July 1, 2026
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC 217 Lake Avenue Rochester, New York 14608 Attention:
Mr. Dogucan Ganidagli
Reference:
Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, New York Geotechnical Pavement Evaluation, 26.06083.0 (Revised)
This report summarizes our pavement assessment for the Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project. We understand that the Town of Webster and Village of Webster are planning to reconstruct approximately 2 miles of existing roadway and a multimodal trail. The project will also include construction of approximately a half mile of new roadway extensions. The roadways/trails are generally within and adjacent to the Xerox facility. The Xerox facility was initially developed circa 1960, as such most of the roadways are more than 50 years old. We base this evaluation on our review of subsurface data; recent pavement cores; and consultation with your staff. We intend this report to outline the existing pavement conditions that we encountered and to provide you with guidance on the pavement surface rehabilitation. Exploration The exploration program consisted of twenty-seven pavement cores (C26-1 to C26-27), two hand holes (TP26-1 and TP26-2), three test pits (TP26-3 to TP26-5), and four topsoil thickness measurements (HH26-1 to HH26-4). Nothnagle Drilling provided a Geoprobe track mounted drill rig for the pavement exploration between May 18, 2026 to May 21, 2026. At the pavement locations, the asphalt was cored using a 4-inch diameter core barrel, recovering the asphalt core, and measuring the asphalt layer thicknesses. We sampled the aggregate base and underlying subgrade material with a 3-inch diameter split spoon. We obtained additional subgrade samples using a 2-inch diameter split spoon. The surface was restored with asphalt patch upon completion. Rusty Miller Excavating provided a Case CX170E excavator on May 20, 2026 for the test pit work. The test pits were excavated to depths of 4.25 feet, 3.8 feet, and 4.0 feet below grade. Test pits were backfilled upon completion.
46A Sager Drive, Rochester, NY 14607 ● Telephone (585) 458-0824 ● www.foundationdesignpc.com
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 2
Hand holes/topsoil thicknesses were completed on May 20, 2026 by our staff utilizing hand tooling. The hand holes were extended to depths of 2.1 feet and 2.5 feet below grade. A Wildcat Cone Penetrometer was used to measure the approximate SPT N-values of the subsurface soils. An Exploration Location Plan and the core/test pit/hand hole logs are attached to this report. We performed a laboratory testing program on selected samples. We performed thirteen sieve analyses and three organic content tests. Our laboratory report forms are attached. Site Conditions The following interpretations of the pavement/soil conditions are based on the new exploration and our site observations. See the core table below, Table No. 1, for asphalt and subbase thicknesses at the test locations. Variations from the inferred profile are possible. Contact us immediately if variations are found during construction so we may evaluate the impact on our recommendations.
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 3 Table No. 1 – Core Summary Core Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Macadam Total Subbase Subbase Subbase SN Asphalt Number Top Top Top Top Top Top Binder (oil and Asphalt Thickness Material Fines Required stone) (%) for SN = 5.5 Panama Road 0.5” 2.0” 0.25” 4.25” S+CS 11 C26-1 7.0” 17.0” 4.0 3.5” 4.75” 2.75” S+CS C26-2 7.5” 16.5” 3.5” 2.0” S+CS 11 C26-3 5.5” 18.5” 3.3 5.0” 2.25” 1.5” 1.75” S+G C26-4 5.5” 3.5” Orchard Street 3.0” 5.0” 8.0” 22.0” S+G C26-5 5.1 1.0” 1.0” 0.5” 1.0” 1.5” 4.0” 8.0” 14.0” S+G 10 C26-6 2.5” 6.0” 8.5” 15.5” S+G C26-7 4.4 2.5” 1.75” 1.0” 1.75” 4.5” 9.0” *39.0” S+G 8 C26-8 Mitcheldean Drive 1” 0.25” 0.75” 0.5” 1.0” 1.75” 10.75” 16.0” 8.0” S+CG 13 C26-9 1” 0.25” 0.25” 0.75” 1.25” 2.0” 5.5” 14.5” S+G C26-10 0.75” 0.5” 0.25” 1.5” 0.75” 1.75” 5.5” 18.5” S+G 11 C26-11 0.75” 0.25” 1.0” 1.5” 0.75” 4.0” 8.25” 15.75” CR C26-12 1.0” 1.25” 1.0” 1.0” 2.5” 6.75” 17.25” CR 4 C26-13 1.25” 0.25” 1.0” 0.75” 1.0” 2.25” 6.5” 9.5” CR C26-14 0.75”/0.5” 0.25” 0.25” 1.0”/1.0 0.5” 1.75” 2.0” 8.0” 12.0” CR 8 C26-15 ” 4.65 2.0” 0.25” 0.25” 0.25” 0.5”/0.5 0.5” 1.0” 1.75” 2.0” 7.0” 17.0” CR C26-16 ” 1.25” 1.25” 1.25” 3.0” 9.0” 15.0” CR 14 1.0” **0.5” 0.75” C26-17 0.75” 1.0” 0.5” 0.75” 1.5” 4.5” 19.5” CR C26-18 0.5” 0.5” 0.75” 0.5” 0.25” 1.0” 1.0”/1.2 0.75” 6.5” 13.5” CR 7 C26-19 5” 0.25” 1.0” 0.75” 0.75” 2.0” 2.0” 6.75” 17.25” CR C26-20 0.5” 0.25” 0.25” 0.5” 0.75” 0.75” 2.25” 3.0” 8.25” 15.75” CR 9 C26-21 Boulter Industrial Park 8.0” CR C26-22 3.0” 3.0” 11.0” CR 12 C26-23 3.75” 3.75” 8.25” CR C26-24 2.9 6.0” 3.0” 3.0” 7.0” CR 15 C26-25 1.5” 3.25” 4.75” 15.25” CR C26-26 ***0.5” 4.5” 5.0” 16.0” CR 6 C26-27 *Due to poor recovery number may vary significantly **Layer is asphalt binder ***Layer is a sealant CR- Crusher Run, S+CS- Sand and Crushed Stone, S+G- Sand and Gravel, S+CG- Sand and Crushed Gravel, SN- Structural Number
The structural numbers were calculated assuming the in-place asphalt has a slight reduction in structural layer coefficient (0.40) compared to new asphalt (0.44) due to age/weathering and historic vehicle traffic. The last column shows the amount of asphalt that would need to be added to the current in-place sections to achieve
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 4 the structural number of the county section (5.5). The county section consists of 1.5 inches top, 2.0 inches of binder, 6.0 inches of base, and 12.0 inches of crusher run. Panama Road (C26-1 through C26-4) Asphalt overlays consisting of top were noted at C26-1 and C26-4 and were 0.5 inches to 2.25 inches thick. The asphalt top ranged from 0.25 inch to 4.75 inches and averaged 2.5 inches thick. The asphalt top delaminated at C26-1 and partially delaminated at C26-2. The asphalt binder (C26-3 & C26-4) was 2.0 inches and 1.75 inches thick, respectively. Macadam or an oil and stone mix was used as binder at C26-1 and C26-2. Thicknesses of the macadam was 4.25 inches and 2.75 inches thick, respectively. Total asphalt thicknesses ranged from 5.5 inches to 7.5 inches thick, averaging 6.5 inches. The underlying subbase consisted of a sand and crushed stone or sand and gravel mix and ranged from 3.5 inches to 18.5 inches thick. The sand and crushed stone subbase classified as GP-GM (poorly graded gravel with silt and sand) and GW-GM (well graded gravel with silt and sand) in the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The tested subbase samples contained 11 percent fines (particles finer than a No. 200 sieve); NYS DOT allows 10 percent fines for subbase material, classifying the subbase as marginally contaminated. Below the subbase, we encountered fill soils consisting of sand with varying amounts of silt, gravel, and organics. An organic content test on the fill at C26-2 showed 3.6 percent by weight, a moderate amount. Fill extended to depths ranging from 3.8 feet below grade to over 8.0 feet below grade. Underlying the fill we encountered a native soil consisting of a silty sand with gravel. Orchard Street (C26-5 through C26-8) Two layers of asphalt overlay consisting of top were noted at C26-6 and C26-8, with the layers ranging from 0.5 inch to 1.75 inches thick. The asphalt top ranged from 1.0 inch to 3.0 inches and averaged 2.0 inches thick. The asphalt top delaminated at C26-5. The asphalt binder (C26-5 & C26-6) was 5.0 inches and 1.5 inches thick, respectively. The binder delaminated at C26-6. Macadam or an oil and stone mix was used as binder or underlaid binder at C26-6, C26-7 and C26-8. Thicknesses of the macadam ranged from 4.0 inches to 6.0 inches, averaging 4.75 inches thick. Total asphalt thickness ranged from 8.0 inches to 9.0 inches thick, averaging 8.25 inches. The underlying subbase consisted of a sand and gravel mix and ranged from 14.0 inches to 39.0 inches thick. We expect that the thicker than normal subbase sections at B26-5 and B26-8 is due to this material being used as fill or a stabilization layer during road construction. At B26-8 the subbase thickness may vary as we had poor
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 5 recovery on our two foot to four foot sample. The sand and gravel subbase classified as GW-GM (well graded gravel with silt and sand) in the USCS. The tested subbase samples contained 8 and 10 percent fines (particles finer than a No. 200 sieve); NYS DOT allows 10 percent fines for subbase material, classifying the subbase as not contaminated. Below the subbase, we encountered fill soils at C26-6 and C26-7 consisting of silty sand with varying amounts of gravel. The fills extended 3.0 feet and 2.5 feet below grade, respectively. The underlying native soil consisted of silty sand with varying amounts of gravel. Mitcheldean Drive (C26-9 through C26-21) Up to 7 asphalt overlays consisting of top (one overlay layer was binder at C26-17) were noted at C26-9 through C26-21, with the layers ranging from 0.25 inch to 1.5 inches thick. An overlay layer at C26-14 and C26-17 delaminated from the underlying layer. Given the age of this primary access road to the Xerox facility, we expect that the multitude of overlays is a result of periodic maintenance operations. The asphalt top ranged from 0.75 inch to 2.0 inches and averaging 1.0 inch thick. The asphalt top delaminated at C26-17. The asphalt binder (not encountered at C26-15) ranged from 1.0 inch to 4.0 inches and averaged 2.0 inches thick. Two layers of binder were noted at C26-19. Macadam or an oil and stone mix was used as binder or underlaid binder at C26-9, C2615, C26-16, C26-17, C26-19 and C26-21. Thicknesses of the macadam ranged from 0.75 inch to 10.75 inches, averaging 3.5 inches thick. Total asphalt thickness ranged from 4.5 inches to 16.0 inches thick, averaging 7.5 inches. The underlying subbase consisted of a sand and crushed gravel, sand and gravel, and a crusher run stone and ranged from 8.0 inches to 19.5 inches thick. The sand and crushed gravel subbase classified as SM (silty sand with gravel) in the USCS. The sand and gravel subbase classified as GP-GM (poorly graded gravel with silt and sand) in the USCS. The crusher run stone subbase classified as GW (well graded gravel with sand), GP-GM (poorly graded gravel with silt and sand), and GM (silty gravel with sand) in the USCS. The tested subbase samples contained 4 to 14 percent fines (particles finer than a No. 200 sieve); NYS DOT allows 10 percent fines for subbase material, classifying the subbase as not contaminated to marginally contaminated. Below the subbase, we generally encountered fill soils (no fill soils at C26-12, C26-13, and C26-14) consisting of sand with varying amounts of silt, gravel, and organics. Organic content tests of the fill at C26-10 and C26-21 showed 3.0 and 2.5 percent by weight, respectively, a low to moderate amount. Fill extended to depths ranging from 2.0 feet below grade to over 6.0 feet below grade. Underlying the fill we encountered a native soil consisting
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 6 of a silty sand or sandy silt with varying amounts of gravel. We encountered a layer of decomposed shale with silt and sand at C26-16. Boulter Industrial Park (C26-22 through C26-27) This roadway is nominally 20 to 30 years old. Asphalt top was encountered at C26-26 and was 1.5 inches thick. A layer of sealant was encountered at the surface of C26-27 and was 0.5 inch thick. The asphalt binder ranged from 3.0 inches to 4.5 inches and averaged 3.5 inches thick. Total asphalt thickness ranged from 3.0 inches to 5.0 inches thick, averaging 4.0 inches. We point out that the west end of Boulter Industrial Park is currently a crushed stone parking lot used for the sports field. The subbase underlying the asphalt and at the surface of C26-22 (stone parking lot) consisted of a crusher run stone and ranged from 7 inches to 16 inches thick. The crusher run stone subbase encountered classified as GP-GM (poorly graded gravel with silt and sand), and SM (silty sand with gravel) in the USCS. The tested subbase samples contained 6 percent to 15 percent fines (particles finer than a No. 200 sieve); NYS DOT allows 10 percent fines for subbase material, classifying the subbase as “not contaminated” to “marginally contaminated”. Below the subbase, we generally encountered variable fill soils (no fill soils at C26-27). At C26-22 the fill consisted of a sand and gravel with millings and crushed stone, extending 2.0 feet below grade. At C26-23, C26-24, and C26-25 the fill consisted of asphalt millings. A layer of silty sand earth fill underlaid the millings at C26-25. At C26-6 the fill consisted of a crushed stone, cobble, and sand mixture. Fills extended from depths of 2.0 feet to 5.0 feet below grade. The underlying native soil consisted of a silty sand with varying amounts of gravel. A thin one foot layer of native clayey silt was noted overlying the native soil at C26-23. Hand Holes (Chiyoda Drive Extension) (TP26-1 and TP26-2) At the hand holes we encountered a subsurface profile consisting of topsoil underlain by native soil. The topsoil encountered was 16 inches and 18 inches thick. The underlying native soil consisted of a loose to firm silty sand with gravel that was described as moist. Test Pits (Mitcheldean/Boulter Connection) (TP26-3 through TP26-5) At the test pits we encountered a subsurface profile consisting of topsoil underlain by native soil then bedrock. The topsoil encountered was 13 inches to 20 inches thick. The underlying native soil consisted of a firm to compact sandy silt/silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and clay that was described as ‘damp’ despite the predominant wet weather. Bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 3.8 feet to 4.3 feet below grade.
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 7
Phillips Road (Topsoil thicknesses) At the hand holes we encountered topsoil that was 10 inches to 13 inches thick, averaging 11 inches thick. General Site Conditions Bedrock was encountered at boring locations C26-16 and TP26-3 through TP26-5 at depths of 3.8 feet and 4.3 feet below grade. The bedrock was noted as a decomposed shale at C26-16. Geologic mapping indicates that the bedrock is the transition of the Irondequoit Limestone through Kodak Sandstone and Queenston Shale. These formations include limestone, shale, sandstone, and dolostone. The Queenston Shale is a red shale. Bedrock will not impact the project, unless new deep utilities are planned. Excavation into the bedrock may require a hoe-ram. Conclusions and Recommendations The roadways are aged and much of the subbase does not fully comply with modern NYS DOT drainage standards. Conversely, performance has been good. We do not see inherent structural deficiencies indicative of subgrade weakness or subbase failure. Sporadic areas (predominantly in turn lanes and near parking lot/drive lanes enter roadways) appear to have alligator cracking/rutting/potholes/etc. We understand the intent is for all roadways (new/existing) to be equivalent in strength/performance to the Monroe County section. Again, the County section consists of 1.5 inches top, 2.0 inches of binder, 6.0 inches of base, and 12.0 inches of crusher run. Maintain and/or augment subbase drainage to help alleviate the subbase drainage deficiencies. We specifically noted that Orchard Street has readily apparent drainage issues. The Village of Webster noted concerns with drainage and heaving during the winter that they typically deal with on Orchard Street. We looked at alternatives to the following mill and overlay approaches. One specific option was cold mill recycling. In discussions with the design team this appeared non-viable due to the difficulties bidding this work out (only one local contractor does the work). Let us know if you can resolve this and we can revisit the technical issues. We understand that storm sewers are being evaluated and may potentially require replacement, with current grades/depths unknown. Keep in mind that bedrock was encountered at the four locations described above
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 8 (C26-16, TP26-3 through TP26-5) at depths ranging from 3.8 feet to 4.3 feet below grade. Previous work around the Xerox campus has shown bedrock to be within 5 feet to 10 feet of the surface. Consider conducting supplemental investigation in areas where your new sewers may be impacted by shallow bedrock. Panama Road Mill 1.5 inches of the in-place asphalt and replace it with 3.5 inches of new asphalt binder (Type 3) and 1.5 inches of new asphalt top (Type 7), so five inches of new asphalt. Budget for another 10 to 15 percent of the milled area to have an additional ¼-inch break loose during the milling operations. If surface grades are not a concern you can reduce the “mill” thickness, but we do want a milled surface for bonding of the “overlay” to the existing asphalt. Proof roll the remaining pavement (following milling) with a loaded 10-wheel truck. The proof roll should be observed by Foundation Design, PC. Pothole areas can be assessed and repaired. Budget to carry a contingency to perform a full-depth mill at 10 percent of the pavement area and install all new asphalt. We expect this fulldepth mill will occur predominantly in turn lanes and near where parking lots/drivelines enter the roadways. Clean the milled surface and place a tack coat over the milled surface prior to installing the new asphalt. Use an asphalt joint adhesive on all cold joints in new pavement sections. Orchard Street/Mitcheldean Drive Mill 3.0 inches of the in-place asphalt and replace it with new asphalt binder (Type 3) and 1.5 inches of new asphalt top (Type 7). Place 4.0 inches of binder on Orchard Street and place 3.5 inches of binder on Mitcheldean Drive. Budget for another 10 to 15 percent of the milled area to have an additional ¼-inch break loose during the milling operations. If surface grades are not a concern you can reduce the “mill” thickness, but we do want a milled surface for bonding of the “overlay” to the existing asphalt. Proof roll the remaining pavement (following milling) with a loaded 10-wheel truck. The proof roll should be observed by Foundation Design, PC. Pothole areas can be assessed and repaired. Budget to carry a contingency to perform a full-depth mill at 10 percent of the pavement area and install new asphalt. We expect this fulldepth mill will occur predominantly in turn lanes and near where parking lots/drivelines enter the roadways.
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture DPC July 1, 2026 Page 9 Clean the milled surface and place a tack coat over the milled surface prior to installing the new asphalt. Use an asphalt joint adhesive on all cold joints in new pavement sections. Boulter Industrial Park We point out that Boulter reconstruction will not be part of this grant. As can be seen from the above data, the roadway is severely under designed in comparison to the county section. We have provided the data herein for reference only. Boulter Industrial/Chiyoda Drive Extensions (new roadways) The pavement subgrade will be the in-place native soil. Topsoil thickness measured 13 inches to 20 inches thick. This is thicker than typical. If topsoil removal is conducted during wetter times of the year (November to May), expect an additional six inches of the subgrade soils to be mixed and removed during stripping operations. Box out these areas down to design subgrade and proof-roll the areas. The contractor should provide a loaded ten wheel truck for the pavement proof-rolling.
Re-compact or replace areas that rut, weave, quake, or are
otherwise deemed unstable/unsuitable under proof-rolling traffic. Slope both the pavement surface and subgrade at slopes of at least 2.0 percent to facilitate water flow toward the stormwater system and to prolong the pavement life. Where new stormwater inlets are constructed, install 25 foot long weeps off the storm inlets at low points to allow water out of the stone subbase and into the storm water system. Install the Monroe County section tabulated below.
1.5" 2.0" 6.0" 12.0"
Table No. 2 – Monroe County Asphalt Section Asphalt Topcoat NYSDOT Item 403.178902 Asphalt Binder NYSDOT Item 403.138902 Asphalt Base NYSDOT Item 403.118902 Crusher Run Gravel NYSDOT Item 304.12 Subgrade Approved Proof Roll
Carry a budget for the regular maintenance that will be required once cracking develops to lengthen the expected lifespan of the new pavement sections. The pavement should be inspected annually, and crack sealed as necessary to prevent water/fines from entering the subbase.
Important Information about This
Geotechnical-Engineering Report Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer
will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnicalengineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project or purpose; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnicalengineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnicalengineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop specifications; • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform constructionphase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS COHESIVE SOIL
NON-COHESIVE SOIL
Very fine grained soils. Plastic soils that can be rolled into a thin thread if moist. Clays and silty clays show cohesion.
Soils composed of silt, sand and gravel, showing no cohesion or very slight cohesion
DESCRIPTION Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Hard
DESCRIPTION Loose Firm Compact Dense Very Dense
SPT –BLOWS/FOOT 0-2 3-5 6-15 16-25 26 or more
SPT –BLOWS/FOOT 0-10 11-25 26-40 41-50 51 or more
SOIL COMPOSITION
DESCRIPTION and some little trace
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE 50 30-49 11-29 0-10
MOISTURE CONDITIONS
Dry, Damp, Moist, Wet, Saturated Groundwater measured in the boring or test pit may not have reached equilibrium
SOIL STRATA:
TERM layer seam parting varved
DESCRIPTION Soil deposit more than 6" thick Soil deposit less than 6" thick Soil deposit less than 1/8" thick Horizontal uniform layers or seams of soil
GRAIN SIZE MATERIAL
SIEVE SIZE
Boulder Cobble Gravel - coarse - medium - fine Sand - coarse - medium - fine Silt and Clay
Larger than 12 inches 3 inches to 12 inches 1 inch to 3 inches 3/8 inch to 1 inch No. 4 to 3/8 inch No. 10 to No. 4 No. 40 to No. 10 No. 200 to No. 40 Less than No. 200
The number of blows required to drive a split spoon sampler into the soil with a 140 pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6-inches of penetration is recorded. The total number of blows required for the second and third 6inches of penetration is termed the penetration resistance, or the "N" value. Split Spoon Sampler: Typically a 2-foot long, 2-inch diameter hollow steel tube that breaks apart or splits in two down the tube length. Refusal: Depth in the boring where more than 100 blows per 5-inches are needed to advance the sample spoon. Core Recovery (%): The total length of rock core recovered divided by the total core run. RQD (%): Rock Quality Designation – the total length of all the pieces of the rock core longer than 4-inches divided by the total length of the rock core run.
Core Log
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-1 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 60° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
2
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (fine) (delaminated) MACADAM SUBBASE: SAND and CRUSHED STONE
1
S-1
Site Pictures
0’½” 0’2½” 0’2¾” 0’7”
0’7”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Compact brown dry to damp SAND and GRAVEL
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
5
5’0” FILL: Firm brown moist SAND, little silt, little gravel (1” black silty layer) 6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 19-23-19-15 from 0’7” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 23-21-19-19 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 15-9-8-11 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 2 Core No. C26-2 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 60° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP (partial delamination) MACADAM SUBBASE: SAND and CRUSHED STONE
0’4¾” 0’7½”
1
2
S-1
0’7”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Loose red/brown/black mottled moist to wet SAND, some silt, little gravel, trace organic
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
5 S-3: Loose, wet
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 2 of 2 Core No. C26-2 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 60° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 3-20-19-13 from 0’7” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 1-1-1-1 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts WH-WH-WH-WH from 4’0” to 6’0”. 5. Blow counts WH-WH-WH-WH from 6’0” to 8’0”.
Remarks
7
S-4: Loose, wet to saturated
8
S-4
6’-8’ 8’0” Core Terminated at 8’0”
9
10
11
12
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-3 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 60° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
SAND and CRUSHED STONE
0’3½” 0’5½”
1
2
S-1
0’5”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Loose red/brown/black mottled moist SAND, little silt, little gravel, trace organics
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
3’10” SAND seam 4’0” Firm red/brown moist to wet SAND, little to trace silt, little to trace gravel
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 4-10-16-9 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 1-2-4-7 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 9-11-9-7 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-4 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny, 50° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/21/2026 Completed 5/21/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT BINDER SUBBASE: SAND and GRAVEL
1
2
Compact red/brown damp SAND, little to some gravel, little to some silt
S-1
0’9”
0’5”-2’
3
4
0’2¼” 0’3¾” 0’5½”
S-2: Loose, poor recovery
S-2
2’-4’
4’0” Firm red/brown moist SAND, little silt, little gravel NOTES: 1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 15-15-15 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 7-5-5-10 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 7-7-8-13 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-5 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny, 50° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/21/2026 Completed 5/21/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP (delaminated) ASPHALT BINDER
0’3” 0’8”
SAND and GRAVEL
1
2
S-1
0’8”-2’
Firm red/brown damp to moist SAND, little silt, little to trace gravel
2’6”
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
5
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 16-20-26-23 from 0’8” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 10-9-12-21 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 31-27-28-29 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Very dense, damp
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-6 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny, 50° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/21/2026 Completed 5/21/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
S-1
0’4”-2’
3
4
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT BINDER (delaminated) MACADAM SUBBASE: SAND and GRAVEL
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
1’10” FILL: Compact red/brown moist SAND, little to some silt, little gravel
Dense red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel
S-2
0’1” 0’1½” 0’2½” 0’4” 0’8”
3’0”
2’-4’ NOTES: 1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 14-21-16-14 from 0’4” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 7-8-10-15 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 24-20-28-34 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-7 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny, 50° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/21/2026 Completed 5/21/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP MACADAM
0’2½” 0’8½”
SAND and GRAVEL
1
2
S-1
0’8”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Compact red/brown moist SAND, little silt, little gravel Firm red/brown damp SAND, little silt, trace gravel
2’6”
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
4’0” Compact gray/brown dry to damp SAND, some silt, trace gravel NOTES: 1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 11-16-13-10 from 0’8” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 10-10-14-11 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 8-12-20-23 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-8 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny, 50° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/21/2026 Completed 5/21/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) MACADAM
1
2
SAND and GRAVEL
S-1
5
S-2: Poor recovery
S-2
2’-4’
4’0” Very dense red/brown damp SAND, little silt, trace gravel
S-3
4’-4’11”
4’11” Core Terminated at 4’11”
6
0’9”
0’4”-2’
3
4
0’1¾” 0’2¾” 0’4½”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 6-10-12-13 from 0’4” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 8-15-34-44 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 50-50/5” from 4’0” to 6’0”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-9 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. Sunny, 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/19/2026 Completed 5/19/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT BINDER MACADAM
1
0’1” 0’1¼” 0’2” 0’2½” 0’3½” 0’5¼” 1’4”
SAND and CRUSHED GRAVEL
2
S-1
0’5”-2’ 2’0” Firm red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel
3
4
S-2
2’-4’ NOTES: 1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 7-33-15-15 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 34-16-18-23 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 15-16-19-18 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Moist
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-10 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 60° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT BINDER SUBBASE: SAND and GRAVEL
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
S-1
0’5”-2’
0’1” 0’1¼” 0’1½” 0’2¼” 0’3½” 0’5½”
1’8” FILL: Compact dark brown/black damp to moist SAND, little to some silt, little gravel, trace rootlets, trace wood (organic odor noted) S-2: Firm, moist, little wood, trace clay Firm red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel
2’6”
3
4
S-2
2’-4’ NOTES: 1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 19-17-10 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 15-10-10-9 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 17-22-27-26 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
5 S-3: Dense 6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-11 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 60° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
S-1
0’¾” 0’1¼” 0’1½” 0’3” 0’3¾” 0’5½”
0’5”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Compact dark brown/black damp to moist SAND, little to some silt, little gravel, trace rootlets, trace wood (organic odor noted)
3
4
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT BINDER SUBBASE: SAND and GRAVEL
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
Compact red/brown damp SAND, some gravel, little silt
S-2
3’0”
2’-4’
5
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 2-28-26-17 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 8-15-14-11 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 15-20-23-37 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Dense, dry to damp
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-12 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 60° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT BINDER SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
S-1
0’¾” 0’1” 0’2” 0’3½” 0’4¼” 0’8¼”
0’4”-2’ 2’0” Firm red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
5
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 13-50-34 from 0’4” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 21-7-7-8 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 8-16-17-26 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Compact, moist
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-13 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. sunny 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/19/2026 Completed 5/19/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
S-1
0’1” 0’2¼” 0’3¼” 0’4¼” 0’6¾”
0’6”-2’ 2’0” Very dense red/brown wet SAND, some gravel, little silt
3 S-2
2’-3’5”
3’5” Core Terminated at 3’5”
4
5
6
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 1-17-8-9 from 0’6” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 7-12-50/5” from 2’0” to 3’5”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-14 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. sunny 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/19/2026 Completed 5/19/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP (delaminated) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
S-1
0’4”-2’
Firm red/brown moist SAND, little gravel, little silt
S-2: Wet
3
S-2
2’-2’11”
0’1¼” 0’1½” 0’2½” 0’3¼” 0’4¼” 0’6½” 1’4”
2’6”
Very dense gray/tan mottled damp SILT, little sand, little gravel
2’11”
Core Terminated at 2’11”
4
5
6
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 11-13-11 from 0’4” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 4-50/5” from 2’0” to 2’11”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-15 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. sunny 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/19/2026 Completed 5/19/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
1
2
S-1
0’6”-2’
4
5
6
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP (coarse) MACADAM SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE FILL: Firm red/brown moist SAND, little to some silt, little gravel Firm tan/brown/gray SILT, some sand, trace clay, trace gravel
3
Very dense red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel
S-2
2’-4’
S-3
4’-4’7”
No photo
Soil and Rock Classifications
0’¾” 0’1¼” 0’1½” 0’1¾” 0’2¾” 0’3¾” 0’4¼” 0’6” 0’8” 1’8” 2’0”
3’9”
4’7” Core Terminated at 4’7”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 23-17-10 from 0’6” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 4-9-9-11 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 33-50/1” from 4’0” to 4’7”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-16 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. sunny 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/19/2026 Completed 5/19/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
1
2
S-1
0’5”-2’
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER (coarse) MACADAM SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
0’¼” 0’½” 0’¾” 0’1¼” 0’1¾” 0’2¼” 0’3¼” 0’5” 0’7”
2’0” FILL: Loose red/brown/black wet to saturated SAND, little to some silt, little gravel (water in spoon)
3
4
5
6
S-2
S-3
2’-4’
4’-4’10”
4’0” Very dense red/brown dry decomposed SHALE and SAND, some silt, little gravel
Core Terminated at 4’10”
4’10”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 8-20-13-8 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 3-3-5-7 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 31-50/4” from 4’0” to 4’10”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-17 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. sunny 70° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/19/2026 Completed 5/19/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP (fine)(delaminated) ASPHALT TOP (fine)(delaminated) ASPHALT BINDER MACADAM SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
S-1
0’1” 0’1½” 0’2¼” 0’3½” 0’4¾” 0’6” 0’9”
0’4”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Firm black/dark brown moist SAND, some silt
3
3’6”
4
S-2
2’-4’
Very dense red/brown damp to moist SAND, little silt, little gravel
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 14-19-17-8 from 0’4” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 2-4-9-24 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 25-27-27-28 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-18 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. sunny 70° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/19/2026 Completed 5/19/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
S-1
0’¾” 0’1¾” 0’2¼” 0’3” 0’4½”
0’4”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Loose tan/brown saturated SAND, some silt, trace gravel 2’6” FILL: Loose red/brown moist SAND, little silt, little gravel, trace clay, black staining noted
3
4
S-2
2’-4’ (No black staining below 4’) NOTES: 1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 5-19-17-9 from 0’4” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 2-2-4-4 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 9-10-18-49 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
5 S-3: Compact, moist to wet 6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-19 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny 75° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
1
2
S-1
0’5”-2’
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP (fine) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER ASPHALT BINDER MACADAM SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
0’½” 0’1” 0’1¾” 0’2¼” 0’2½” 0’3½” 0’4½” 0’5¾” 0’6½”
Loose red/brown moist SAND, little to some silt, little gravel
1’8”
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
5 Loose red/brown moist to wet SAND, little to some silt, little gravel
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
5’0”
6’0”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 2-19-17-7 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 2-4-4-3 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 3-2-4-11 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-20 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny 75° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER (coarse) SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
S-1
0’¼” 0’1¼” 0’2” 0’2¾” 0’4¾” 0’6¾”
0’6”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Firm black/red/brown moist to wet SAND, little to some silt, trace to little gravel
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
5
5’0” Firm red/brown moist SAND, little silt, little gravel 6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 18-18-14 from 0’6” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 9-8-7-4 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 2-8-7-9 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-21 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny 75° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
S-1
0’½” 0’¾” 0’1” 0’1½” 0’2¼” 0’3” 0’5¼” 0’8¼”
0’5”-2’ 2’0” FILL: Loose red/brown/black moist SAND, some silt, little organics, trace gravel
3
4
Remarks
ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP ASPHALT TOP (coarse) ASPHALT BINDER (coarse) MACADAM SUBBASE: CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
Soil and Rock Classifications
Loose red/brown wet to saturated SAND, some silt, little gravel
S-2
3’0”
2’-4’
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 5-25-18-13 from 0’5” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 4-3-3-3 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 3-4-5-6 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
5 Tan/brown from 5’6” to 5’8”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-22 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny 75° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
No photo
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
CRUSHER RUN STONE 0’8” FILL: Very dense brown dry SAND and GRAVEL, some silt, little asphalt millings, little crushed stone
1
2
S-1
0’8”-2’ 2’0” Very dense red/brown dry SAND, little to some silt, little gravel
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
S-3: Damp, trace cobble fragments
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 15-35-18-11 from 0’8” to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 14-23-33-46 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 36-33-31-28 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-23 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
CRUSHER RUN STONE
0’3”
1 1’2”
ASPHALT MILLINGS
2
S-1
0’-2’ 2’0” Firm brown/gray mottled dry to damp SILT, little clay, little gravel, trace sand
3
4
S-2
2’-4’
3’10” Firm red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel, trace clay NOTES: 1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 12-37-25-5 from 0’ to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 3-6-8-11 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 14-18-21-14 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Compact
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-24 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
CRUSHER RUN STONE
0’3¾”
1
1’0” ASPHALT MILLINGS
2
S-1
0’-2’
(Saturated from 2’-3’8”)
3
3’8”
4
S-2
2’-4’
Firm red/brown damp to moist SAND, little to some silt, little gravel (water noted in spoon)
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 9-28-42-34 from 0’ to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 25-18-7-5 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 7-10-21-23 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Water in spoon, moist, trace clay
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-25 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Sunny 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
CRUSHER RUN STONE
1
2
0’10”
ASPHALT MILLINGS
S-1
0’3”
0’-2’ 2’0” FILL: Loose dark brown/black damp SAND, some silt, trace gravel
3
4
3’0” Loose red/brown damp to moist SAND, little to some silt, little gravel, trace clay S-2
2’-4’
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 11-34-37-35 from 0’ to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 8-3-3-4 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 8-13-19-18 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Compact, dry to damp
5
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-26 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. cloudy 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
CRUSHER RUN STONE
0’1½” 0’4¾”
1
2
S-1
0’-2’
S-2
2’-4’
1’8” FILL: Compact red/brown moist SAND, some silt, little to some gravel 2’0” FILL: Firm gray dry CRUSHED STONE, COBBLE FRAGMENTS and SAND, trace to little silt
3
4
5
5’0 Loose red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel 6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 2-25-16-15 from 0’ to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 3-7-45-11 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 5-5-5-9 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
Core Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Core No. C26-27 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Pt. cloudy 80° Technician L. Becker Date Started 5/18/2026 Completed 5/18/2026 Operator J. Earsing Coring Subcontractor Nothnagle Drilling Equipment Geoprobe 6712DT
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
CRUSHER RUN STONE
0’½” 0’5”
(Separation fabric at bottom) Compact red/brown damp SAND, little silt, little gravel, trace clay
1’9”
1
2
S-1
0’-2’
3
4
S-2: Firm, no recovery
S-2
2’-4’
5
1. Asphalt cored using a diamond tip core barrel. 2. Blow counts 22-15-17 from 0’ to 2’0”. 3. Blow counts 8-6-6-9 from 2’0” to 4’0”. 4. Blow counts 23-16-30-35 from 4’0” to 6’0”.
S-3: Dense, damp
6’0”
6
S-3
4’-6’
Core Terminated at 6’0”
Cone Penetrometer Log Project No. Project Name Client Elevation Date Started Depth Below Surface
26.06083
Page
of
1
Weather Completed
5-20-26
4.0/ 8.0
8.0/ 12.0
1.0 ft.
65°, Cloudy 5-20-26
Avg. Cone N qd to N Values per ft. factor 2
1.27
2 6
2.0 ft.
9
1.27
11
25/1”
1.27
+25
18 22 25/1”
5.0 ft.
6.0 ft.
7.0 ft.
8.0 ft.
9.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
11.0 ft.
Inspector Operator
L. Kosciol T. Beyer
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
2
2
4.0 ft.
TP26-1
TOPSOIL 1
3.0 ft.
Test No.
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Rochester, New York 14608
Blows per 4 in. 0.0/ 4.0 2
1
Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, New York
1’4” Loose light brown moist to wet SAND, little silt (SM) (Firm at 1’8”) 2’5” Hand Hole Terminated at 2’5” (Cone Penetrometer Refusal)
Cone Penetrometer Log Project No. Project Name Client Elevation Date Started Depth Below Surface
26.06083
Page
of
1
Weather Completed
5-20-26
4.0/ 8.0
8.0/ 12.0
1.0 ft.
65°, Cloudy 5-20-26
Avg. Cone N qd to N Values per ft. factor 2
1.27
17
7.0 ft.
8.0 ft.
9.0 ft.
10.0 ft.
11.0 ft.
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
1’6” 16
1.27
20
25/1”
1.27
+25
25 25/1”
6.0 ft.
L. Kosciol T. Beyer
3
2.0 ft.
5.0 ft.
Inspector Operator
3
6
4.0 ft.
TP26-2
TOPSOIL 1
3.0 ft.
Test No.
Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Rochester, New York 14608
Blows per 4 in. 0.0/ 4.0 2
1
Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, New York
Firm light brown moist SAND, little silt, trace gravel, trace clay (SM) 2’1” Hand Hole Terminated at 2’1” (Cone Penetrometer Refusal)
Test Pit Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Test Pit No. TP26-3 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 65° Technician L. Kosciol Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator R. Miller Backhoe Subcontractor Rusty Miller Excavating Equipment Case CX170E
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
TOPSOIL 1’1” 2
S-1
2’
Loose to firm brown/red moist SAND, little gravel, trace silt (SM) 2’8”
4
Firm to compact brown damp SAND, little to some gravel, trace silt (SM) 4’3” Test Pit Terminated at 4’3” (Refusal on Bedrock)
6
8
10
12
1. Sides vertical on completion. 2. Dry on completion. 3. Staked location provided by FDPC.
Test Pit Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Test Pit No. TP26-4 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 65° Technician L. Kosciol Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator R. Miller Backhoe Subcontractor Rusty Miller Excavating Equipment Case CX170E
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
TOPSOIL
2
4
Firm red moist SAND, little gravel, little silt (SM)
1’8”
2’2” Compact brown damp SAND, little to some gravel, trace to little cobble fragments, trace silt (SM) 3’10” Test Pit Terminated at 3’10” (Refusal on Bedrock)
6
8
10
12
1. Sides vertical on completion. 2. Water seepage at 3’10” on completion. 3. Staked location provided by FDPC.
Test Pit Log
Site Pictures
Project No. 26.06083 Page 1 of 1 Test Pit No. TP26-5 Project Name Webster Transportation Infrastructure Project, Multiple Roads Around Xerox, Webster, NY Client Costich Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture D.P.C., 217 Lake Ave, Roch, NY Elevation Weather Cloudy, 65° Technician L. Kosciol Date Started 5/20/2026 Completed 5/20/2026 Operator R. Miller Backhoe Subcontractor Rusty Miller Excavating Equipment Case CX170E
Depth Below Surface
Sample Number
Depth of Sample
Soil and Rock Classifications Remarks
TOPSOIL 1’2” Loose brown moist SILT, little to some sand, trace gravel (ML)
2
S-1 4
3’
2’10” Firm to compact brown damp SAND, little to some gravel, trace cobble fragments, trace bedrock fragments, trace silt (SM) 4’0” Test Pit Terminated at 4’0” (Refusal on Bedrock)
6
8
10
12 Notes: 1. Sides vertical on completion. 2. Dry on completion. 3. Staked location provided by FDPC.