Florida

USDA Map Symbol and Soil Name

Seasonal High Water Table

(45)

Pineda - Pineda, wet

0.5-1.5

0.0

Jun-Nov

Jul-Oct

(49)

Pomona, non-hydric -

Pomona, hydric

0.5-1.5

0.0-1.0

Jun-Sep

Jun-Sep

(55)

Riviera, hydric -

Riviera, non-hydric

>6.0

>6.0

Jan-Dec

Jan-Dec

Volusia County, Florida

It should be noted that information contained in the USDA NRCS Soil Survey may not be reflective of current subsurface conditions, particularly if recent development in the project vicinity has modified existing soils or surface/subsurface drainage.

3.3 USGS Quadrangle Map

Based on a review of the “Daytona Beach, Florida” United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Map, the natural ground elevations at the project site ranged from approximately +25 to +50 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD).

3.4 Review of Potentiometric Surface Information

Based on a review of the “Potentiometric Surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in Florida” maps published by the USGS, the potentiometric surface elevation at the site is approximately +5 to +0 feet, NGVD 29. Artesian flow conditions were not encountered during the field exploration.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

4.1 Boring Location Plan

The locations of the borings were estimated by Tierra using Trimble TDC-150 Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) device mounted on a monopole with a reported accuracy of up to 7 cm horizontal and 2 cm vertical and should be considered approximate. The locations of the borings performed for this study are shown on the Boring Location Plan sheets in APPENDIX A.

Utility clearances were coordinated by Tierra and updated as required prior to performing the soil borings in order to reduce the potential for damage to the utilities during drilling.

4.2 Soil Borings

The SPT borings were performed with the use of a drill rig using Bentonite Mud drilling procedures. The soil sampling was performed in general accordance with the ASTM test designation D-1586. SPT resistance N-values were generally taken at intervals of 2 feet from the ground surface to a depth of 10 feet and on intervals of 5 feet thereafter to the boring termination depths. Representative portions of these soil samples were sealed in glass jars, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analyses. In addition, undisturbed Shelby tube samples were obtained from the borings at selected sampling intervals.

The hand auger borings were performed by manually twisting and advancing a bucket auger into the ground, typically in 6-inch increments. As each soil type was revealed, representative samples were collected and returned to our office for confirmation of the field classification by a geotechnical engineer.

Soil stratification was determined based on a review of recovered samples, laboratory test results, and interpretation of field boring logs. Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil layers of different engineering properties; however actual transitions between layers may be gradual. In some cases, small variations in properties that were not considered pertinent to our engineering evaluation may have been abbreviated or omitted for clarity. The soil profiles represent the conditions at the particular boring location; variations do

Volusia County, Florida occur among the borings. Specific details about subsurface conditions and materials encountered at each test location can be obtained from the soil profiles presented on the Soil Profiles sheets in APPENDIX A of this report. Photographs of the extruded Shelby tube samples are presented in APPENDIX C.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.1 General

Representative soil samples collected from the borings were classified and stratified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Our classification was based on visual observations, using the results from the laboratory testing as confirmation. Laboratory testing consisting of fines content (percentage passing No. 200 mesh sieve), grain size analyses, Atterberg Series limits testing, and natural moisture content determination tests were completed on representative soil samples. The results of the soil laboratory tests are presented on the Soil Profiles sheets in APPENDIX A, as well as the Summary of Laboratory Test results for Soil Classification table in APPENDIX B. The consolidation test results are also presented in APPENDIX B

5.2 Test Designation

The following list summarizes the laboratory tests performed, and respective test methods utilized.

• Fines Content - The fines content tests were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designation T-088 (ASTM test designation D-1140).

• Grain-Size Analyses - The grain-size analyses were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designation T-088 (ASTM test designation D-6913).

• Atterberg Limits - The liquid limit and the plastic limit tests ("Atterberg Limits") were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designations T-089 and T-090, respectively (ASTM test designation D-4318).

• Natural Moisture Content - The moisture content tests were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designation T-265 (ASTM test designation D-2216).

• Organic Content - The organic content tests were conducted in general accordance with the AASHTO test designation T-267.

• Consolidation – The consolidation testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM test designation D-2435.

Volusia County, Florida

6.0 RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

6.1 General Subsurface Conditions

In general, the borings encountered variable subsurface conditions consisting of sandy soils underlain by variable silty to sand to clayey sand to clay/silt soil layers to the boring termination depths. Specific information on the soil conditions encountered can be found on the Soil Profiles sheets in APPENDIX A. The soil descriptions and classifications associated with the structure sites are listed in the following table.

Stratum Number

Soil Description USCS Symbol

1 Gray to Brown Sand to Sand with Silt SP/SP-SM

2 Gray to Brown Silty Sand SM

Gray to Brown to Orange Silty-Clayey Sand to Clayey

Sand

SM-SC/SC

4 Dark Brown Sand to Silty Sand with Organics SP/SP-SM/SM/PT

5 Gray to Brown to Green Clay to Silt CL/CH/ML/MH

6 Weathered Limestone to Calcareous Clay --(1)

(1) USCS does not provide nomenclature for Weathered Limestone to Calcareous Clay

The subsurface soil stratification is of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The soil profiles included in APPENDIX A should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. These profiles include soil descriptions, stratifications and penetration resistances when applicable. The stratifications shown on the boring profiles represent the conditions only at the actual boring location.

Variations did occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the actual transition may be gradual.

6.2 Groundwater Information

At the time of our field services, the groundwater table was encountered at or above the existing ground surface to 9 feet below existing grades. At some SPT borings, the groundwater level was not apparent prior to the introduction of drilling fluid at 10 feet below the existing grade.

Thus, GNA (Groundwater Not Apparent) is shown adjacent to the soil profile. The measured groundwater table of the remaining borings is presented on the Soil Profiles sheets in

APPENDIX A.

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences (i.e.

swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and impervious areas).

Volusia County, Florida

Seasonal high groundwater table levels were estimated at the hand auger boring locations performed in the proposed pavement areas. These estimates were based on soil stratigraphy, measured groundwater levels, USDA Soil Survey information, and past experience with similar soil conditions. Seasonal high groundwater table (SHGWT) levels were estimated to range from approximately ½ foot to 4 feet below the existing ground surface. The estimated SHGWT data is presented on the Soil Profiles sheets in APPENDIX A.

In addition, Tierra installed 16 temporary groundwater monitoring wells at the site as requested by SCS Engineers. The following Table summarized the temporary groundwater monitoring well construction and initial groundwater level measurements performed by Tierra.

MW-1a 290726.74 810554.09 15.0 5-15 5.0

MW-1b 290727.06 810554.21 35.0 25-35 5.0

MW-1c 290727.14 810553.82 50.0 40-50 5.0

MW-1d 290726.86 810554.29 100.0 95-100 5.0

MW-2a 290729.51 810513.30 15.0 95-100 6.0

MW-2b 290728.84 810514.10 35.0 25-35 6.0

MW-2b 290728.05 810513.34 50.0 40-50 6.0

MW-2b 290728.71 810513.70 100.0 95-100 6.0

MW-3a 290710.96 810510.75 15.0 5-15 8.0

MW-3b 290710.50 810510.05 35.0 25-35 8.0

MW-3c 290710.99 810510.24 50.0 40-50 8.0

MW-3d 290710.57 810510.50 100.0 95-100 8.0

MW-4a 290659.51 810533.47 15.0 5-15 4.0

MW-4b 290659.28 810534.28 35.0 25-35 4.0

MW-4c 290659.17 810533.69 50.0 40-50 4.0

MW-4d 290659.42 810533.60 100.0 95-100 4.0

SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS

(2) Depth w ell extends below the existing grade.

Screened

Interval (2)

(feet)

Well

Name

Boring Location(1) Well

Depth (2)

(feet)

(1) Boring locations are referenced to the NAD 1983 Latitude & Longitude coordinate system.

Initially

Measured

Groundwater

Table DepthLatitude Longitude

Copies of the Well Completion Reports are included in APPENDIX D.

Volusia County, Florida

7.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 General

Based on the results of our field exploration, the subsurface soils encountered within the borings performed at the project site appear suitable for the proposed projects. Engineering evaluations and recommendations for the proposed improvements provided in the following sections of this report are based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings performed. If the final design criteria deviates from what is stated in this report, Tierra should be given the opportunity to review the new information and amend our recommendations, if necessary.

7.2 On Site Soil Suitability

If unsuitable materials are encountered during site preparation activities, the unsuitable materials should be removed and the proposed finish elevation may be re-established by backfilling after the undesirable material has been removed. This backfilling may be done with a well-compacted, suitable fill such as clean sand (i.e. less than 12 percent passing the No. 200 sieve), gravel, or FDOT No. 57 or FDOT No. 67 stone.

In general, the soils of Stratum 1 (SP/SP-SM) may be moved and used for grading purposes, site leveling, general engineering fill, structural fill and backfill in other areas, provided the fill is free of organic materials, clay, debris or any other material deemed unsuitable for construction and evaluated against engineering fill requirements.

Stratum 2 soils (SM) may be moved and used for grading purposes, site leveling, general engineering fill, structural fill and backfill in other areas, provided the fill is free of organic materials, clay, debris or any other material deemed unsuitable for construction and evaluated against engineering fill requirements. However, it should be noted that Stratum 2 soils may be difficult to dry and compact due to their fines content. Stratum 2 soils should only be placed above the groundwater level at the time of construction.

Strata 3 and 5 soils (SM-SC/SC/CL/CH/ML/MH) are plastic materials. These soils are considered moisture sensitive and will be difficult to manage if they are allowed to become saturated during site development. Strata 3 and 5 are not recommended for use as fill material due to their plastic nature and fines content.

Stratum 4 consists of sand to silty sand with organics. Organic contents above 5 percent can be detrimental to the support of structures and pavements. Organic soils will consolidate when loaded and may decay/degrade over time resulting in settlement of the overlying soils.

Settlement can occur over many years. Within proposed structure and pavement areas, organic laden soils should be removed and replaced with compacted sand fill prior to foundation or pavement construction.

Stratum 6 consists of a small layer of rubber debris encountered in Boring B-35 ranging from approximately 7 to 8 feet below existing grade. Based on conversations with SCS Engineers, we understand this material is located in the area of the proposed leachate tanks where existing deleterious materials are known to exist and are planned to be removed and replaced with suitable fill materials.

Volusia County, Florida

Stratum 7 consists of weathered Limestone. This material is rock and will be difficult to excavate and/or dewater.

7.3 Site Preparation

Prior to construction, the location of any existing underground utilities within the construction area should be established. Provisions should then be made to relocate any interfering utility lines within the construction area to appropriate locations and backfilling the excavation with compacted structural fill. In this regard, it should be noted that if abandoned underground pipes are not properly removed or plugged, they might serve as conduits for subsurface erosion, which subsequently may result in excessive settlement.

The site should be cleared of surface vegetation and any apparent deleterious materials. As a minimum, it is recommended that the clearing operations extend to the depth needed to remove material considered deleterious at least 5 feet beyond the proposed development area.

Deleterious materials to be removed may include roots, stumps, and organic soils. Material suitable for re-use may be stockpiled; however, any material stockpiled for re-use shall be tested for conformance to material specifications as indicated in the following sections of this report. Fill placement and subgrade preparation recommendations are presented in the “Construction Considerations” section of this report.

7.4 Shallow Foundation Considerations

Based on our evaluation and analyses, the Stratum 1 soils should be capable of supporting the anticipated lightly loaded ancillary structures associated with the landfill expansion on shallow foundations after proper subgrade preparation and surface compaction. The foundations and floor slabs should bear on properly placed and compacted cohesionless (sand)/structural fill.

The existing near surface sandy soils should be improved by compaction after clearing operations to improve foundation support and reduce total and differential settlement.

Preliminary field results indicate shallow foundations may be designed for a net maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf after proper site preparation. A soil modulus of subgrade reaction of 80 pci can be used for slab/ mat slab design. The foundations and floor slabs should bear on properly placed and compacted cohesionless (sand) structural fill or properly compacted sandy soils encountered at the site. Foundations should be embedded so that the bottoms of the foundations are a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grades. Strip or wall footings should be a minimum of 24 inches wide and pad or column footings should be a minimum of 30 inches wide. The minimum footing sizes should be used regardless of whether or not the foundation loads and allowable bearing pressures dictate a smaller size. These minimum footing sizes tend to provide adequate bearing area to develop bearing capacity and account for minor variations in the bearing materials. Footings should be constructed in a dry fashion. Footing excavations should be covered during rain events. Uncovered excavations may become oversaturated and difficult to compact during rain events. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not allowed to pond within any foundation or floor slab areas. It is important that the structural elements be centered on the footings such that the load is transferred evenly unless the footings are proportioned for eccentric loads.

The settlement of shallow foundations supported on compacted sand fill and/or natural sandy soils should occur rapidly after loading. Thus, the expected settlement should occur during

Volusia County, Florida construction as deadloads are imposed. Provided the recommended site preparation operations are properly performed and the recommendations previously stated are utilized, the total settlement of wall and isolated column footings should not exceed approximately 1 inch.

Differential settlement is estimated to be on the order of 1/480 (¾ inch per 30 feet). The tolerance of the proposed structure to the predicted total and differential settlement should be confirmed by the structural engineer. Once structure locations and foundations become finalized, Tierra should be given the opportunity to review and amend (if necessary) our recommendations provided in this report.

7.5 Pavement Design Considerations

Based on correspondence from SCS Engineers, the proposed heavy duty rigid pavement design requirements include 80 to 100 tractor-trailer (approximately 33 tons) trips per day and a 20-year design life. The following sections represent minimum thicknesses representative of the provided heavy duty rigid pavement criteria and typical load and construction practices and as such periodic maintenance should be anticipated. All pavement materials and construction procedures should conform to the appropriate City or County requirements.

In general, following the completion of the recommended clearing and grading operations and fill placement, the compacted fill and natural shallow sandy soils should be acceptable for construction and support of a flexible (limerock, crushed concrete, or shell base) type pavement section or rigid (concrete) pavement section.

Any fill utilized to elevate the cleared pavement areas to subgrade elevation should consist of reasonably clean (maximum 12% passing No. 200 sieve sizes) sands uniformly compacted to a minimum depth of 12 inches to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

In flexible pavement areas we recommend 12 inches of Type B stabilized subgrade (LBR = 40) compacted to a minimum density of 98% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density below the base course. Traffic should not be allowed on the subgrade as the base is placed to avoid rutting. The subgrade should be checked for soundness and be true to line and grade prior to the placement of the base course.

For flexible pavement design, the choice of pavement base type will depend on final pavement grades in relation to the seasonal high groundwater levels presented in this report. If a minimum separation of 18 inches between the bottom of the base and the seasonal high groundwater level is obtained, then a limerock, shell, or crushed concrete base can be utilized. A crushed concrete base should be utilized if the separation between bottom of the base and the seasonal high groundwater is a minimum of 12 inches and less than 18 inches. Base material elevations should not be designed for saturated conditions. If the designer wishes to have base material closer than 12 inches to the SHGWT, then an underdrain system should be utilized that will maintain the 12 inches of separation. The SHGWT should be re-established relative to a known elevation prior to setting final grades. Limerock, shell and crushed concrete base material should meet Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requirements including compaction to a minimum density of 98% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Limerock and shell base should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 100%. Crushed concrete should be graded in accordance with FDOT Specifications and have a minimum LBR of 150%. As a guideline for pavement design, we recommend that the base course be a minimum of 8 inches

Volusia County, Florida thick in standard duty areas and 12 inches thick in heavy duty areas. Before paving, the base should be checked for soundness.

The asphaltic concrete structural course should consist of at least 2 inches of Type SP asphaltic concrete material in standard duty areas and at least 4 inches thick in heavy duty areas. The asphaltic concrete should meet standard FDOT material requirements and placement procedures as outlined in the current FDOT Specifications.

For a rigid (concrete) pavement design, the concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28 days when tested in accordance with ASTM C-39. Within rigid pavement areas, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Based on our experience, a minimum thickness of five

(5) inches of concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base should be utilized for standard duty applications and a minimum thickness of eight (8) inches over 6 inches of aggregate base should be utilized for heavy-duty applications. The steel reinforcement within the concrete pavement should be designed by the project civil engineer.

We understand a gravel or recycled concrete pavement section may also be considered for the project. Gravel (graded aggregate) or recycled concrete should be a minimum of 14 inches thick with a layer of geogrid reinforcement between 7-inch-thick lifts to achieve the soundness required to support heavy equipment and trucking. The geogrid should consist of Type R-2 biaxial geogrid material in accordance with Section 985 of the FDOT Specifications with a minimum TA in both the machine direction and the cross direction of 600 lb./ft. The gravel should conform to the requirements of Section 204 of the FDOT Specifications. Prior to the gravel being installed, the subgrade soils should be compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

It should be noted that the gravel pavement section will require continued maintenance/upkeep along with refurbishment on a regular basis over the service life of the proposed working areas.

Asphalt millings used as a pavement section are not recommended due to the lack of established material quality control measures. In each pavement alternative, construction should be performed in accordance with the recommendations in the following sections.

8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 General

A qualified and certified material engineering firm be retained to provide observation and testing of construction activities involved in the foundation earthwork, and related activities of this project. Tierra cannot accept any responsibility for any conditions, which deviate from those described in this report, if not engaged to provide construction observation and testing for this project.

Volusia County, Florida

8.2 Fill Placement and Subgrade Preparation

The following are our recommendations for overall site preparation and mechanical densification work for the construction of the proposed improvements based on the anticipated construction and our boring results. These recommendations should be used as a guideline for the project general specifications prepared by the design engineer.

1. The site should be cleared; this primarily includes removing any deleterious materials currently on the site such as roots, organics, tree stumps or other buried or surface debris. It is recommended that any undesirable material be removed to the satisfaction of Tierra prior to beginning construction at the site. Resulting excavations should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. As a minimum, it is recommended that the clearing operations extend at least five (5) feet beyond the development perimeters.

2. Following the clearing operations, the site should be proofrolled. The proofrolling may consist of compaction with a large diameter, heavy vibratory drum roller (if not within 50 feet of existing structures). The vibratory drum roller should have a static drum weight on the order of 8 to 10 tons and should be capable of exerting a minimum impact force of 36,000 pounds (DYNAPAC CA-250 or equivalent is expected to provide acceptable results). Vibratory rollers should not be used within 50 feet of any existing structures. Areas within 50 feet of existing structures should be compacted using a fully loaded 2 cubic yard capacity front-end loader or equivalent (i.e. through non-vibratory means). The proofrolling equipment should make a minimum of eight (8) overlapping passes over the structure and pavement areas with the successive passes aligned perpendicular.

3. Careful observations should be made during compaction to help identify any areas of soft yielding soils that may require over excavation and replacement. It is recommended that within the building and pavement areas, the natural ground, to a minimum depth of one (1) foot below stripped grade, be compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

4. Following satisfactory completion of the initial compaction and proofrolling, the development areas may be brought up to finished subgrade levels, if needed, using structural fill. Imported fill should consist of fine sand with less than 12% passing the No.

200 sieve, free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material. Fill should be tested and approved prior to acquisition. Approved sand fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness and should be compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Density tests to confirm compaction should be performed in each fill lift before the next lift is placed.

5. Prior to beginning compaction, soil moisture contents may need to be controlled in order to facilitate proper compaction. If additional moisture is necessary to achieve compaction objectives, then water should be applied in such a way that it will not cause erosion or removal of the subgrade soils. Moisture content within the percentage range needed to achieve compaction is recommended prior to compaction of the natural ground and fill.

6. After compaction, the foundation excavations (if any) can begin. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer or a representative to explore the

Volusia County, Florida extent of any loose, soft, or otherwise undesirable materials. If the foundation excavations appear suitable as load bearing materials, the bottom of the foundation excavations should be compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density for a minimum depth of one (1) foot below the bottom of the footing depth, as determined by field density compaction tests.

7. If pockets of soft or unsuitable materials are encountered in the footing excavations, the unsuitable materials should be removed and the proposed footing elevation may be re-established by backfilling after the undesirable materials have been removed. This backfilling may be done with a well-compacted, suitable fill such as clean sand, gravel, or crushed FDOT No. 57 or FDOT No. 67 stone. Sand backfill should be compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

8. Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers. In this manner, any localized areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately recompacted.

9. Backfill soils placed adjacent to footings or walls should be carefully compacted with a light rubber-tired roller or vibratory plate compactor to avoid damaging the footings or walls. Approved sand fills to provide foundation embedment constraint should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 6 inches and should be compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density.

Density tests should be performed in the top one (1) foot of compacted existing ground, each fill lift, and the bottom of foundation excavations. It is important that Tierra be retained to observe that the subsurface conditions are as we have discussed herein, and that foundation construction, ground modification and fill placement is in accordance with our recommendations.

8.3 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns

The groundwater levels presented in this report are the levels that were measured at the time of our field activities. Fluctuation should be anticipated. We recommend that the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction be determined to identify potential groundwater impacts that may occur during construction. Water should not be allowed to collect on prepared subgrades of the construction either during or after construction.

8.4 Structural Fill

All materials used for structural fill or backfill should be evaluated and, if necessary, tested prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable fill materials should consist of fine to medium sand with less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve, free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.

8.5 Excavations

The construction contractor is solely 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 in accordance with OSHA

Volusia County, Florida

29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P as well as the “Trench Safety Act” in Chapter 90-96 of the Florida Statutes. The contractors “responsible persons”, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in all local, state, and federal safety regulations.

9.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are opinions based on the site conditions and project layout described herein and further assumes that the conditions observed in the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, i.e., the subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site are the same as those disclosed by the borings. If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the exploratory borings are observed or appear to be present beneath excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary.

If there is a substantial lapse in time between the submittal of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions or project layout are changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, we recommend that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of SCS Engineers and their client for evaluating the design of the project as it relates to the geotechnical aspects discussed herein. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information on factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions included in this report. Unanticipated soil conditions may require that additional expense be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs.

APPENDIX A

Key Sheet Boring Location Plan

Soil Profiles

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

KH

SW

NOV 2024

KHS

NOTED 6511-24-178

VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

KEVIN H. SCOTT, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

65514

TOMOKA FARMS ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION

PLAN SCALE

0 1000'

KEY SHEET

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637 Phone: 813-989-1354 Fax: 813-989-1355

KEY SHEET

SHEET 1

SHEET 2

SHEET 3

B-3

B-5

B-6

B-8

B-7

B-4

B-1

B-2

B-36

B-35

B-38

B-37

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPT BORING

LEGEND

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

KH

SW

NOV 2024

KHS

NOTED 6511-24-178

VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

KEVIN H. SCOTT, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

65514

TOMOKA FARMS ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION

PLAN SCALE

0 100'

BORING LOCATION PLAN

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637 Phone: 813-989-1354 Fax: 813-989-1355

SHEET 1

B-20

B-16 B-17

SPT-3

B-21

B-24

B-13

B-15

B-19

B-14

B-18

B-23 B-25 B-26

B-27

B-22

SPT-2

B-12

B-9

B-10

B-11

HA-1

HA-2

HA-3

HA-4

HA-5

HA-6

B-40

B-39

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPT BORING

LEGEND

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

KH

SW

NOV 2024

KHS

NOTED 6511-24-178

VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

KEVIN H. SCOTT, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

65514

TOMOKA FARMS ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION

PLAN SCALE

0 300'

BORING LOCATION PLAN

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637

SHEET 2

SPT-1

B-30 B-29

B-28

SPT-4

B-34

B-33

B-43

B-41

B-44 B-45

B-48

B-46 B-47

B-42

B-49

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPT BORING

LEGEND

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

APPROVED BY:

SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER:

ENGINEER OF RECORD:

KH

SW

NOV 2024

KHS

NOTED 6511-24-178

VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

KEVIN H. SCOTT, P.E.

FLORIDA LICENSE NO.:

65514

TOMOKA FARMS ROAD LANDFILL EXPANSION

PLAN SCALE

0 300'

BORING LOCATION PLAN

TIERRA

7351 Temple Terrace Highway Tampa, Florida 33637

SHEET 3

WEATHERED LIMESTONE TO CALCAREOUS CLAY

GRAY TO BROWN TO GREEN CLAY TO SILT (CL/CH/ML/MH)

NS - NOT SAMPLED

A - WITH WOOD

B - WITH SHELL

SP

N

GROUNDWATER LEVEL ENCOUNTERED DURING INVESTIGATION

ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER TABLE

SPT N-VALUE IN BLOWS/FOOT FOR 12 INCHES OF

PENETRATION (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2488) GROUP SYMBOL

AS DETERMINED BY VISUAL REVIEW AND LABORATORY TESTING ON

SELECTED SAMPLES FOR CONFIRMATION OF VISUAL REVIEW.

GRAY TO BROWN SAND TO SAND WITH SILT (SP/SP-SM)

GRAY TO BROWN SILTY SAND (SM)

15 to 30 8 to 15

30 to 50 10 to 30 4 to 10

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE

GREATER THAN 30

LESS THAN 4

GREATER THAN 50

LESS THAN 2

VERY LOOSE

HARD

VERY STIFF

STIFF

SILTS AND CLAYS

CONSISTENCY

FIRM

SOFT

VERY SOFT

LOOSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE

4 to 8 2 to 4

RELATIVE DENSITY

GRANULAR MATERIALS-

SAFETY HAMMER

MEDIUM DENSE

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

12 to 24 6 to 12

24 to 40 8 to 24 3 to 8

(BLOWS/FT.)

SPT N-VALUE