Geotechnical Exhibit RFP 25-461.pdf

September 2, 2025

Project No. 251430

DLZ

1425 Keystone Avenue

Lansing, Michigan 48911

Attention: Ylli Bodinaku

Reference: Report of Geotechnical Investigation

Genesee County Recycling Facility

Flint, Michigan

Dear Mr. Bodinaku:

MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC. has completed a geotechnical investigation for the above-referenced project. The findings of the study along with recommendations for the design of foundations and earth-related structures are presented in the attached report.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide foundation engineering services and express our interest in providing continuing services in the areas of subgrade verification, special inspections and quality testing on various construction materials. Please contact our office should you have any questions or require further assistance.

Sincerely, MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC.

Jacob R. VanZalen, E.I.T.

Senior Staff Engineer

Ryan D. Starcher, P.E.

Project Manager att: Report

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

GENESEE COUNTY RECYCLING FACILITY

FLINT, MICHIGAN

Prepared For:

DLZ

Lansing, Michigan

Prepared By:

MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC.

September 2025

MTC Project No. 251430

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 2

2.1 Available Information 2

2.2 Location and Type of Structure 2

3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY 3

3.1 Field Investigation 3

4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 4

4.1 Regional Geology 4

4.2 Site Conditions 5

4.3 Subsurface Conditions 6

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8

5.1 Foundations 9

5.2 Site and Subgrade Preparation 10

5.3 Groundwater 11

5.4 Slopes and Temporary Excavations 12

5.5 Concrete Floor Slabs and Rigid Pavements 12

5.6 Below-Grade Walls 13

5.7 Flexible Pavement 14

5.8 MBC Seismic Considerations 15

6.0 CLOSURE 16

FIGURES BORING LOCATION PLANS

APPENDIX LIMITATIONS

TEST DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION OUTLINE

BORING LOGS

INFILTRATION TEST REPORTS

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

GENESEE COUNTY RECYCLING FACILITY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC. (MTC) has completed a geotechnical investigation for the new Genesee County Recycling Facility, located in Flint, Michigan. This work has been performed as described in our proposal, number 19322 Rev. 1 and dated April 28, 2025.

Authorization to proceed was received from Mr. Ylli Bodinaku of DLZ in an email dated June

3, 2025. The scope of this study was described in an RFP email dated April 9, 2025.

The scope of this study in general includes the following:

• performance of a field investigation including soil test borings and field engineering reconnaissance;

• review of recovered samples by one of our engineers and assignment of technical soil classifications;

• performance of laboratory testing on selected soil samples;

• performance of infiltration testing;

• engineering evaluation of encountered conditions with respect to the proposed construction; and

• preparation of this report.

Presented herein are descriptions of our understanding of the design considerations, the investigation program, encountered conditions and engineering recommendations. The

Appendix contains the report limitations, boring log terminology, soil classification chart, boring logs, infiltration test reports and laboratory test data.

Report of Geotechnical Investigation

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 Available Information

We have been provided the following documents and information for use in this investigation:

• A Project Conceptual Planning sheet showing the site and requested boring depths received from Mr. Ylli Bodinaku of DLZ on April 9, 2025.

• A Site Concept plan showing requested boring locations, received from Mr. Ylli Bodinaku of DLZ on July 10, 2025.

• Telephone and email correspondence with Mr. Ylli Bodinaku of DLZ regarding the type of construction, GPR scanning and scope of geotechnical investigation.

2.2 Location and Type of Structure

The proposed construction will be located in plan as shown on the attached Boring Location

Plans, Figure Nos. 1 and 2. The site is located at address 609 Chavez Drive in Flint, Michigan.

The construction will consist of new recycling and education center for Genesee County, with associated loading docks, drop-off areas, future expansion areas, planned parking areas, bioswales and a possible detention pond. We have considered the structure will be approximately 70 ft by 205 ft in plan. We have considered the lowest finish floor will be near elevation 736, with cut operations required to reach proposed finish elevations for the loading dock at the north of the proposed structure.

We have considered maximum column loads of 150 kips and maximum wall loads of 5 kips per lineal foot.

Asphalt pavement areas are planned. Traffic is expected to consist of frequent truck loading for refuse transport, in addition to relatively light passenger vehicles. We anticipate traffic volumes will be less than 200 trucks and 100 passenger vehicles per day. Site grading in proposed pavement areas is expected to consist of limited cut and fill placement of 1 ft or less to reach final surface grades, with the exception of the loading dock area where cuts are expected.

We should be informed of any changes between the actual design conditions and those described herein as this information may affect our recommendations.

3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

3.1 Field Investigation

Subsurface conditions were investigated by 9 conventional soil test borings. Boring depths ranged from 30 to 50 ft ft below the existing ground surface in the building and future facilities area, 8 to 10 ft in the proposed parking areas and to 6 ft in proposed bioswale areas. Boring locations are shown on the attached plans, Figure Nos. 1 and 2.

Infiltration tests were performed at Borings B-8 and B-9 at depths of 6 ft (els 731.8 to 734).

The infiltration test depths were chosen in consultation with Mr. Ylli Bodinaku of DLZ. The infiltration tests were performed using the double-ring method outlined in the Southeast

Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) Low Impact Development Manual for Michigan.

MTC staked the approximate boring locations in the field. Boring elevations were approximated by GPS. The elevations used in this report are given in feet and are based on

NAVD 88 datum, with boring elevations If more precise location and elevation data are desired, a registered professional land surveyor should be retained to locate the borings and determine their ground elevations.

The drilling was performed using conventional hollow-stem auger methods to advance the boreholes. The boreholes were backfilled to the original ground surface after drilling completion and patched at the surface with asphalt cold patch where appropriate.

Soil samples were recovered on regular intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test

(SPT), ASTM D1586. The SPT test involves the use of a 140-lb hammer with a 30-inch drop to drive a standard 2.0-inch O.D. split spoon sampler. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after seating 6 inches, is termed the soil N-value and provides an indication of the soil's relative density and strength parameters at the sample location.

SPT blow counts in 6-inch increments are recorded on the boring logs. The drill rig was equipped with an automatic hammer system which delivers a more consistent driving energy to the sampler compared to the rope and cathead system.

Recovered samples were sealed, labeled and transported to our laboratory. All soil samples will be discarded after sixty days unless a longer hold time is specifically requested.

The recovered soil samples were reviewed by an engineer and technically classified according to the methods of ASTM D2488 "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils

(Visual-Manual Procedure)". Estimates of the unconfined compressive strength of the cohesive samples were made using a calibrated penetrometer. A copy of the test boring logs along with a description of the terminology used on the logs and a chart of the ASTM D2488 group symbol names are provided in the Appendix.

Borings were drilled and other sampling was conducted solely to obtain indications of subsurface conditions as part of a geotechnical exploration program. No services were performed to evaluate subsurface environmental conditions.

4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS

4.1 Regional Geology

The Map of the Surface Formations of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, published by the

State of Michigan, indicates the site is in an area of sand lake beds. Soil conditions typically are found to consist of sands in this type of geologic area. The Map of Bedrock Topography of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan indicates bedrock to be between els 650 and 700, on the order of 35 to 85 ft below existing site elevations. Indications of bedrock were not encountered in our investigation.

4.2 Site Conditions

At the time of our fiedlwork the site had recently undergone demolition with the prior building foundations largely left in place. The ground surface in the area of investigation was generally covered with sand with rubble from the demolition process and low brush and grass. The site, in general, sloped down from east to west with elevations ranging from 712 to 738.

Foundations for the previous development on site were observed during our field staking activities and borings were located outside of the existing foundations. The previous structure on site was generally located to the east of the site near Chavez and in portions of the proposed footprint of the future structure.

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

Structure – Borings B-1 to B-4

Boring B-2 encountered 2 ½ inches of sandy topsoil at the surface, while Borings B-1. B-3 and

B-4 did not encounter topsoil at the surface. Borings B-1 to B-4 generally encountered fill, consisting of very loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty fines (SP-SM, SM), to depths ranging from 3.8 to 12 ft (els 727.6 to 736.3). Due to the very loose sand encountered, we have considered this fill was likely placed in an uncontrolled manner. Beneath the fill, the borings generally encountered loose to very dense poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty fines (SP, SP-SM, SM) to the explored depths of 30 to 43.8 ft (els 696 to 710.1). Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-1 to B-4 at depths ranging from 24 to 28 ft (els 712.1 to 715.6).

Detention Pond – Boring B-5

Boring B-5 encountered 1 inch of sandy topsoil at the surface. Beneath the topsoil, Boring B-

5 encountered fill, consisting of very loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with silt (SP-

SM), to a depth of 18.7 ft (el 709.5). Beneath the uncontrolled fill, the boring encountered poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty and clayey fines (SP, SC) to the explored depth of 30 ft (el 698.2). Poor recovery due to possible coarse gravel or cobble was encountered to a depth of 15 ft (el 713.2). Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 18.7 ft (el 709.5).

Pavement Areas – Borings B-6 and B-7

Boring B-7 encountered 2 inches of sandy topsoil at the surface while Boring B-6 did not encounter topsoil. Boring B-6 encountered fill, consisting of loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) and appearing to contain occasional concrete and asphalt debris, to the explored depth of 10 ft (els 728.2). Beneath the topsoil, Boring B-7 encountered very loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty fines (SP, SP-

SM, SM) to the explored depth of 10 ft (el 730.2). Borings B-6 and B-7 generally encountered poor recovery due to possible coarse gravel or cobble at depths up to 10 ft (el 728.2).

Groundwater was not encountered in Borings B-6 and B-7.

Bioswale Areas – Borings B-8 and B-9

Borings B-8 and B-9 generally encountered surficial fill, consisting of loose silty sand (SM), to a depth of 2.5 ft (els 735.3 to 737.5). Beneath the fill, the borings generally encountered very loose to loose poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty fines (SP, SM) to the explored depths of 10 ft (els 727.8 to 730). Poor sampler recovery due to possible coarse gravel or cobble was encountered in Borings B-6 and B-7 at depths up to 7.5 ft (el 732.5). Groundwater was not encountered in the borings.

The fill encountered in the investigation appeared to contain frequent glass, brick and asphalt debris. Due to the very loose sand and debris encountered, we have considered this fill was likely placed in an uncontrolled manner.

The relative density of granular soil is based on recorded SPT N-values while the consistency of cohesive soil is based on both recorded SPT N-values and on estimates of the unconfined compressive strength obtained with a calibrated penetrometer.

Groundwater levels will fluctuate due to seasonal variations such as precipitation, snowmelt, nearby river or lake levels and other factors that may not be evident at the time of measurement. Groundwater levels may be different at the time of construction.

This section has provided a generalized description of the encountered subsurface soil conditions. The boring logs located in the Appendix should be reviewed for detailed soil descriptions. Some variation between boring locations may be expected.

Infiltration Testing

Double ring infiltrometer tests were performed at Borings B-8 and B-9 at depths of 6 ft below existing grade (els 731.8 to 734.0). Two concentric rings were used to perform the tests, with an 8-inch outer ring diameter and 4-inch inner ring diameter. The purpose of the outer ring is to prevent divergent flow of water from the inner ring while water level in the inner ring is monitored to calculate a one-dimensional infiltration rate. For the tests, readings were taken at 10-minute intervals until a stabilized infiltration rate was achieved. A summary of the stabilized infiltration rates for each test are listed in Table 1, below. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the results. The infiltration test reports are attached.

Table 1 – Infiltration Test Results

Test Test

Elevation (ft)

Stabilized Infiltration

Rate (in/hr)

B-8 734.0 18

B-9 731.8 30

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the area of the structure and pavements, Borings B-1 to B-4 and B-6 generally encountered uncontrolled fill to depths ranging from 3.8 to 12 ft (els 727.6 to 736.3). Borings B-1 and B-

3 encountered uncontrolled fill to depths of 12 ft (els 727.6 to 727.8) and Boring B-6 encountered uncontrolled fill to the explored depth of 10 ft (el 728.2), while Borings B-2 and

B-4 encountered uncontrolled fill to depths ranging from 3.8 to 6.6 ft (els 732.6 to 736.3).

The uncontrolled fill generally consisted of very loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty fines (SP-SM, SM). The uncontrolled fill in Boring B-6 appeared to contain concrete and asphalt debris.

Borings B-5, B-7 and B-8 encountered very loose poorly graded sand with varying amounts of silty fines (SP-SM) at depths ranging from 5 to 15 ft (els 713.2 to 735.2) and may be encountered in other areas throughout the site.

The uncontrolled fill and very loose granular materials should either be removed from beneath the foundations and replaced with compacted engineered fill or the foundations should be designed to extend through the uncontrolled fill and very loose granular material. The uncontrolled fill is expected to be encountered at depths ranging from 0.3 to 8.5 ft below the foundation bearing elevation in some areas of the structure, while very loose granular materials may be expected to be encountered at depths up to 1.5 to 11.5 ft below foundation bearing elevations.

A portion of the uncontrolled fill may be suitable to remain in place beneath proposed building slabs and pavements, considering it is free of large debris and organics and passes a proof roll. Test pits are recommended during construction to further investigate the fill in the vicinity of the proposed structure. Even after proof rolling and test pit exploration, some risk of future poor performance may still be present for floor slabs and pavements supported on the uncontrolled fill. If no risk of future poor performance can be accepted for floor slabs, the uncontrolled fill should be removed in its entirety from beneath the floor slab and replaced with compacted engineered fill.

5.1 Foundations

A conventional shallow continuous and spread foundation system is recommended for support of the proposed structure. It is important that the recommendations of this report, in particular those pertaining to subgrade preparation, construction observation and testing, be implemented during design and construction.

The following parameters are recommended for foundation design:

Table 5.1.1 - Foundation Design Parameters

Bearing pressure for square or rectangular foundations, maximum net allowable, psf

Bearing pressure for continuous foundations, maximum net allowable, psf

Minimum width of square or rectangular foundations 24 inches

Minimum width of continuous foundations 18 inches

Minimum embedment depth for frost protection 42 inches

Foundations are expected to bear on the native loose to medium dense sand with varying amounts of silty fines (SP, SP-SM, SM), as encountered in the borings or on approved engineered fill. Subgrade preparation recommendations are contained in the following section.

Foundation recommendations presented herein are based on a safety factor to resist bearing capacity failure of at least 3.0 and a maximum anticipated total foundation settlement of 1 inch or less.

5.2 Site and Subgrade Preparation

All topsoil, vegetation, roots and any other miscellaneous debris should be removed from within the proposed construction areas. The limits of the proposed construction area, prior to the placement of any structures or engineered fill material, should be proof-rolled by the

Contractor and, where granular soil is present, compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum ASTM D1557 dry density. Proof-rolling is defined as the passing of relatively heavy construction equipment over the soil subgrade under observation by the Geotechnical

Engineer. The response of the soil, when subjected to the applied load, is subjectively evaluated by qualified geotechnical personnel with respect to its ability to support the overlying soil or structure. In areas where excessive deflection is observed, special subgrade preparation measures may be recommended to provide an acceptable subgrade condition.

These measures may consist of compaction of the subgrade at moisture contents close to the optimum value, undercutting affected areas and replacing with engineered fill, use of a geotextile separation fabric or some combination of these measures.

Due to the very loose sand and uncontrolled fill conditions encountered in the field investigation and due to possible variations that may exist between borings, it is expected that some form of subgrade improvement will be required over the entire building and parking areas to provide suitable foundation bearing conditions. Subgrade improvement may include, but not be necessarily limited to, densification of existing soil in-place or excavation of all unsuitable material to an approved subgrade and replacement with engineered fill. If overexcavation is selected, it should encompass soil within the stress influence region of the foundation, defined as a region bordered by 2V:1H planes extending down and away from the bottom edge of the foundation to the approved bearing stratum.

The foundation subgrade should be inspected and tested by qualified geotechnical personnel.

As part of the inspection and testing, the subgrade at each individual bearing element should be verified to be consistent with the conditions encountered in this investigation and the indicated recommended allowable bearing pressures. This testing should include a dynamic cone penetrometer (ASTM STP399) to verify minimum relative densities and equivalent N-values in granular soil.

Engineered fill is approved on-site or imported soil placed in uniform layers and compacted to a minimum required density. Generally, on-site soil with group symbols of SP or SP-SM are expected to be suitable for engineered fill. Imported engineered fill should meet the requirements for MDOT Class II granular material. MDOT Class II soil or approved on-site soil meeting the requirements of SP or SP-SM should be used as backfill against foundations.

Granular engineered fill and backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557). Vibratory compaction methods are typically found to be most effective in granular soils; however, relatively light equipment should be used adjacent to retaining or basement walls to avoid overstressing the walls.

The fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal layers not exceeding 9 inches. Field density tests should be taken on each lift, as the fill is being placed, to verify compliance with compaction specifications. If the earthwork takes place during winter months, fill must not be placed on frozen ground and fill with frozen conglomerations of soil must not be used.

Because the site has been previously developed, there may be buried items not encountered in our borings, such as a septic tank, well, or utility conduit, which may cause settlement problems. The contract documents should reflect that it is necessary to remove or relocate such structures and to fill the excavation with engineered fill.

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was generally encountered in Borings B-1 to B-5 at depths ranging from 18.7 to

28 ft (els 709.5 to 715.6), below the anticipated depth of excavation for foundation construction and site preparation. Because groundwater was encountered substantially below the anticipated excavation depth, the control of groundwater for foundation construction is not expected to be of significant concern on this project.

A perimeter footing drain is recommended in all areas where the building's floor slab is at or below the adjacent exterior elevation.

5.4 Slopes and Temporary Excavations

The Owner and the Contractor should make themselves aware of and become familiar with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the

Contractor. The Contractor shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and operations of construction operations. We are providing the following information solely as a service on this project and, under no circumstances, should our provision of the following information be construed to mean that we are assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not implied and should not be inferred.

The Contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depths

(including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations; e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR

Part 1926, or successor regulations. For this site, the overburden soil encountered in our exploratory program is a predominantly granular soil. We anticipate that OSHA will classify these materials as Type C. OSHA recommends a maximum slope inclination of 1½H:1V for this type of soil under ideal conditions.

As an alternative to temporary slopes, vertical excavations can be temporarily shored. The contractor or the specialty subcontractor should be responsible for the design of the temporary shoring in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

5.5 Concrete Floor Slabs and Rigid Pavements

Subgrade preparation in floor slab areas should be as described in the "Site and Subgrade

Preparation" section of this report. For design of the concrete floor slabs and rigid pavements supported on-grade, a modulus of subgrade reaction value, K30, of 100 psi/inch is recommended. We recommend placement of at least 4 inches of MDOT Class II fill directly beneath the floor slab. Design of concrete slabs should be in accord with ACI and the applicable building code recognized design guidelines. If a vapor sensitive covering will be placed over the floor slab or the slab will be in a humidity-controlled area, a vapor retarder/barrier is recommended following ACI 302.1R-15 guidelines and the floor covering manufacturer's guidelines.

5.6 Below-Grade Walls

The lateral earth pressure against below-grade walls is a function of the rigidity of the wall, the nature of the backfill material, the slope of the top surface of the retained soil and surcharge loads. For design of below-grade basement walls, the following soil parameters may be used:

Table 5.6.1 - Rigid Wall Lateral Earth Pressures

Coefficient of at-rest earth pressure 0.47

Coefficient of passive earth pressure 1.5

Friction angle of backfill, degrees 32

Total unit weight of backfill, pcf 120

Friction angle between rough concrete and granular subgrade, degrees 24

Friction angle between rough concrete and clay subgrade, degrees 20

The at-rest pressure is recommended for relatively rigid walls, such as basement walls, due to the lack of minor movement that is necessary to reduce the applied pressure from the at-rest to the active condition.

For design of cantilever retaining walls, the following soil parameters may be used:

Table 5.6.2 - Cantilever Wall Lateral Earth Pressures

Coefficient of active earth pressure 0.33

Coefficient of passive earth pressure 3.0

Friction angle of backfill, degrees 32

Total unit weight of backfill, pcf 120

Friction angle between smooth concrete and backfill, degrees 20

Friction angle between rough concrete and granular subgrade, degrees 24

Friction angle between rough concrete and clay subgrade, degrees 20

Any possible surcharge loads should be included in the design of all earth-retaining structures.

5.7 Flexible Pavement

Subgrade preparation in pavement areas should be as described in the "Site and Subgrade

Preparation" section of this report. The pavement sections recommended in this section are based on procedures contained in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement

Structures.

The following flexible pavement sections are recommended:

Table 5.7.1 - Flexible Pavement Section

Traffic Condition Standard Duty Heavy Duty

Sand subbase thickness, inches 10.0 12.0

Aggregate base thickness, inches 6.0 8.0

Bituminous leveling course thickness, inches 2.0 3.0

Bituminous wearing course thickness, inches 1.5 2.0

The following materials are recommended:

Table 5.7.2 - Flexible Pavement Materials

Sand subbase MDOT Class II granular

Aggregate base MDOT 21AA Natural Aggregate

Bituminous leveling MDOT 4EML

Bituminous wearing MDOT 5EML

Minimum Binder Grade PG 64-28

The bituminous leveling course should be applied in two lifts. Sand subbase material should be laboratory tested to confirm MDOT Class II grading requirement. MDOT standard specifications for materials and placement should be observed. We recommend a maximum of 17 percent recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), measured as a percent of asphalt replacement, be utilized in HMA mixes. Air voids should be field regressed to 3.5 percent using liquid asphalt cement.

A natural aggregate base product, often consisting of crushed limestone, is recommended relative to crushed concrete aggregate base products considering the long-term performance risk crushed concrete presents due to potential hydration of free cement and decreased permeability over time.

Construction procedures and workmanship are of key importance with respect to pavement appearance and long-term pavement performance. Key components of workmanship include appropriate joint construction resulting in sufficient density, prevention of segregation, and maintaining a minimum temperature during placement. At a minimum, the procedures outlined in Section 501 of the 2020 MDOT Specifications should be followed with respect to equipment, placement, and temperatures. Compaction of the asphalt courses should range between 92 and 96 percent of the Theoretical Maximum Density (TMD) based on MDOT requirements.

It is recommended that cracks that may develop in the pavement be quickly and properly sealed through a regular maintenance program. Also, the subgrade should be sufficiently sloped to provide drainage within the sand subbase and underdrains should be provided within the subbase, at catch basins and pavement edges, to facilitate drainage. At each catch basin, four underdrains with a watertight connection should extend out radially at least 20 ft.

A suitable rubberized asphalt sealant should be placed between all concrete curb/HMA joints immediately after paving.

5.8 MBC Seismic Considerations

The seismic design category can be determined with noted exceptions following Section 1613 of the 2021 Michigan Building Code. The Risk Category under Section 1613.2.5 shall be determined by a licensed structural engineer. Based on the subsurface conditions identified in the soil borings, our experience with the geological conditions in the site vicinity and the procedures outlined in Section 1613 of the 2021 Michigan Building Code and Chapter 20, Table 20.2-1 of ASCE 7, we recommend assigning a Site Class D to this site. A Site Class D designates a medium dense sand or stiff clay soil profile in the upper 100 ft. Recommended seismic ground motion values are provided in Table 5.8.1.

Table 5.8.1 - Recommended Seismic Ground Motion Values

2021 Michigan Building Code Values Short Period

(0.2 sec)

Long Period

(1 sec)

Spectral Response Acceleration, Figure 1613.2.1 (1 to 4), %g Ss = 8 Sl = 5

Seismic Site Coefficient, Table 1613.2.3 (1 and 2) Fa = 1.6 Fv = 2.4

Maximum Considered Spectral Response Acceleration, Equations

16-20 and 16-21 SMS = 0.128g SMl = 0.120g

5% Damped Spectral Response Acceleration, Equations 16-22 and 16-23 SDS = 0.085g SDl = 0.080g

6.0 CLOSURE

In this report, descriptions of the geotechnical investigation, encountered conditions and recommendations for the design of foundations and earth-related structures have been provided. The limitations of this study are described in the Appendix.

The recommendations presented in this report are based upon a limited number of subsurface samples obtained from various sampling locations. The samples may not fully indicate the nature and extent of the variations that actually exist between sampling locations.

For that reason, among others, we strongly recommend that a qualified geotechnical firm be retained to observe earthwork construction. If variations or other latent conditions become evident during construction, it will be necessary for us to review these conditions and our recommendations as appropriate.

TITLE: BORING LOCATION PLAN PROJECT: GENESEE COUNTY RECYCLING FACILITY

SCALE: AS SHOWN DATE: 09/2/2025 PROJECT NO.: 251430

FIG. NO.: 1 DR. BY: SS REV. BY: RS

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

ROBERT T LONGWAY BOULEVARD

LEGEND

BORING LOCATION (TYP)

NOTE: AERIAL IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH

TITLE: BORING LOCATION PLAN PROJECT: GENESEE COUNTY RECYCLING FACILITY

SCALE: NTS DATE: 09/2/2025 PROJECT NO.: 251430

FIG. NO.: 2 DR. BY: SS REV. BY: RS

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

LEGEND

BORING LOCATION (TYP)

NOTE: PLAN IMAGE PROVIDED BY DLZ

APPENDIX

• Limitations

• Test Drilling and Sampling Procedures

• Boring Log Terminology and Classification Outline

• Boring Logs

• Infiltration Test Reports

LIMITATIONS

Soil Variations

The recommendations in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings.

This report does not reflect variations which may occur between these borings, and which would not become evident until construction. If variations then become evident, it would be necessary for a re-evaluation of recommendations of this report, after performing on-site observations.

Warranties

We have prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. We make no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of our agreement and included in this report.

This report is prepared exclusively for our client and may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from our office.

Boring Logs

In the process of obtaining and testing samples and preparing this report, we follow reasonable and accepted practice in the field of soil engineering. Field logs maintained during drilling describe field occurrences, sampling locations, and other information. The samples obtained in the field are subjected to additional testing in the laboratory and differences may exist between the field logs and the final logs. The engineer reviews the field logs and laboratory test data, and then prepares the final boring logs. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the final logs.

Review of Design Plans and Specifications

In the event that any changes in the design of the building or the location, however slight, are planned, our recommendations shall not be considered valid unless modified or approved in writing by our office. We recommend that we be provided the opportunity to review the final design and specifications in order to determine whether changes in the original concept may have affected the validity of our recommendations, and whether our recommendations have, in fact, been implemented in the design and specifications.

TEST DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Test Drilling Methods:

X Hollow stem auger, ASTM D6151

Mud rotary, ASTM D5783

Casing advancer, ASTM D5872

Rock coring, ASTM D2113

Core/Hand Auger

Note: Cone penetration test data can be used to interpret subsurface stratigraphy and can provide data on engineering properties of soils. The ASTM procedure does not include a procedure for determining soil classification from CPT testing. Soil classifications shown on

CPT logs are based on published procedures and are not based on physical ASTM soil classification tests.

Sampling Methods:

X SPT, ASTM D1586, Auto hammer (140 lb., 30" drop, 2" OD split spoon sampler)

Thin-walled tube sampler (Shelby), ASTM D1587

Note: The number of hammer blows required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches, after seating 6 inches, is termed the soil N-value and provides an indication of the soil's relative density and strength parameters at the sample location. SPT blow counts in 6 inch increments are recorded on the boring logs.

Drill Rig:

CME 55 (ATV)

Acker Renegade (ATV)

CME 45 Truck

X Geoprobe 7822 (ATV)

Geoprobe Rotary Sonic

Boreholes Backfilled With:

X Excavated soil

Cement bentonite grout

Piezometer or Monitoring Well (see notes on logs)

Concrete or asphalt patch where appropriate

Sample Handling and Disposition:

X Samples labeled, placed in jars, returned to MTC Laboratory

X Discard after 60 days

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1100

FOR CLARIFICATION OF FINE-GRAINED SOIL AND

FINE-GRAINED FRACTION OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

< 5 5 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 > 50

Relative Density SPT Blow CountDescriptive Terms

0 to 15 % 15 to 35 % 35 to 65 % 65 to 85 % 85 to 100 %

GENERAL NOTES

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF

HIGH PLASTICITY WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

CLAYEY SANDS WITH OR

WITHOUT GRAVEL

Plasticity Chart

GRAIN SIZE

Less than 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 40%

50 to 100%

MINOR COMPONENT QUANTIFYING TERMS

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions retained on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) clean gravel and sands and (2) silty or clayey gravels and sands. Condition is rated according to relative density as determined by laboratory tests or standard penetration resistance tests.

TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY OR CONDITION

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS

WITH OR WITHOUT SAND

SILTY GRAVELS WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND

WELL-GRADED SANDS WITH OR

WITHOUT GRAVEL

POORLY-GRADED SANDS WITH

SILT WITH OR WITHOUT

GRAVEL

CLEAN

SANDS WITH

LESS THAN

15% FINES

SANDS WITH

15% OR

MORE FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS WITH

OR WITHOUT GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS WITH

OR WITHOUT SAND

CLAYEY GRAVELS WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND

TYPICAL NAMES

CLEAN

GRAVELS

WITH LESS

THAN 15%

FINES

GRAVELS

WITH 15%

OR MORE

FINES

GRAVELS

MORE THAN

HALF

COARSE

FRACTION IS

LARGER

THAN NO. 4

SIEVE

SANDS

MORE THAN

HALF

COARSE

FRACTION IS

FINER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

SIZE

C O

A R

S E

-G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

M O

R E

T H

A N

H A

LF

IS

C O

A R

S E

R T

H A

N N

O . 2

S

IE

V

E

MAJOR DIVISIONS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SP-SM

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT/OL

INORGANIC SILTS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF

LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY

WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR

GRAVEL

INORGANIC SILTS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT

SAND OR GRAVEL

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT

SAND OR GRAVEL

SILTY SANDS WITH OR

WITHOUT GRAVEL

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY

ORGANIC SOILS

F

IN

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

O

IL

S M

O R

E T

H A

N H

A

LF

IS

F

IN

E

R T

H A

N N

O . 2

S

IE

V

E

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER

THAN 50%

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

3. Preserved soil samples will be discarded after 60 days unless alternate arrangements have been made.

2. "Grades with" or "Grades without" may be used to describe soil when characteristics vary within a stratum.

SPT Blow CountDescriptive Terms

< 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 > 30

< 0.25

0.25 to 0.5

0.5 to 1.0

1.0 to 2.0

2.0 to 4.0 > 4.0

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Unconfined Compressive

TRACE

FEW

LITTLE

SOME

MOSTLY

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

P

I)

SAMPLE TYPES AND NUMBERING

U Shelby tube sample, ASTM D1587

R Rock core run

1. Classifications are based on the United Soil Classification System and include consistency, moisture, and color. Field descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests where deemed appropriate.

S Other than 2" split barrel sample

L SPT with liner, ASTM D1586

A Auger cuttings

G Geoprobe liner

C U

D

FINE-GRAINED SOILS (major portions passing on No. 200 sieve): includes (1) inorganic and organic silts and clays, (2) gravelly, sandy, or silty clays, and (3) clayey silts. Consistency is rated according to shearing strength, as indicated by penetrometer readings, SPT blow count, or unconfined compression tests.

>12"

12" to 3"

3" to 0.75"

0.75" to No. 4

No. 4 to No. 10

No. 10 to No.40

No. 40 to No. 200

60D greater than 4; between 1 and 3 between 1 and 3

D 10 x D60

30D C

C

60Dx10D

10D 60D

C C

( D 30 )2 greater than 6;=C U

( )2

S SPT, split barrel sample, ASTM D1586

Per ASTM D2487, the following conditions must be met based on laboratory testing to justify the label 'well graded' in a soil description.

Gravel:

Sand:

BOULDER

COBBLE

COARSE GRAVEL

FINE GRAVEL

COARSE SAND

MEDIUM SAND

FINE SAND

BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY AND ASTM D 2488

CLASSIFICATION OUTLINE

During - indicates water level encountered during the boring End- indicates water level immediately after drilling Date and Depth - Measurements at indicated date

GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS:

ML OL

OR

ORCL

OL

MH OH

OR

CL-ML

"A " L

IN

E"U

" L

IN

E

CH

OH

OR

Strength TSF

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-10

12.0

17.0

24.1

34.0

Brown silty SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, little silty fines, few coarse to fine gravel, moist, Fill

Grades with occasional silt and clay lenses

Light brown poorly graded SAND with silt;

mostly coarse to fine sand, few silty fines, trace coarse to fine gravel, moist

Grades with occasional clay lenses

Brown silty SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, little silty fines, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

Light brown poorly graded SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, moist

Grades wet

Grades with occasional gray clay lenses

Gray silty SAND; mostly medium to fine sand, little silty fines, wet

4.5+

SM

SP-SM

SM

SP

SM

7-11-8 N=19

3-1-1 N=2

5-5-4 N=9

2-2-1 N=3

7-11-50/5"

12-18-25 N=43

9-20-29 N=49

16-18-22 N=40

15-24-26 N=50

4-10-20 N=30

1.3

0.8

0.5

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

**End water reading may be influenced by charging augers Fill: 0.0' to 12.0'

S-2, S-3: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

S-5: Sampler refusal;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

Hard drilling noted from 14.9' to 16.0'

Augers charged with water from 39.0'

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

07/23/2025

JVSK

Type

End

Datum:739.8 ft

Client:

N=557010.9 E=13306559.5 (MI South ift)

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

DLZ

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at 6.9 ft.

Flint, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

26.0

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

6.5**

Date End: 07/23/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

Geoprobe 7822

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 43.8 ft.

SPT

Genesee County Recycling Facility

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Sample

Number

251430

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

Depth

FT.

Elev.

FT. *DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sheet: 1 of 2

B-1

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

738.8

737.8

736.8

735.8

734.8

733.8

732.8

731.8

730.8

729.8

728.8

727.8

726.8

725.8

724.8

723.8

722.8

721.8

720.8

719.8

718.8

717.8

716.8

715.8

714.8

713.8

712.8

711.8

710.8

709.8

708.8

707.8

706.8

705.8

704.8

703.8

702.8

701.8

700.8

699.8

S-11 43.8

Gray silty SAND; mostly medium to fine sand, little silty fines, wet

End of Boring

SM

50/4"0.3

S-11: Sampler refusal;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

Auger refusal at 43.8' due to possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100%

Sample

Number

251430

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

Depth

FT.

Elev.

FT. *DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sheet: 2 of 2

B-1

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

698.8

697.8

696.8

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

0.2

6.6

12.0

30.0

2 1/2" Sandy Topsoil

Brown poorly graded SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few silty fines, moist, Fill

Brown silty SAND; mostly medium to fine sand, little silty fines, moist Grades with occasional sandy clay seams

Brown poorly graded SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, trace silty fines, moist

Grades wet

End of Boring

SP-SM

SM

SP

3-2-5 N=7

4-4-5 N=9

4-5-4 N=9

3-3-5 N=8

7-8-7 N=15

14-25-35 N=60

9-18-24 N=42

9-12-18 N=30

1.3

1.2

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

Fill: 0.0' to 6.6'

S-2: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

Hard drilling noted at 16.0'

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

07/24/2025

BGSK

Type

End

Datum:739.2 ft

Client:

N=556849.2 E=13306493.8 (MI South ift)

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

DLZ

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at

14.4 ft.

Flint, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

27.0

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

None

Date End: 07/24/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

Geoprobe 7822

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 30.0 ft.

SPT

Genesee County Recycling Facility

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Sample

Number

251430

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

Depth

FT.

Elev.

FT. *DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-2

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

738.2

737.2

736.2

735.2

734.2

733.2

732.2

731.2

730.2

729.2

728.2

727.2

726.2

725.2

724.2

723.2

722.2

721.2

720.2

719.2

718.2

717.2

716.2

715.2

714.2

713.2

712.2

711.2

710.2

709.2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

12.0

27.0

30.0

Bright brown poorly graded SAND with silt;

mostly coarse to fine sand, few silty fines, trace coarse to fine gravel, moist, Fill

Grades with occasional clay seams

Brown silty SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, little silty fines, few coarse to fine gravel, moist

Grades wet

Brown silty SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, little silty fines, wet

End of Boring

SP-SM

SM

SM

5-6-7 N=13

4-4-5 N=9

4-4-6 N=10

4-5-8 N=13

17-16-10 N=26

16-17-32 N=49

22-42-44 N=86

17-24-30 N=54

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

Fill: 0.0' to 12.0'

S-1: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

Hard drilling noted from 12.0' to 25.0'

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

07/23/2025

JVSK

Type

End

Datum:739.6 ft

Client:

N=557100.4 E=13306556.4 (MI South ift)

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

DLZ

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at

15.5 ft.

Flint, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

24.0

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

None

Date End: 07/23/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

Geoprobe 7822

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 30.0 ft.

SPT

Genesee County Recycling Facility

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Sample

Number

251430

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

Depth

FT.

Elev.

FT. *DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-3

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

738.6

737.6

736.6

735.6

734.6

733.6

732.6

731.6

730.6

729.6

728.6

727.6

726.6

725.6

724.6

723.6

722.6

721.6

720.6

719.6

718.6

717.6

716.6

715.6

714.6

713.6

712.6

711.6

710.6

709.6

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

3.8

5.5

12.0

17.0

24.0

30.0

Brown silty SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, little silty fines, few coarse to fine gravel, moist, Fill

Light brown poorly graded SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, moist

Light brown silty SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, little silty fines, moist

Light brown poorly graded SAND; mostly coarse to fine sand, moist

Brown silty SAND; mostly medium to fine sand, little silty fines, moist with occasional clay lenses

Light brown poorly graded SAND with silt;

mostly coarse to fine sand, few silty fines, moist

Grades wet

End of Boring

SM

SP

SM

SP

SM

SP-SM

4-5-6 N=11

4-3-4 N=7

8-3-3 N=6

3-4-4 N=8

5-6-7 N=13

5-3-8 N=11

11-19-30 N=49

9-18-20 N=38

0.9

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

Fill: 0.0' to 3.8'

S-1: Poor recovery;

possible coarse gravel /

COBBLE

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

07/23/2025

JVSK

Type

End

Datum:740.1 ft

Client:

N=556996.7 E=13306455.6 (MI South ift)

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

DLZ

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at

19.0 ft.

Flint, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

28.0

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

None

Date End: 07/23/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

Geoprobe 7822

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 30.0 ft.

SPT

Genesee County Recycling Facility

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Sample

Number

251430

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

Depth

FT.

Elev.

FT. *DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-4

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

739.1

738.1

737.1

736.1

735.1

734.1

733.1

732.1

731.1

730.1

729.1

728.1

727.1

726.1

725.1

724.1

723.1

722.1

721.1

720.1

719.1

718.1

717.1

716.1

715.1

714.1

713.1

712.1

711.1

710.1

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

S-7

S-8

0.1

18.7

29.0

30.0

1" Sandy Topsoil

Brown poorly graded SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few silty fines, moist, Fill

Brown poorly graded SAND; mostly medium to fine sand, trace silty fines, wet

Gray clayey SAND with gravel; mostly coarse to fine sand, some clayey fines, little coarse to fine gravel, moist

End of Boring

SP-SM

SP

SC

4-10-5 N=15

6-5-3 N=8

4-2-4 N=6

WOH-1-2

N=3

2-1-2 N=3

4-5-4 N=9

7-9-11 N=20

17-41-49 N=90

1.0

1.3

1.4

0.5

0.8

1.4

1.5

1.5

S-1, S-4, S-5: Poor recovery; possible coarse gravel / COBBLE / asphalt and brick debris

Large quantities of glass, brick, and asphalt debris

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

07/24/2025

BGSK

Type

End

Datum:728.2 ft

Client:

N=557264.0 E=13306182.1 (MI South ift)

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

DLZ

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at

13.4 ft.

Flint, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

18.7

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

12.4

Date End: 07/24/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

Geoprobe 7822

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 30.0 ft.

SPT

Genesee County Recycling Facility

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Sample

Number

251430

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

Depth

FT.

Elev.

FT. *DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-5

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

727.2

726.2

725.2

724.2

723.2

722.2

721.2

720.2

719.2

718.2

717.2

716.2

715.2

714.2

713.2

712.2

711.2

710.2

709.2

708.2

707.2

706.2

705.2

704.2

703.2

702.2

701.2

700.2

699.2

698.2

S-3

S-4 10.0

Brown poorly graded SAND with silt; mostly coarse to fine sand, few coarse to fine gravel, few silty fines, moist, Fill

Grades with occasional asphalt pieces

Concrete debris observed at 10.0'

End of Boring

SP-SM

4-7-13 N=20

3-2-11 N=13

11-6-5 N=11

4-4-4 N=8

1.0

0.5

1.5

0.4

Fill: 0.0' to 10.0'

S-1, S-2, S-4: Poor recovery; possible coarse gravel / COBBLE

Dia. Groundwater, ft.

Depth, ft.

Notes:

Drill Type:

Crew Chief:

Project:

07/23/2025

JVSK

Type

End

Datum:738.2 ft

Client:

N=557228.9 E=13306537.5 (MI South ift)

3 1/4" During

DateElevation:

RS

NAVD 88 (GPS Observation)

DLZ

Plugging Record: Backfilled borehole with compacted cuttings. Cave in at 5.5 ft.

Flint, Michigan

Date Begin:

Core

Tube

SPT Hammer

None

Sampler

Auto

HSA

2"

Location:

NA

Date End: 07/23/2025

Casing

Tooling

Coordinates:

Field Eng.:

Geoprobe 7822

Rev. By:

Depth Drilled: 10.0 ft.

SPT

Genesee County Recycling Facility

Delayed Groundwater, ft.

Component Percentages: Trace < 5%, Few 5-10%, Little 15-25%, Some 30-45%, Mostly 50-100% QP = Calibrated Penetrometer (tons/sq. ft.)

Sample

Number

251430

Boring No.:

LOG

OF

BORING

Project No.:

Depth

FT.

Elev.

FT. *DESCRIPTION QP

tsf

DD

pcf

MST

*USCS

Group

Symbol

Penetration

(Blows Per 6")

ASTM D 1586

Recov.

FT. REMARKS

Sheet: 1 of 1

B-6

* Visual estimate following ASTM D 2488 unless laboratory testing has been performed. Stratification changes are approximated between samples.

737.2

736.2

735.2

734.2

733.2

732.2

731.2

730.2

729.2

728.2

S-3

S-4

0.2

5.5

8.0

10.0

2"…