GENERAL SOILS EVALUATION REPORT. For

Transcription

1 GENERAL SOILS EVALUATION REPORT For EL PASO WATER UTILITIES (EPWU) PROPOSED AUSTIN STORMWATER POND IMPROVEMENTS NE OF ALTURA AVE. & LACKLAND ST. EL PASO, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS Prepared For MORENO CARDENAS INC E. MISSOURI AVENUE EL PASO, TEXAS Prepared By TBPE Firm Registration No. F Commerce, Unit A El Paso, Texas Ph.: (915) Fax: (915) PROJECT NO. AGCQC13-043

2

3 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Report Table of Contents Page No. Section 1.0 General Project Information 3 Section 2.0 Geologic, Topographic and Seismic Considerations Site Geology Existing Site and Topographic Conditions Building Code Soil Site Class 5 Section 3.0 Soil Exploration Evaluation Methods and Testing Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Tests Soil Classification Laboratory Testing Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results Soil Direct Shear Test Results 8 Section 4.0 Subsurface Soil Conditions and Strength Considerations Allowable Bearing Capacity Groundwater Depth Considerations Soil Related Movements 11 Section 5.0 Proposed Stormwater Retention Pond Considerations Soil Slope Considerations Area 1 (West Pond Slope) Area 2 (South Pond Slope) Area 3 (East Pond Slope) Area 4 (North Pond Slope) Soil Infiltration Considerations 15 Section 6.0 General Drainage Structures Box Culvert Structures (Area 5) Concrete Spillway Structure (Area 6) Drainage Pipes (Area7) 17 Section 7.0 Pavement Section Considerations Flexible Pavement Structure Existing Pavement Removal and Recycling Curbs 21 Section 8.0 General Site Flat Work 22 Section 9.0 Below Grade Lateral Earth Pressures 22 Section 10.0 General Trench Safety Considerations 23 Section 11.0 Additional Investigation Considerations 25 Section 12.0 Project Specification Information 25 CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 1 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

4 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report 12.1 Soil Select Fill Materials Construction Materials Testing 29 Section 13.0 Soils Evaluation Considerations and Limitations 30 Section 14.0 General List of Technical References 30 Appendix A Sheet No. General Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan A1 General Improvement Areas Site Plan A1-1 Soil Boring Logs A2 A9 Selected Sieve Analysis Test Reports A10 A14 Summary of Field and Laboratory Test Results A15 A16 Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results A17 A23 California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results A24 Soil Direct Shear Test Results A25 A27 Soil Percolation Test Results A28 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Results A29 A31 Appendix B Geotechnical Report Technical Reference Information Soil Classification Chart Geotechnical Report Soil Classification Reference Information Appendix C Project Site Existing Condition Photographs B1 B2 B3 C1-C7 CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 2 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

5 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Section 1.0 General Project Information This soils evaluation report has been prepared for the use of Moreno Cardenas Inc. (Client) for the El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements Project. We understand that the planned drainage improvements shall consist of the design of a stormwater retention pond to collect a portion of a 287 acre contributing water shed located northeast to northwest of the planned pond site. In general the purpose of the new pond shall be to alleviate the current stormwater run-off drainage impacts to the in-place storm water drainage system. According to a conceptual plan provided by our Client, the proposed pond invert or bottom of pond elevation shall range from 20 to 38 feet below the ground surface. The project also includes the installation of three 4 ft by 4 ft box culverts, a 36-in RCP bleeder pipe, a spillway, a 15 ft maintenance road and ramp, and a new pavement structure for the cul-de-sac at Lackland Street. In general the proposed pond site is located northeast of the intersection of Altura Avenue and Lackland Street in central. It is our understanding that the EPWU excavated the pond site prior to our soils evaluation and removed trash/debris found at the site during the pre-design feasibility study. Based on our review of a topographic survey and information provided by our Client, the west slope of the pond shall be extended towards the existing E.P.I.S.D. field. As a result, a portion of the field and Lackland Street shall be re-graded and removed, respectively. In addition, the intersection of Lackland Street and the alley shall be turned into a cul-de-sac. The topographic survey indicates that the existing grade elevations within the planned pond site exhibit a downward grade change of about 15 feet from north to south. The broad objective of our services consisted of generally evaluating the subsurface soil conditions within the project area by performing exploratory soil borings, conducting Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), conducting Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests, collecting soil samples, performing a soil percolation test, performing laboratory tests on collected soil samples and developing information with respect to potential soil slope angles, slope stability and erosion susceptibility of the encountered subsurface soils, site preparation, pipe embedment, backfilling, general trench safety considerations, temporary shoring considerations, and pavement recommendations for the proposed new cul-de-sac. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the soil exploration borings completed within the proposed project limits and our understanding of the project information provided by our Client. Please note that the entire report should be read for a thorough understanding of our soils evaluation, findings and guideline recommendations. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 3 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

6 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Section 2.0 Geologic, Topography and Seismic Considerations Site Geology The Geologic Atlas of Texas (Van Horn-El Paso Sheet, Revised 1983) published by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin indicates that the project site is located in an area of Old Quaternary Deposits (Qao) from the Pleistocene period. These deposits consist of colluvium and fans, alluvium, caliche, gypsite, and low terrace deposits along streams. Based on our experience, these soil deposits are generally sands, silts, clays, and gravels, which are typically variable over relatively short distances. The geologic atlas also indicated that the project site is located near the Bliss Sandstone (Cob) deposits. These deposits consist of medium to thick bedded, fine grained sandstone with few beds of quartzitic and some glauconitic beds. In addition, based on the location of the project, excavations through the sandy gravel soil formations in the area shall required relatively large equipment to perform excavation operations. Please note that it is also possible to encounter rock outcroppings within the project limits. The geologic atlas also indicated that a fault zone is located west of the project area. It has been reported that no significant ground movement caused by the existing faults has been recorded for the past 50 years in the El Paso area. Although the local seismic observatory at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) has indicated that the frequency of recordable ground movements has increased within the last few years. Please note that our scope of work did not include the specific delineation of faults within the project construction limits and/or the development of specific design recommendations over faults zones. However, these services may be provided as an additional scope of work and services to our Client, if required Existing Site and Topographic Conditions Based on our review of a preliminary topographic survey provided by our Client, the existing grade elevations within the planned pond site exhibit a downward grade change of about 20 feet from north to south. It is our understanding that the top elevation of the pond shall be 3813 feet and the bottom elevation shall be 3793 feet. The planned pond site is surrounded by apparent man made soil berms and cobbles and boulders were also observed at the site. Standing water within the excavated pond area was also noted for over one week. CQC was not provided any construction reports, design plans or environmental reports for review from our client or owner. Therefore, CQC has no knowledge if past site grading or earthwork activities were appropriately backfilled with suitable soils and tested for compaction verification. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 4 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

7 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Building Code Soil Site Class Based on our review of the current International Building Code and Site Classifications for Seismic Design Definitions in conjunction with our review of the geologic conditions in the area, it is our professional opinion that a Site Class C may be used for this site. Please note that a geologic atlas of the area was used to supplement our analysis since our borings were performed to maximum depths ranging from 1 foot to 51½ feet below the existing ground surface elevation and the building code considers the average soil properties in the top 100 feet of the subject site. In the event that the owner and/or design representative is interested in determining the building code Site Class with a higher degree of accuracy, additional tests beyond our original requested scope of work shall be required. Based on a Soil Site Class C, seismic ground motion values were determined based on a site latitude coordinate of º and longitude coordinate of º are defined in the table below. The seismic coefficients were generated through the USGS Seismic Hazard Curves & Uniform Hazard Response Spectra website. The values should be verified by the project structural engineer prior to use in structural analysis. CQC should be informed if the reported values vary significantly. Table 1 Seismic Ground Motion Values Period Spectral (Seconds) Accelerations (g) Site Coefficient, F a Site Coefficient, F v 0.2 (S s ) (S 1 ) Section 3.0 Soil Exploration Evaluation Methods and Testing As requested by our Client, the subsurface soils within the project site were evaluated by completing a total of eight (8) soil borings at the approximate locations shown in the General Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan in Appendix A, Sheet A1. In general, five (5) borings were performed with a truck mounted drilling rig to maximum depths ranging from 6½ feet to 36½ feet, below the existing ground surface elevation. Please note that an additional boring was performed at CQC s discretion to an approximate depth of 51½ feet in order to further evaluate the subsurface soils within the excavated pond area. In addition, two (2) borings were completed with manual hand auger exploration techniques to an auger refusal depth of 1 foot due to the encountered gravelly and very dense soil conditions. In general, the results of our subsurface soil exploration borings and soil classifications of collected soil samples are approximately delineated in the attached soil boring logs in Appendix A, Sheets A2 through A9. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 5 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

8 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report During our drilling operations Standard Penetration Tests (SPT s) were performed in general conformance with ASTM D Soil samples were collected within a split-spoon at discrete depth intervals and were containerized and transported to our laboratory for further physical and classification testing. Our soil classification tests (i.e., moisture contents, sieve analysis, and Atterberg Limit Tests) were performed in accordance with accepted ASTM test procedures D 2216, D 1140, D 2217, D6913, and D 4318, respectively. The results of our tests and estimated N-Values are presented in our soil boring logs and Summary of Field and Laboratory Test Results in Appendix A, Sheets A15 and A16. At the completion of our field activities, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings, firmly compacted and/or patched with concrete at the surface. The following table summarizes the completion depth of our borings, type of samples, and number of collected samples at the time of our field operations. Table 2 Summary of Field Evaluation Boring Depths & Samples Collected Summary of Field Investigation Borehole No. Approx. Observed No. Split-Spoon No. Auger Termination Groundwater Samples Samples Depth (ft.) Depth (ft.) B-1 6½ 3 - NE B-2HA 1* - 1 NE B NE B-4 36½ 11-23** B-4A*** 51½ 3-23** B-5 14½* 6 - NE B-6HA 1* - 1 NE B-7 9* 4 - NE Note: NE Not encountered at the time of our drilling activities. *Hand auger or split spoon refusal at indicated depth. ** Apparent perched water and/or water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 23 feet below the existing ground elevation. *** Additional soil boring B-4A was preformed at CQC s discretion to further evaluate the subsurface soils to a deeper depth. Please note that the collected soil samples from our general soils evaluation shall be stored for a period of up to 60 days after the submittal of this report. If a longer period of storage is required by our client, CQC should be informed in writing. 3.1 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Tests In accordance with our authorized scope of work, the subsurface soils at the hand auger boring locations were evaluated with a Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) to estimate the general bearing resistance of the near CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 6 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

9 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report subsurface soils (See General Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan in Appendix A, Sheet A1). DCP tests were performed in general accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers method to evaluate the relative bearing resistance of the in-situ soils with depth. In general, a DCP test consists of penetrating the soil with a standard cone tip rod attached to an 8 kg hammer, which is dropped from a height of 575 mm. The depth of the cone penetration is measured at 150 mm intervals to report the soil shear strength in terms of DCP index. The results of our DCP tests are reported in Appendix A, Sheets A18 through A20. Based on our DCP data, average allowable bearing capacity values were estimated from an empirical correlation and ranged from about 1,462 to 3,939 psf from the existing ground surface elevation to approximate penetration refusal depths of 1½ and 3 feet Soil Classification and Laboratory Testing In the laboratory, selected soil samples were evaluated and visually classified by our geotechnical engineering staff in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The geotechnical engineering properties of the selected soil samples were evaluated by the following tests: Table 3 Summary of Performed Soil Laboratory Tests Type of Test Total Number Conducted Natural Soil Moisture Contents 18 Atterberg Limit Tests 12 Particle Size Analysis 18 Moisture-Density Relationship Tests Pending California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Tests Pending Sieve analysis test curves are reported in Appendix A, Sheets A10 through A14. A summary of our field and soil classification tests is reported in Sheets A15 and A16 for ease of reference in this report. 3.3 Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results At the time of our field activities, a total of seven (7) bulk subgrade soil samples were obtained for moisture density-relationship testing. The samples were collected from the surface to approximately 2 and 3 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The results of our moisture density relationship tests (i.e., proctors) conducted on the collected soil samples are presented in Appendix A, Sheets A17 to A23. The proctors were prepared in accordance with compaction test procedure ASTM D 1557, Methods C. The optimum dry density and moisture content values are presented in the table below. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 7 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

10 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Table 4 Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results Borehole No. Sample Depth (ft) Soil Classification Dry Density (pcf) Moisture (%) CBR GP-GM S GP-GM S GM S SM S SM S GP-GM S GP-GM California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results The results of a single California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test conducted on a bulk soil sample collected from near B-1 location are presented in the table below and in Appendix A, Sheet A24. The test was performed in general accordance with ASTM standard test method D Based on our CBR test results, the subgrade soils at the sample location shall provide a moderate level of support for the new pavement structure. Table 5 Summary of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results Dry Density Dry Density Sample prior to after CBR No. Swell % Depth (ft) Soaking Soaking (pcf) (pcf) CBR at 0.1 Pen. CBR at 0.2 Pen. CBR Soil Direct Shear Test Results A total of three (3) Direct Shear Tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 3080 Direct Shear Test of Soils under Consolidated Drained Conditions. Direct shear tests were performed on soil samples collected from S-1, S-4, and S-6 from the surface to a depth of approximately 2 feet. The tested soil samples were remolded to dry densities ranging from about 125 to 135 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and moisture contents ranging from about 3 to 4.5 percent. The soil samples were tested with normal stresses ranging from 2 to 10 psi. The results of our tests are presented in Appendix A, Sheets A25 through A27. In general, the tested soil samples exhibited effective angles of internal friction ranging from 27.3º to 33.3º and effective cohesion values ranging from 1.2 psi to 1.7 psi for the remolded samples. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 8 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

11 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Section 4.0 Subsurface Soil Conditions and Strength Considerations Based on our soil classifications and laboratory tests, the subsurface soils encountered in our soil boring/test pits may be described by four (4) generalized soil stratums. The logged depth of the soil formation types are approximately delineated in our soil boring and test pit logs. Due to the geologic location of the site, it is possible for variations in the types and depths of the soil formations to occur over relatively short distances. Stratum I consists of fine to coarse grained, light brown to brown, silty sands with varying amounts of gravel and/or multicolored poorly graded sands with silt. Based on our SPT data, these sands were encountered at a medium dense to hard relative density with SPT N-values ranging from 11 to more than 50 blows per foot of penetration. Our soil laboratory tests indicate that these soils exhibit moisture contents ranging from 2 to 22 percent. Our sieve analysis tests indicate that these soils contain fines (i.e., percent particles passing a sieve with mm square openings) ranging from 10 to 21 percent. The encountered Stratum I soils may be classified as SM and SP-SM in general accordance with the USCS. Stratum II consists of fine to coarse grained, gravelly, light brown to brown, clayey sands. These sands were encountered at a very dense to hard relative density with SPT N-values of more than 50 blows per foot of penetration. Measured moisture contents ranged from 2 to 5 percent and Atterberg Limit tests indicated that these clayey soils have liquid limits ranging from 21 to 30 and a plasticity indices ranging from 6 to 12. Sieve analysis tests indicated that these soils contain fines ranging from 19 to 21 percent. These soils may be classified as SC and SC-SM in general accordance with the USCS. Stratum III consists of brown, moderately plastic to plastic clays with varying amounts of sand. Our SPT data obtained indicates that these clays are at a medium stiff to very stiff consistency with measured SPT values ranging from 7 to 20 blows per foot of penetration. Based on our laboratory tests, the tested clay soils exhibit moisture contents ranging from 19 to 27 percent. Atterberg Limit tests indicated that these clays have liquid limits ranging from 35 to 52 and plasticity indices ranging from 19 to 34. Our sieve analysis tests indicate that these soils contain fines ranging from 64 to 93 percent. The Stratum III soils may be classified as CL and CH in general accordance with the USCS. Stratum IV consists of fine, subangular, brown, poorly graded and silty gravel with sand. Measured moisture contents resulted in 1 and 2 percent. Our Atterberg Limit tests indicated that the gravels are relatively non-plastic and sieve analysis tests indicated that these soils contained fines of 8 and 14 CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 9 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

12 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report percent. The encountered soils may be classified as GM and GP-GM in general accordance with the USCS. Based on our SPT results and hand auger refusal depths, it should be anticipated that heavy equipment may be required to excavate the subsurface soils within the project site limits. Excavations through soils that are dense to very dense shall require equipment that may achieve adequate tooth penetration to split the subsurface soils and allow penetration through the subsurface soil formations. In addition, due to the gravelly nature of the subsurface soils and the standard size of the Spit Spoon Sampler, the collected samples may not represent the degree of larger size particles Allowable Bearing Capacity The encountered subsurface soils within the general project limits will provide relatively high allowable bearing capacity values. Based on our SPT data, the encountered subsurface soils shall provide allowable bearing capacities ranging from 1,500 psf to more than 3,000 psf. The Select Fill that is placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations in this report will provide an allowable bearing capacity of at least 2,500 psf. The Select Fill shall extend a minimum of 12 inches beyond the edges of the structures. Alternatively, the contractor may backfill the supporting fill area below structures with a minimum of 12-inches of flowable fill Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) or as required/approved by the project engineer to bridge over soft and/or loose soil conditions. The CLSM shall have a maximum strength of 1,500 psi Groundwater Depth Considerations At the time of our drilling operations a static ground water elevation was not encountered in our soil borings. Based on our experience, the static groundwater level is estimated to be well below the maximum anticipated excavation depth of 30 feet at this site. However, please note that a suspected perched water zone or flowing water zone was encountered in soil Borings B-4 and B-4A at an approximate depth of 23 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. In order to further evaluate the suspected perched water zone, it is recommended that temporary monitoring piezometer wells (i.e., PW-1 and PW-2) be installed at this site. Potential suggested locations of the wells are indicated in the soil Boring Plan, Sheet A1. (Pending existing conditions survey to define approximate water seepage elevation). It is possible to encounter perched water zones where relatively high permeability soils overlay low permeability soils. In the event that perched water is encountered at shallower depths during construction at this site, the water seepage should be completely pumped out or appropriately removed. If an artesian condition is encountered it may be bridged with suitable Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) or approved gravel rock. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 10 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

13 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report The proposed CLSM or gravel rock should be approved by the engineer of record through a submittal process. In any event, CQC should be immediately contacted to perform site observations of the noted conditions to develop additional recommendations, if necessary. Workers shall be prohibited from working in excavations where water has accumulated or is accumulating. Our scope of work does not include the development of a dewatering plan or review of prepared submittals by the general contractor, if required. CQC shall not be liable for observed structural distress of adjacent structures within private properties along or within the project limits. It is the general contractor s responsibility to consider these potential conditions in the preparation of a dewatering plan and the establishment of a contingency to address noted structural distress and/or issued claims Soil Related Movements The results of our observations and soil classification tests were used to evaluate the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) of the subsurface soils in accordance with a published empirical method. This method is used to estimate the potential vertical movements (i.e., swelling) of cohesive soils based on the plasticity indices (PI) of the clayey soil. Based on the encountered soil moisture conditions, a surcharge pressure of at least 1 psi and an active soil zone of 15 feet; PVR values of less than ¼ inch were estimated for the clayey soils encountered in our borings. However, in the event that moderately plastic to highly plastic clays are encountered at shallower depths during earthwork activities, CQC should be contacted to observe the encountered subsurface clays. It may be necessary for CQC to perform additional plasticity index tests to further evaluate expansion potential of the clayey soils. Section 5.0 Proposed Stormwater Retention Pond Considerations (Pending formal grading and drainage plan to finalize our recommendations) The following section presents our opinions and recommendations based on our general review of the provided conceptual grading and drainage plan, collected subsurface soil data and soil classification laboratory test results that may be considered by our Client and EPWU (Owner) with respect to the improvements to the existing stormwater retention pond. 5.1 Soil Slope Considerations Based on the results of our exploration soil borings, the encountered subsurface soils within the pond area consist of gravelly, silty or clayey sands, poorly graded sands, and interbedded layers of clay. The provided conceptual grading and drainage plan indicates that the pond shall be specified to contain 2:1 (horizontal : vertical) slopes. It is also our understanding that the west slope (Area 1) of the pond shall be extended towards the existing CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 11 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

14 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report E.P.I.S.D. field. As a result, a portion of the field and Lackland Street shall be re-graded and removed, respectively. All utility lines within the project limits shall be relocated as required. According, to the encountered soil slope conditions, recommendations for specific pond slope areas (Areas 1 through 4) are defined below. The recommendations for general drainage structures (Areas 5 through 7) are presented in Section 6 of this report. A site plan identifying the areas is included in Appendix A, Sheet A Area 1 (West Pond Slope) As mentioned above, the pond shall be expanded towards the west into the existing E.P.I.S.D. field. This shall require the removal of a portion of Lackland Street and filling the existing slope east of the E.P.I.S.D. field. It is anticipated that a retaining wall shall be placed at the east boundary line of the field. The backfill soils behind the wall should be appropriately compacted to prevent settlement of the fill and reflective cracking along fill lines. Select backfill soils should meet the requirements of Select Fill and should be compacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 within 4 feet behind the wall. The retaining wall should contain a drain system to relieve additional hydrostatic pressures. In addition, surcharge loads should be considered in the design of the wall such as vehicle and structure loads. Based on our laboratory soil classification test results, foundations for retaining walls for this project may be designed based on an allowable bearing capacity of 1,800 pounds per square feet (psf) for foundations bearing on suitable compacted Select Fill. Foundation elements should bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade and should be supported on a minimum of 18 inches of moisture conditioned and compacted suitable existing soils that meet the Select Fill requirements of this report. The earthen soil slope in Area 1 shall be cut and/or filled to meet the proposed slope elevations. The Pond Slope Select Backfill (PSSB) soils should meet the requirements in Section 12.1 of this report Area 2 (South Pond Slope) It is our understanding that fill material shall be placed in this area to meet the proposed top of pond elevation. In addition, based on our observations and a topographic survey provided by our Client, the existing grade elevations within the planned pond site exhibit a downward grade change of about 15 feet from north to south. At the time of our field evaluation, it was also noticed that a portion of the existing soil berm along the south side of the pond was washed away by apparent water infiltration in this area. This may be an indication of water running down from the north side of the pond and accumulating at the south side of the pond. As a result, we recommend that an impervious clay core zone be placed within the Area 2 slope. The Impervious Core Fill materials used should be limited to those materials that exhibit a minimum permeability of 1x10-6 cm/sec, as measured by ASTM D Additional soil properties are listed below: CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 12 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

15 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Liquid Limit: 30% min. Plasticity Index: 18 to 35% Impervious core fill materials shall classify as GC, SC, CL, ML, or CH according to the USCS. The core fill should be placed at 95 percent of maximum dry density and ± 3 percentage points of optimum moisture as determined by test method ASTM D-1557 or ASTM D-698, depending on the final approval material by the engineer. Alternative materials proposed for use as clay core fill should be submitted to the engineer for testing and evaluation before they are accepted for use. The clay core zone shall be covered with PSSB soils that meet the requirements of Section 12.1 of this report. Alternatively, concrete rip-rap may be placed along the south pond slope to mitigate soil erosion. The supporting soils should consist of 18 inches of compacted Select Fill. The Select Fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D The moisture content should be maintained within ±3 percent of optimum moisture content Area 3 (East Pond Slope) The existing east slope of the pond should be cleared, grubbed, re-graded and formed utilizing PSSB soils that meet the requirements in Section 12.1 of this report. Please note that railroad tracks are located along the east boundary line of the pond limiting construction activities to a certain distance away from the railroad right-of-way. Rock rip-rap or concrete rip-rap may be placed along the east pond slope to mitigate soil erosion. A formal slope stability analysis shall be performed once a grading and drainage plan is available Area 4 (North Pond Slope) The existing north slope of the pond shall also be graded and formed utilizing PSSB soils that meet the requirements in Section 12.1 of this report. As indicated above, based on our soil classification tests conducted on the on-site native soils, the pond side slopes shall be susceptible to erosion when cut to the proposed 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) slopes. As a result, the following items should be considered to mitigate localized slope erosion and improve the overall stability of the slopes. In order to mitigate potential slope erosion it is recommended that the owner consider installing a geofabric or erosion control blanket along the face of the cut slopes such as a ArmorMax Anchored Vegetation System or approved equal product by the engineer of record. Typically these products are proprietary products as a result the manufacturer should be consulted to ensure that the appropriate product is specified for the applicable use. In general, these products typically require the specification of slope soil seeding, installation of anchors and the specification of an anchor trench at the crest and toe of slopes; as a result it should be ensured that the design allows an adequately sized bench area at the crest of the slope to allow installation of the anchor trench. It is recommended that the anchor trenches be at least 12 inches in CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 13 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

16 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report depth, however the manufacturer should be consulted to determine the required depth based on the length and angle of the earth soil slope. These types of geofabrics or erosion blankets may also be specified along channels and spillways in combination with concrete slope areas. Alternatively, the owner may also choose to place loose rock rip-rap along the slopes to reduce erosion within select areas. It is recommended that the stone be angular, durable (exhibit an LA Abrasion not greater than 40 and chemically sound), non-weathered, and uniform in size (i.e., 4 to 6 inches). The slope angle should also be considered in the final design to ensure that the loose rock rip-rap shall be stable. A geo-textile filter fabric should be placed between the finished slope surface and placed rock rip-rap. In general, it is recommended that prior to placement of a geofabric or rock rip-rap, the exposed cut slopes should be cleared of all debris, vegetation and cobble size particles. The slopes should be covered with a minimum of 8 to 12 inches of Pond Slope Select Backfill (PSSB) soils that meet the requirements of Section 12.1 of this report. The PSSB soils should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D The moisture content of the fill soils should be maintained within +/-2 percent of optimum moisture content until covered. Compaction of side slopes should be parallel to the long direction of the side slopes. Earthwork grading of the slopes should consider the installation of erosion control measures (i.e., geofabrics or rock rip rap) in order to maintain the specified design grades of the pond. The PSSB soils should not extend more than 36 inches into the pond bottom or a length that may compromise the infiltration rate of collected storm water into the subsurface soils. In addition, the pond bottom should not be compacted to mitigate poor subsurface soil drainage. The impact, collection and redirection of surface water run-off at the crest of the slopes should be carefully considered to mitigate potential future erosion of the slopes and potential failure of adjacent structures that retain excessive hydrostatic pressure. This is specifically true for the slope area around drainage structures leading into the pond bottom. It is recommended that the maintenance road and ramp contain Structural Fills at the surface. In addition if applicable, appropriate benches (i.e., 5 to 10 feet where possible) should be incorporated at the crest of the soil slopes to reduce the potential of surcharge loads being imposed on the side slopes. It is recommended that at least 6 to 8 inches of relatively low permeability clayey sands or clayey gravels (base course material) be placed within the benched portion at the crest of the slopes, as a means to reduce surface water flow paths through the slopes, which in turn may further instigate erosion. If surcharges shall be placed within 10 feet of the soil slope then a supplemental slope stability analysis may be required once the anticipated surcharges are defined. Based on our soil classification test results, a circular slip surface slope stability analysis was performed on the approximate modeled proposed soil slope configurations. The global stability analysis was performed utilizing a Bentley Systems GEO5 Slope Stability program to estimate the factor of safety (FOS) against potential slope slides. Our soil slope stability analysis considered the measured and average properties of the encountered soils utilizing a layered cohesive and noncohesive sand model. The model considered a maximum surcharge of 250 psf at least 10 feet away from the crest of the slope. The model did not considered vibratory or earthquake loads. In general, our analysis yielded factors of safety (FOS) above 1.5. (Pending final grading and drainage plans for verification). Where applicable, the civil engineer should consider the items indicated above in the final design of the pond and safety precautions (i.e., fencing, guardrails, walls and wheel stops within adjacent parking spaces) at the crest of the slopes to protect the general public. It is recommended that the project civil engineer CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 14 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

17 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report perform their own analysis to evaluate the stability of the designed slopes. In the event that additional soil related design parameters or physical properties are required, CQC should be contacted. In general, contractors interested in bidding the subject project shall be responsible for conducting their own tests to verify the actual depths of the soil formations within the project limits to perform earthwork operations and estimates. The owner shall not incur additional costs for variations in the soil formations within the project limits and/or additional excavation requirements by the contractor. The results of our tests are intended for engineering evaluation purposes and not for the contractor's evaluation use and/or interpretation for earthwork requirements Soil Infiltration Considerations Our limited subsurface field evaluation included completing a single soil percolation test at a maximum depth of 25 feet below the existing pond bottom elevation at the time of our field activities. According to information provided by our Client, the pond shall have an invert depth of approximately 20 to 25 feet. In general, the soil percolation test was performed within an encountered silty sand layer material. Our soil percolation test information is presented in Appendix A, Sheet A28 of this report. Based on our observations, water was noted in the borehole at a depth of approximately 23 feet. As a result and due to the interbedded layers of clay encountered in our boring, slow fluid infiltration into the subsurface soils was observed and noted. In addition, standing water was observed at the bottom of the test bore hole for over 72 hours. In order to further evaluate the suspected perched water zone, it is recommended that temporary monitoring piezometer wells (i.e., PW-1 and PW-2) be installed at this site. Potential suggested locations of the wells are indicated in the soil Boring Plan, Sheet A1. We anticipate that the subsurface soil water infiltration may be limited due to the encountered water seepage. The specification of a pumping system may be considered once the pond reaches a specific high water elevation to mitigate a potential spillover event during high intensity rain periods with a short duration. It is also recommended that our Client and owner consider the specification of a soil percolation or infiltration test to be performed once the pond has been cut to the design invert elevation. It should be noted that once the pond has been cut to the final invert depth, normal and steady water infiltration through the subsurface soils shall be highly dependent on the degree of sediment built-up at the bottom of the pond, which shall ultimately decrease the infiltration rate. Periodic maintenance and cleaning of the pond bottom shall be required in order to ensure that proper and steady infiltration continues to occur. The delineation of the lateral extent or lateral water seepage of stormwater infiltration and impacts to adjacent structures was beyond our scope of work, but should be considered by the owner. It is not recommended that the pond bottom contain soils classified as SC-SM, SC, CH, CL, MH, ML, OH nor PT or a combination of these under the USCS classification. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 15 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

18 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Section 6.0 General Drainage Structures The proposed drainage improvements will include the installation of three 4 ft by 4 ft box culverts, a 36-in RCP bleeder pipe, and a spillway structure for the project. Based on our observations of the subsurface soils in our borings, the granular sandy and gravelly soils in this area will be susceptible to sloughing during trench excavations. Excavations in these types of conditions will require laid back slopes in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The following sections provide our drainage structure design considerations and recommendations for Areas 5 through 7. Please note that based on the hard soil conditions encountered in our borings, contractors bidding on the project should conduct their own tests (i.e., tests pits or other means) to evaluate the type of equipment that will be required to perform excavations for this project Box Culvert Structures (Area 5) We recommend that the areas where the box culverts shall be installed, the ditch slopes and bottom leading into the culverts (i.e., typically 10 to 25 linear feet of channel walls and bottom) should be stabilized and/or protected to mitigate erosion and sediment build-up at the entrance and within the culvert structures. The ditch slopes and bottom may be stabilized with mortared rock rip-rap, soil cement, shotcrete, geotextile fabrics, and/or gabions. The use of these methods have been proven to mitigate soil erosion, however different degrees of maintenance are required for each application. The specification or use of geotextile fabrics or gabions are typically proprietary products and design methods. In the event that these products are specified, CQC should be contacted to provide information or estimates of physical soil properties that may be required in design. The following soil related parameters may be used for initial design and estimating purposes based on the sampled and tested soil materials, the onsite soils may exhibit angles of internal friction ranging from 25 to 42 degrees and soil total unit weights in the order of 115 pcf to 135 pcf. Please note that contractors proposing to utilize substitute methods or products from the contract documents shall conduct their own tests as required for the design and construction of the proposed product or method with no risk or liability to the owner and design consultants. Based on our field and soil classification tests near the proposed box culvert locations, foundation elements for wing walls and concrete aprons may be proportioned or analyzed based on an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf for the soil formations encountered in this area. Wing wall foundation elements should be supported by a minimum of 18-inches of compacted flexible base coarse material, Type A, Grade 3. It is recommended that the concrete box culverts be supported by a minimum of 18-inches of compacted aggregate base coarse material. The base coarse should be compacted to a minimum of 95 CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 16 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

19 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report percent of maximum dry density and with a moisture content within ±3 percentage points of optimum water content per ASTM D Prior to base coarse placement the subgrade soil should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches and recompacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density and should maintain a water content within ±3 percentage points of the optimum water content unit finally covered. Please note that a key consideration shall be to evaluate the types of soils, physical condition and thickness of the sediments that have collected at the bottom of the ditch over time. We anticipate that it will be necessary to remove these soils to a depth where relatively non-cohesive and stable soils are encountered prior to base coarse placement to mitigate potential elastic and consolidation soil settlements of the proposed new structures. Foundation steel reinforcement design should be determined by the project structural engineer. Reinforcing steel should be checked for size and placement prior to concrete placement. Placement of concrete should be accomplished as soon as possible after excavations to reduce changes in the moisture content or the state of stress of the foundation materials Concrete Spillway Structure (Area 6) We recommend that the concrete spillway structure be supported on a minimum of 8 inches of compacted Structural Fill material that meets the requirements of Section 12.1 of this report. The Structural Fill material shall be supported by prepared and compacted PSSB soils Drainage Pipes (Area 7) Pipe Embedment and Backfill Considerations Based on our observations and soil classification tests the proposed new 36-in RCP bleeder pipeline embedment zone may be supported by prepared and compacted suitable approved on site sands that meet the requirements of a Class III soil material and/or the project plans and specifications, whichever is more stringent. The supporting subgrade soils at the cut excavation that shall support embedment backfill material and the pipe should be stripped of all vegetation, organic matter, clay soil seams or lumps, topsoil, construction debris and/or any foreign matter. The exposed subgrade should be scarified just prior to embedment material placement to a minimum depth of 8 inches and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content until permanently covered. In general, embedment soil materials and pipes should not be directly supported by soils classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, OH, OL and PT under the USCS in all cases. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 17 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

20 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Pipeline Embedment Zone Backfill The pipe embedment zone or pipe zone materials that shall be in contact with the pipe should meet the requirements of a Class II soil material or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. The backfilled soil materials should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches and compacted as required by the pipe manufacturer. We recommend that backfill not be compacted to less than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698. The moisture content of the backfill should be maintained at ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content until permanently covered. Please note that the pipe zone is typically defined as the area extending from the bottom of the trench to 12 inches above the top of the pipe and extending to the undisturbed trench walls on both sides of the pipe. Trench Backfill Materials (Above the Pipe Zone) The backfill soil materials above the embedment zone or pipe zone should be placed in maximum 8-inch uniform thickness loose lifts and should meet the requirements of a Class III soil material in accordance with Section 12.0 of this report and/or the project plans and specifications, whichever is more stringent. The backfill materials should be moisture conditioned to ±3 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D-1557 laboratory compaction procedures. The trench backfill materials should be placed to 18 inches below the finished subgrade elevation. The suitable fill materials below 18 inches of the finished grade elevations should achieve a minimum compaction of 95 percent as per ASTM D-1557 or as required by the project specifications. Thrust Blocks We anticipate that thrust blocks shall be specified at curves and turns of the proposed pipelines, a passive earth resistance of 200 pounds per cubic foot may be used for design purposes. Thrust blocks should bear solidly against undisturbed trench walls in all directions. Earth and Vehicle Loads The pipe analysis and design should consider the earth loads, fluid pressure, applicable traffic loads, pipe laying methods, internal pressure, bending stresses, and estimated pipe deflections. The following soil related design parameters may be considered in the pipe design analysis. The design criteria equations in the current specifications of the American Concrete Pipe Association should be considered for design analysis. CQC should be contacted if additional soil related information is required to supplement pipeline design and analysis. Soil Related Design Parameters γ s = Design Soil Total unit weight, lb/ft 3 no less than 130 lb/ft CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 18 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

21 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Kµ = Max. for sand and gravel (coefficient for sidewall friction) Anticipated Installation Type: Type 2 Section 7.0 Pavement Section Considerations Based on our field observations, field tests, and laboratory soil classification test results, the following sections present our recommendations for a flexible pavement section. 7.1 Flexible Pavement Structure Our pavement analysis was based on American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design procedures for a 20-year design period. A minimum CBR value of 10 was used in our pavement analysis and design. Our pavement analysis also considered an initial serviceability index of 4.2, terminal serviceability of 2.0, reliability of 85 percent, and a standard deviation of 0.45 for flexible pavement structures. The new pavement structure for the cul-de-sac at Lackland Street will be subjected to varying vehicle loads throughout its service lifetime. To perform a detailed pavement design analysis it is required to know the types of vehicles, number of vehicles (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks), daily volume or total volume projected by the owner for the service life of the roadway. Please note that traffic information on Lackland Street was not provided by our Client and there is no information available at the City of El Paso s website. Therefore, estimated 24-hour traffic volumes provided within the City of El Paso s website near Lackland Street were utilized in our pavement analysis and are presented in the table below. The traffic data reviewed did not indicate the percent trucks within the traffic volume. The traffic data did not indicate the types of truck traffic or number of axles. As a result for analysis purposes, we have utilized the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) vehicle classifications of 1 to 7 (motorcycles to four or more axle single unit trucks). Table 6. City of El Paso Website Reported Traffic Volumes Near Lackland St. Address First Volume Cross Volume Altura Ave. & Happer St Altura Ave. & Boone St The subdivision ordinance was used to estimate the anticipated average daily traffic volumes based on the subject street, which was classified as 20 foot Minor Residential Access street. The City Ordinance specifies a minimum 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) design value of 45,000 ESALs over a 20 year period for Lackland Street. In the event that our Client and/or owner are indicated through public meetings and/or recently CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 19 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

22 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report updated traffic count data that vehicle/truck volumes may vary significantly from those described in this report, CQC Testing and Engineering LLC should be contacted to reevaluate our pavement section design calculations. We anticipate that a routine pavement maintenance program and asphalt pavement rehabilitation may be required after about 8 to 10 years to obtain the 20-year pavement service life. Our pavement recommendations also assume that positive surface drainage will be provided and that construction materials testing and monitoring will be provided during construction. The following table presents our asphaltic-concrete pavement section recommendations and lists the minimum pavement thicknesses and specifications: Table 7. Flexible HMAC Pavement Section Specified Minimum Compaction, %, Material Section Type Thickness ASTM/TEX (in.) Method Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC), TxDOT Type C [1] 2 98% Min., 2950 Crushed Stone Base Coarse Material, TxDOT Type A, Grade 3 [2] 6 100% Min., Tex-113 Scarified Moisture Conditioned and Compacted Subgrade Soils [3] 8 95% Min., D-1557 [1] HMAC surface course should have a minimum of 1,500 pounds of Marshall Stability (75 blows, ASTM D 1559), a flow between 0.08 inches and 0.16 inches, air voids between 3 to 5 percent, and should be placed at a target of 98 percent of laboratory Marshall value. The asphalt content for the mix should be determined based on the Marshall Mix Design method. The bitumen binder grade should consist of an AC-20 or PG70-22 material. [2] Base course should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum of 98 to 100 percent of the maximum dry density and at moisture content within ± 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D The base material along access driveways and city or TxDOT-right of way should be compacted to 100% of maximum dry density [3] The base course should be supported by prepared and compacted subgrade soils that meet the requirements of suitable native subgrade soils or Structural Fill materials as specified in this report and should be placed at 95 percent of maximum dry density and at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D Imported fill should meet and be placed in accordance with the Structural Fill section of this report. 7.2 Existing Pavement Removal and Recycling In the event that the City of El Paso considers utilizing the base materials from the portion of Lackland Street that shall be removed for the new pavement section, the recycled base should meet the specification requirements of TXDOT Item 247 and/or the City of El Paso s Specification Section 305 Cold Processed Recycled Paving Material for Use as Aggregate Base Course. Setting up an earthwork staging area to reprocess the reclaimed asphalt material and ensuring that they meet the specifications shall be required by the contactor. The City of El Paso may consider collecting and hauling excess reclaimed asphalt materials from the contractor for storage and use on other city maintenance projects. We recommend that our Client setup a meeting with the owner to further discuss the reuse of the existing pavement materials. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 20 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

23 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report The recycled base materials shall be granular, free of clay lumps, deleterious materials, cobbles or boulders over 3 inches and crushed asphalt particles no greater than 1-3/4 inches in nominal size. Recycled base materials that shall be utilized should not contain more than 20% of asphaltic-concrete particles and should not be greater than 3-inches, unless approved by the owner and engineer. The recycled base soil materials should also meet the gradation requirements tabulated below. Table 8 - Cold Processed Recycled Paving Materials Aggregate Base Grading Requirements Sieve Size (square opening) % Passing by Weight 1-3/4-inch 100 No Max. No Max. No Max. The recycled base should have a liquid limit less than 40, a plasticity index no greater than 15, and should also exhibit an optimum dry density of at least 135 pcf. The recycled base material aggregates should also be tested in accordance with ASTM C-131- Laboratory Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine and should exhibit a maximum percent loss of 40. Recycled base soil materials should be classified as SC, SC-SM, GP-GM, GP-GC, GC, and GC-GM in accordance with the USCS or similar AASHTO classifications. It is not recommended that the recycled base materials be blended with approved new imported base materials unless authorized by the owner and design engineer of record Curbs In order to bridge and mitigate potential moisture changes of the subgrade, which may cause increased vertical soil movements, we recommend that a minimum of 8 inches of compacted suitable Native soils or Select Fill soils be placed below the curb structures. The suitable Native Select Fill soils or Select Fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D The moisture content of these soils should be maintained at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until covered. The existing subgrade soils within the project limits that shall support compacted suitable native soils or Select Fill below curb structures should be cleared of all vegetation, organic matter, topsoil, construction debris and/or any foreign matter. The cleared subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and recompacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 and maintained within ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until permanently covered. Weak or compressible soil zones CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 21 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

24 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report identified during compaction operations should be removed and replaced with properly compacted Select Fill to a minimum depth of 8 inches or as required to appropriately bridge over these soils, whichever is deeper. The contractor should also control or appropriately moisture condition the subgrade soils during earthwork operations to mitigate potential subgrade pumping. Section 8.0 General Site Flat Work It should be noted that ground-supported flat site work such as sidewalks, walkways, ramps, etc. will be subject to the same magnitude of potential settlements or movements as previously discussed in Section 4.0 of this report. Thus, where these types of elements abut rigid buildings or isolated/suspended structures, differential movements should be anticipated. As a minimum, we recommend that flexible joints be provided where such elements abut the main structures to allow for differential movement. Where the potential for differential movements is objectionable, it may be beneficial to consider methods of reducing anticipated movements to match the adjacent structure performance. We recommend that a minimum of 8 inches of compacted suitable Native Select Fill soils or Select Fill soils be placed below the flat work structures. The suitable native soils or Select Fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D The moisture content of these soils should be maintained at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until covered. The existing subgrade soils within the project limits that shall support compacted suitable native soils or Select Fill below flat work structures should be cleared of all vegetation, organic matter, topsoil, construction debris and/or any foreign matter. The cleared subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and recompacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 and maintained within ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until permanently covered. Site work grading should be designed in a manner that will provide positive surface drainage and prevent water from ponding adjacent to flat work and building foundations. Drainage flumes and areas where storm water will naturally be allowed to sheet flow should be appropriately sealed and protected to prevent erosion of the supporting soils. Section 9.0 Below Grade Lateral Earth Pressures The proposed below grade structures and pipelines will be subjected to vertical and lateral earth pressures depending upon the type of backfill soil. The table below presents at-rest (K o ) pressure coefficients for select backfill soils. The K o pressures are recommended for cases where the structures will experience little yield. Select CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 22 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

25 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report backfill soils should meet the requirements of Select Fill or as required by the project specifications, whichever is more stringent. Table 9 Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients Soil Type Earth Pressure Coefficients Estimated Total Unit Weight (pcf) Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients At-Rest (K o ) Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) At-Rest Crushed Stone Base Course Select Fill Soils (PI<15) Clayey or Silty Sands Sandy Clays The lateral pressure with depth may be estimated with the following equation; P s = K o Ɣ s (H-H w ) + K o (Ɣ s -Ɣ w )H w + Ɣ w H w + q K o Where; P = lateral earth pressure at calculated depth, psf K o = At-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (typically used for long-term cases) Ɣ s = Total wet unit weight of soil, pcf H = Depth of structure from ground surface to calculated depth, ft H w = Positive vertical downward depth of water from reported highest depth. Note when calculation depth is above reported water depth, then H w term in equation is considered zero Ɣ w = Unit weight of water, pcf q = Surcharge pressure, psf (typically only considered to 20 feet) light loads (i.e., pedestrians and soil stockpiles) 50 psf, moderate (i.e., light equipment) 150 psf, heavy (i.e., heavy duty equipment) 250 psf or more Lateral earth pressures should be determined as required for each anticipated condition with the general contractor s trench safety plan. Section 10.0 General Trench Safety Considerations Trench excavations of more than 4 feet in depth and extending to a maximum depth of 20 feet may be supported with shielded systems in accordance with OSHA regulations. Shielded systems, such as trench boxes, should not be subjected to loads exceeding those which the system was designed to withstand. Shields may be CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 23 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

26 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report stacked, provided that they are installed in a manner to resist lateral displacements or other hazardous movements of the shield in the event of sudden changes in lateral loads, such as sidewall collapse, or impact from excavation equipment or any other potential force. Employees shall not be allowed in shielded trenches when shields are being installed, removed, or moved vertically or horizontally. Employees should not be permitted in trenches that show possible loss of soil from behind or below the bottom of the shield. Hard hats and warning vests or other highly visible Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) should be worn by all employees. Excavations of earth material to a level not greater than 2 feet below the bottom of a shield may be permitted, provided that the soil sidewalls are stable. Shields should extend to a minimum of 18 inches above the top of the vertical side or crest of the excavation. The trench box system should be used in accordance with the Manufacturer s recommendations in accordance with the requirements of a trench safety plan and current OSHA regulations. It is recommended that it be a mandatory requirement excavation safety systems for trenches and/or any required bracing or shoring be designed by a professional engineer. Surface encumbrances, such as boulders and vegetation, located so as to create a hazard to employees involved in excavation work or in the vicinity thereof at any time during operations, shall be removed, properly supported or made safe before excavation begins. Existing underground utility lines shall be located prior to performing excavations and protected during excavation construction. Excavations should not undermine existing structures. Properly designed means of access and egress from excavations should be provided for employees. Structural members used as ramps and/or runways should be uniform in thickness and supported properly to prevent displacements. Stairways, ladders, ramps, or other safe means of egress shall be located in trench excavations that are 4 feet in depth or more in depth so as to require no more than 25 feet of lateral travel for employees. A competent person shall inspect the excavations daily and notify the contractor's superintendent of any conditions which may adversely affect the reliability and safety of the excavation. The excavations shall also be inspected after each rainstorm or when any changes in conditions occur that can increase the possibility of a cave-in or slide. If evidence of possible cave-ins or slides is apparent, all work in the excavation shall cease until the necessary precautions for bracing have been taken to safeguard the employees and trench. During excavations, the materials encountered shall be evaluated daily. If material with different properties (fill soil, etc.) is encountered, the recommendations given in this report may not be adequate to assure safe CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 24 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

27 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report excavations. All excavations shall be protected from rain and groundwater by surface diversion ditches or dikes. Workers shall be prohibited from working in excavations where water has accumulated or is accumulating. It shall be the contractor s responsibility to document and record all daily excavation activities in accordance with OSHA regulations. CQC and its client shall have no liability for the selected means and methods utilized by the contractor to perform construction excavations and/or operations. Section 11.0 Additional Investigation Considerations As previously mentioned, in order to further evaluate the suspected perched water zone or flowing water zone, it is recommended that temporary monitoring piezometer wells (i.e., PW-1 and PW-2) be installed at this site. Potential suggested locations of the wells are indicated in the soil Boring Plan, Sheet A1. In addition, we anticipate that the subsurface soil water infiltration within the proposed pond may be limited due to the encountered water seepage. The specification of a pumping system may be considered once the pond reaches a specific high water elevation to mitigate a potential spillover event during high intensity rain periods with a short duration. Furthermore, as typically expected with construction activities and pond excavation projects, a degree of vibratory impacts should be expected. Our scope of work did not include an assessment of the condition of private structures or facilities adjacent to the project limits nor opinions or statements of potential impacts. This is specifically true of the adjacent streets, residences, and railroad line. If the owner or our Client is concerned with these types of potential impacts, the project specifications should include mandatory requirements for the general contractor to develop a vibration and ground settlement monitoring plan before, during the course of construction and after all construction activities have been completed at the project site. The plan may include the set up of an array of monitoring points near the project site and at radial distances from construction activities to monitor potential ground movements. It may be necessary for the owner to establish a contingency plan for potential observed movements to near adjacent structures. The development of a settlement monitoring program was beyond our scope of work; however we may meet with our Client and owner to further discuss this issue, as required. The US Bureau of Mines, FHWA Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance manual and ASCE publications may be referenced to establish a monitoring plan and set maximum vibration peak particle velocity and frequency thresholds to ensure that vibrations are maintained below these limits during construction. Section 12.0 Project Specification Information The following sections present fill material and construction material testing specification information for our Client and owner s consideration during the preparation of the project specifications for this project. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 25 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

28 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report 12.1 Soil Select Fill Materials Structural Fill and/or Engineered Fill Structural Fill and/or Engineered Fill shall consist of a crushed stone base (CSB) coarse material conforming to requirements of a TXDOT Item 247 Flexible Base, Type A, Grade 2 soil material. The flexible base material should meet the gradation requirements below and exhibit a plasticity index of 12 or less. The flexible base material should also exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 140 pcf determined in accordance with ASTM D In addition, the base course materials shall exhibit a bar linear shrinkage between 2 to 7 percent determined by test method TEX-107E. It is not recommended that recycled concrete base material be considered as a substitute for the requirement above, unless approved by the project architect and/or civil engineer. Table 10 Structural Fill - Base Coarse Material Gradation Requirements Sieve Size % Passing by Weight (square opening) 2½ -inch 100 1¾ -inch No No Select Fill Select Fill soils may consist of granular clayey, silty sands or sandy clayey, silty gravel mixtures, free of clay lumps, deleterious materials, organic material, vegetation, cobbles or boulders over 3 inches in nominal size. Select Fill should have a liquid limit less than 35 and a plasticity index from 3 to 12. The Select Fill shall also exhibit an optimum dry density of at least 125 pcf determined in accordance with ASTM D Select Fill soils should also meet the gradation requirements below. Table 11 Select Fill Gradation Requirements Sieve Size % Passing by Weight (square opening) 3-inch 100 3/4-inch No No CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 26 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

29 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report Select Fill soils shall classify as SP-SM, SM, SC, SC-SM, GM, GC, GC-GM, GP-GM, and GP-GC in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Select Fill soils that meet the gradation, optimum dry density, and soil classification requirements indicated above, but are non-plastic by test, shall be accepted only if these soils exhibit a bar linear shrinkage between 2 to 7 percent determined by test method TEX-107E. Native Select Fill Soils Native Select Fill soils should only be utilized where approved by the engineer. Native Select Fill soil materials should consist of granular sandy soils or gravel mixtures, free of clay lumps, deleterious materials, organic material, cobbles or boulders over 3 inches in nominal size. The Native Select Fill soils should have a liquid limit less than 40 and a plasticity index less than 15. Native Select Fill soils should meet the gradation requirements below. Table 12 Select Fill Gradation Requirements Sieve Size % Passing by Weight (square opening) 3-inch 100 3/4-inch No No Native Select Fill soils classified in the following list according to the USCS may be considered satisfactory for use: SM, SW, SC, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC-SM, GW, GP, GM, GC, GP-GM and GP-GC, provided that these soils also meet the requirements above. It is recommended that on-site soils classified as SP be blended with low-plasticity clayey sands or as appropriate to mitigate potential soil sloughing during excavations in these types of soils and to create a relatively stable blended soil material that exhibits adequate bearing capacity. The blended soils should meet the requirements of Select Fill above. Soils classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, OH, OL and PT or a combinations of these under the USCS classification are not considered suitable for use as native Select Fill soils or Structural Fill soil materials. Pond Slope Select Backfill (PSSB) The Pond Slope Select Backfill (PSSB) should consist of granular sands which are free of clay lumps, deleterious materials, organic material, cobbles or boulders over 4 inches in nominal size and should have a liquid limit less than 40 and a plasticity index of 7 to 15. The PSSB shall also exhibit a maximum dry density of at least 125 pcf. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 27 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

30 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report PSSB shall meet one or a group of the following soil classifications in accordance with the USCS: SC-SM, SC, GC-GM, GC and the other requirements above. Sandy gravels or poorly graded gravels (i.e., GC-GM, GM and GP) and non-plastic by test may also be considered as suitable for use as PSSB provided that these soils exhibit a linear bar shrinkage of at least 3 percent or greater. The linear bar shrinkage test shall be conducted in accordance with TEX Method 107-E. The PSSB should also meet the minimum gradation requirements tabulated below or specified TXDOT gradation for base coarse material approved for use: Table 13 Pond Slope Select Backfill Gradation Requirements Sieve Size (square opening) % Passing by Weight 3-inch 100 3/4-inch No No The PSSB should not extend more than 5 feet into the pond bottom or a length that may compromise the infiltration rate of collected storm water into the subsurface soils. The general contractor should adjust the cut slopes in order to compensate for the recommended additional PSSB soil layer above the cut slopes to maintain the design finished grade elevations and bottom of pond elevation. Utility Line Backfill Soil Classifications For utility line embedment and backfill, soils are typically specified as Class I through IV as indicated below. It is not recommended that slag be utilized for the backfill material unless approved by the engineer of record. Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV materials may be defined as follows: CLASS I material may be manufactured angular, well-graded, crushed stone per ASTM D-2321 with a maximum particle size of 1½ inches. The following materials shall be acceptable under this class designation: ASTM D-448 Stone Sizes 4, 46, 5, 56, 57, and 6. Pea Gravel and other uniformly graded material are not acceptable under this class. A gradation of Class I material shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer for approval prior to use. CLASS II material may be coarse sands and gravels per ASTM D-2487 with maximum particle size of 1½ inches, including variously graded sands and gravels, containing less than 12 percent fines (material CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 28 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

31 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report passing the #200 sieve) generally granular and non-cohesive, either wet or dry. Soil types GW, GP, SW and SP are included in this class. (i.e., typically required within pipe zone). Proposed Class II material shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer for evaluation and approval prior to use. CLASS III material may be fine sands, clayey sand mixtures, clayey gravel and sand mixtures, suitable clean native sands and gravels. Class III materials shall also be free of clay lumps, deleterious materials, cobbles or boulders over 3-inches in nominal size. Class III materials should have a liquid limit less than 35 and a plasticity index less than or equal to 12 and exhibit an optimum dry density of at least 115 pcf. Soils classified in the following list according to the USCS and ASTM may be considered satisfactory for use as Class III backfill soil materials above the pipe zone as approved by the project engineer of record: SM, SW, SC, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC-SM, GW, GP, GM, GC, GP-GM and GP-GC. Proposed Class III material shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer for evaluation and approval prior to use. CLASS IV and V material may be classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, OH, OL and PT under the USCS. These soils shall not be used as backfill materials, unless approved by the engineer of record Construction Materials Testing We recommend that construction materials observation and testing of site work, fill placement and all other applicable materials and structures be performed by CQC. The specification testing program should include the following testing frequencies as a minimum: 1. At least one (1) Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil using Modified Effort (Proctor) for each type of material encountered or import material used, according to ASTM D 1557 or D At least one (1) Soil Classification (Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits Test) for each type of material encountered or import material used, according to ASTM D 6913 and D A minimum of one (1) density test per lift at 50 linear feet spacing along the slope, according to ASTM D 6938 or D A minimum of three (3) density tests per each lift of subgrade preparation and/or fill placement for each drainage structure according to ASTM D 6938 or D Sampling and testing for quality assurance of placed concrete materials should be performed for the project. Concrete field testing shall include testing for temperature, slump and air content (if required). The design strength of the concrete mix shall be evaluated by collecting cylindrical concrete compression test specimens for lab curing and testing in accordance with applicable ASTM procedures. At least one set of four (4) 6-inch in diameter by 12-inch or 4-inch by 8-inch in length concrete cylinders should be collected for every 10 cubic yards or less of poured concrete or as directed by the project engineer. The CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 29 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

32 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report concrete specimens should be tested at 7 days (1 cylinder) and 28 days (3 cylinders) for verification of the specified design strength or as directed by the project specifications. 6. The steel reinforcement of concrete structures should be observed and inspected in accordance with the applicable guidelines of American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Steel Decking Institute (SDI), American Welding Society (AWS), Steel Joist Institute (SJI), currently adopted International Building Code (IBC) by the City of El Paso, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI), American Lumber Standard Committee (ALSC), Architectural Woodworks Institute (AWI) and/or the project plans and specifications, whichever is more stringent or as directed by the project engineer. The provisions for special inspections within the code should also be considered as they relate to applicable design of structures on this project. Section 13.0 Soils Evaluation Considerations and Limitations As requested, the analysis and recommendations in this report are based on the data obtained from seven (7) exploration soil borings performed at the approximate locations indicated on the attached General Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1. This report may not reflect all the variations that may occur between the soil borings. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If variations appear during construction, CQC should be contacted immediately, it may be necessary for a reevaluation of our recommendations provided within this report to be made after performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of any variations. No other information relevant to the project site history or known conditions of concern were discussed or disclosed to CQC by our Client or design representatives. The scope of our soil evaluation study did not include an environmental assessment of the property's air, soil, water, site fault delineation and evaluation, preparation of a dewatering plan, trench safety and/or shoring plan, delineation of subsurface flowing water or rock conditions either on or adjacent to the site, therefore no environmental opinions are presented in this report. Our geotechnical scope of work for this site did not include an environmental assessment or chemical testing and analysis of the subsurface soils. Section 14.0 General List of Technical References 1.) Dietrich, J. W., Owen, D. E., Shelby, C. A., & Barnes, V.E. (1983). Geologic Atlas of Texas, Van Horn-El Paso Sheet. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology 2.) Coduto, Donald P. (1994). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3.) Coduto, Donald P. (2001). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices. 2 nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 30 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

33 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report 4.) Holtz, Robert D., Kovacs, William D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 5.) Bowles, Joseph E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. 5 th edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 6.) International Code Council, Inc. (2012). International Building Code. Country Club, IL: International Code Council, Inc. 7.) U.S. Department of Labor-Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Part 1926 Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Washington, DC. 8.) American Concrete Institute (1997). ACI Manual of Concrete Practice Part :Construction Practices and Inspection Pavements. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute 9.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D 422. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soil.Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 10.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D 698. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft 3 (600 kn-m/m 3 ). Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 11.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than No. 200 (75µm) Sieve. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 12.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D Standard Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by Sand-Cone. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 13.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft 3 (2,700 kn-m/m 3 ). Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 14.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 15.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 16.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 17.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 31 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

34 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. General Soils Evaluation Report 18.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard C136. Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 19.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard C131. Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 20.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard C117. Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 21.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D2950. Standard Test Method for Density of Bituminous Concrete in Place by Nuclear Methods. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 22.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D6307 (2008). Standard Test Method for Asphalt Content of Hot-Mix Asphalt by Ignition Method. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 23.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D5444. (2008). Standard Test Method for Mechanical Size Analysis of Extracted Aggregate. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 24.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D2041. (2008). Standard Test Method for Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 25.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D2726. (2008). Standard Test Method for Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Bituminous Mixtures. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 26.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D6927. (2008). Standard Test Method for Marshall Stability and Flow of Bituminous Mixtures. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 27.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D6307. (2008). Standard Test Method for Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures. Volume West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 28.) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 29.) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2010). Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part 2B: Tests. 30 th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 30.) Texas Department of Transportation. (June 2004). Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Transportation 31.) Texas Department of Transportation. Test Procedures: 100-E Series through 1100-T Series. Retrieved June2006 from X:\CQC Files\CQC Working Files\GEO\Reports\2013\ Austin Pond Improvements\043-Report.doc CQC Project No. AGCQC CQC Testing and Engineering LLC December 18, 2013 TBPE Firm Registration No. F Page 32 of 32 (Final Report Issued Date: April 24, 2014)

35 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing APPENDIX A People Committed to Delivering Top-Quality Services Consistently

36 B-7(9 *) N B-1(6½ ) B-5(14½ *) HAB-6(1 *)/ DCP-2 (1½ *) PW-1(70 ) HAB-2(1 *)/ DCP-1 (3 *) S-4 S-5 LEGEND S-1 S-2 B-4(36½ ) B-4A(51½ **) B-1: Soil Boring Number, Depth & Approximate Location B-3(15 ) P-1(25 ) S-6 S-1: Bulk Subgrade Soil Sample Number & Approximate Location PW-2(50 ) S-3 *Hand Auger and DCP or SPT refusal experienced at indicated depth **Additional soil boring B-4A was preformed at CQC s discretion to further evaluate the subsurface soils to a deeper depth. Apparent perched water and/or water seepage was observed at an approximate depth of 23 feet below the existing ground elevation at soil borings B-4 and B-4A. P-1: Percolation Test Number, Depth & Approximate Location PW-1: Proposed Piezometer Well Number, Depth & Approximate Location General Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan EPWU Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St. Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. Project No.: AGCQC Scale: NTS Check by: JR Date: 12/18/13 Sheet A1

37 N AREA 5 (Box Culvert) AREA 1 (Slope) AREA 4 (Slope) AREA 5 (Box Culvert) AREA 2 (Slope) AREA 3 (Slope) AREA 6 (Spillway) AREA 7 (Drainage Pipe) General Improvement Areas Site Plan EPWU Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St. Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. Project No.: AGCQC Scale: NTS Check by: JR Date: 12/18/13 Sheet A1-1

38 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 10/28/13 COMPLETED 10/28/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR GH CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC REC Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD CME 75 w/3-1/4" ID HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Observed CHECKED BY JR PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER B-1 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 6 inches DEPTH (ft) 0.0 SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Asphaltic-concrete pavement- approx. 1" thick Base course material- approx. 6" thick BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) % -200 PI (LL-PL) USCS SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT SS 1 SS 2 SS 3 SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Silty, Light Brown to Brown, Very Dense to Hard, Dry to Moist -Excavations are anticipated to require heavy equipment -with clayey sands at the surface NOTE: SS - Split Spoon Sample Bottom of hole at 6.5 feet (73) 30-50/5" (84) SC SM >> >> >> A - 2

39 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 11/2/13 COMPLETED 11/2/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR LN CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC CQC Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger & Tools AT TIME OF DRILLING None Observed CHECKED BY GH PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER HAB-2 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 4 inches DEPTH (ft) 0 SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Poorly Graded, Brown, Dry with silt and sand BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) % -200 PI (LL-PL) USCS SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT 1 AU 1 NOTE: AU - Hand Auger Sample Hand Auger refusal at approximately 1' Bottom of hole at 1.0 feet. 8 NP GP-GM A - 3

40 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 10/28/13 COMPLETED 10/28/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR GH CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC REC Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD CME 75 w/3-1/4" ID HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Observed CHECKED BY JR PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER B-3 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 6 inches CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER SS 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6 GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Asphaltic-concrete pavement- approx. 2" thick Base course material- approx. 8" thick SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Gravelly, Silty, Brown, Medium Dense to Very Dense, Slightly Moist to Moist CLAY, Plastic, Brown, Medium Stiff to Very Stiff, Moist with sand NOTE: SS - Split Spoon Sample Bottom of hole at 15.0 feet. BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) (42) (51) (20) (7) (16) (18) % PI (LL-PL) NP 34 USCS SM SM CH SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % >> A - 4

41 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 10/26/13 COMPLETED 10/26/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR FO CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC REC Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD CME 75 w/3-1/4" ID HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING 23.0 ft / Elev 0.0 ft CHECKED BY GH PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER B-4 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 6 inches DEPTH (ft) 0 SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER SS 1 GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Gravelly, Silty, Brown, Medium Dense, Moist BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) (11) % -200 PI (LL-PL) USCS SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6 SS 7 SS 8 SS 9 SS 10 SS 11 CLAY, Brown, Medium Stiff to Stiff SAND, Fine Grained, Poorly Graded, Multicolored, Medium Dense, Very Moist with silt -very moist soil conditions below approximately 14 feet CLAY, Moderately Plastic, Brown, Stiff, Very Moist to Wet -Apparent perched water zone and water seepage observed at about 23 feet SAND, Fine Grained, Silty, Multicolored, Medium Dense, Wet CLAY, Plastic, Sandy, Brown, Very Stiff, Wet NOTE: SS - Split Spoon Sample Bottom of hole at 36.5 feet (11) (28) (7) (12) (27) (17) (11) (26) (17) (18) NP 19 NP 22 SM SP-SM CL SM CL A - 5

42 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 10/30/13 COMPLETED 10/30/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR GH CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC T.D. Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD CME 75 w/3-1/4" ID HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING 23.0 ft / Elev 0.0 ft CHECKED BY JR PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER B-4A EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 6 inches DEPTH (ft) 0 SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Gravelly, Silty, Brown, Medium Dense, Moist BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) % -200 PI (LL-PL) USCS SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT SS 1 SS 2 SS 3 CLAY, Brown, Medium Stiff to Stiff SAND, Fine Grained, Poorly Graded, Multicolored, Medium Dense, Very Moist with silt -very moist soil conditions below approximately 14 feet CLAY, Moderately Plastic, Brown, Stiff, Very Moist to Wet -Apparent perched water zone and water seepage observed at about 23 feet SAND, Fine Grained, Silty, Multicolored, Medium Dense, Wet CLAY, Plastic, Sandy, Brown, Very Stiff, Wet SAND, Fine Grained, Silty, Multicolored, Dense to Very Dense CLAY, Brown, Very Stiff NOTE: SS - Split Spoon Sample Bottom of hole at 51.5 feet (41) (60) (20) 13 SM >> A - 6

43 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 10/28/13 COMPLETED 10/28/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR GH CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC REC Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD CME 75 w/3-1/4" ID HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Observed CHECKED BY JR PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER B-5 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 6 inches DEPTH (ft) 0 SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER SS 1 GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Gravelly, Clayey, Brown to Light Brown, Very Dense to Hard, Slightly Moist to Moist -Excavations are anticipated to require heavy equipment BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) (52) % -200 PI (LL-PL) USCS SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % >> CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 SS 5 SS 6 NOTE: SS - Split Spoon Sample Bottom of hole at 15.0 feet (91) (83) (77) 50/5" 41-50/6" SC SC-SM >> >> >> >> >> A - 7

44 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 11/2/13 COMPLETED 11/2/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR LN CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC CQC Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger & Tools AT TIME OF DRILLING None Observed CHECKED BY GH PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER HAB-6 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 4 inches DEPTH (ft) 0 SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER GRAPHIC LOG MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Silty, Brown, Dry with sand BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) % -200 PI (LL-PL) USCS SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT 1 AU 1 NOTE: AU - Hand Auger Sample Hand Auger refusal at approximately 1' Bottom of hole at 1.0 feet. 14 NP GM A - 8

45 CLIENT LOGGED BY NOTES Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NUMBER DATE STARTED 10/28/13 COMPLETED 10/28/13 DRILLING CONTRACTOR GH CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Telephone: (915) Fax: (915) AGCQC REC Boring Location: See Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet A1 GROUND ELEVATION Ext. Grade DRILLING METHOD CME 75 w/3-1/4" ID HSA AT TIME OF DRILLING None Observed CHECKED BY JR PROJECT NAME PROJECT LOCATION GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- BORING NUMBER B-7 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St HOLE SIZE 6 inches CQCLOG2 043-BORING LOGS.GPJ GINT US.GDT THE BORING LOGS PRESENTED SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT DEPTH (ft) SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER SS 1 SS 2 SS 3 SS 4 GRAPHIC LOG Asphaltic-concrete pavement- approx. 2" thick Base course material- approx. 6" thick SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Gravelly, Silty, Light Brown to Brown, Very Dense, Dry to Slightly Moist -Excavations are anticipated to require heavy equipment -with interbedded silty gravel MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTE: SS - Split Spoon Sample Bottom of hole at 10.0 feet. BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) 21-50/2" /2" 40-50/6" 21-50/2" % PI (LL-PL) NP USCS SM SM SPT N VALUE PL MC LL % >> >> >> >> A - 9

46 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE DATE: 10/28/2013 SAMPLE NO.: S-2 BORING NO.: B-1 SAMPLE DEPTH: SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Gravelly, Clayey, Light Brown to Brown Note: *Due to the gravelly nature of the subsurface soils and the standard size of our Split Spoon Sampler the collected sample may not represent the degree of larger size particles. Sieve Analysis Test: Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Sieve Size/No. ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS Percent Retained Percent Passing 1-1/2 inches inch /4 inch /2 inch /8 inch No No. 10 No No No mm mm - - Percent Finer by Weight, % Sieve Analysis Curve GRAVEL Coarse Fine Material Grain Size, mm SAND Coarse Medium Fine CLAY or SILT CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A10

47 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE DATE: 11/2/2013 SAMPLE NO.: S-1 BORING NO.: HAB-2 SAMPLE DEPTH: 0-1 SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Poorly Graded, Brown with silt and sand Note: *Due to the gravelly nature of the subsurface soils and the standard size of our Split Spoon Sampler the collected sample may not represent the degree of larger size particles. Sieve Analysis Test: Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Sieve Size/No. ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS Percent Retained Percent Passing 1-1/2 inches inch /4 inch /2 inch /8 inch No No. 10 No No No mm mm - - Percent Finer by Weight, % Sieve Analysis Curve GRAVEL Coarse Fine Material Grain Size, mm SAND Coarse Medium Fine CLAY or SILT CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A11

48 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE DATE: 10/28/2013 SAMPLE NO.: S-5 BORING NO.: B-3 SAMPLE DEPTH: 10' - 11½' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / CLAY, Plastic, Brown with sand Sieve Analysis Test: Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Sieve Size/No. ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS Percent Retained Percent Passing 1-1/2 inches inch /4 inch /2 inch /8 inch No No No No No mm mm - - Percent Finer by Weight, % Sieve Analysis Curve GRAVEL Coarse Fine Material Grain Size, mm SAND Coarse Medium Fine CLAY or SILT CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A12

49 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE DATE: 10/26/2013 SAMPLE NO.: S-9 BORING NO.: B-4 SAMPLE DEPTH: 25' -26½' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine Grained, Silty, Multicolored Sieve Analysis Test: Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Sieve Size/No. ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS Percent Retained Percent Passing 1-1/2 inches inch /4 inch /2 inch /8 inch No No. 10 No No No mm mm - - Percent Finer by Weight, % Sieve Analysis Curve GRAVEL Coarse Fine Material Grain Size, mm SAND Coarse Medium Fine CLAY or SILT CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A13

50 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE DATE: 10/28/2013 SAMPLE NO.: S-2 BORING NO.: B-7 SAMPLE DEPTH: 2½ SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Silty, Light Brown to Brown with gravel Note: *Due to the gravelly nature of the subsurface soils and the standard size of our Split Spoon Sampler the collected sample may not represent the degree of larger size particles. Sieve Analysis Test: Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Sieve Size/No. ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS Percent Retained Percent Passing 1-1/2 inches inch /4 inch /2 inch /8 inch No No No No No mm mm - - Percent Finer by Weight, % Sieve Analysis Curve GRAVEL Coarse Fine Material Grain Size, mm SAND Coarse Medium Fine CLAY or SILT CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A14

51 SUMMARY OF FIELD & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis /Testing PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation DATE: 12/18/13 PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: AGCQC Moreno Cardenas Inc. Boring No. Sample No. Sample Type Approx. Sample Depth (ft.) N-Value Water Content (%) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index % Passing No. 4 Sieve % Passing No. 200 Sieve B-1 1 SS SC 2 SS 2½ >50 SPTR SM 3 SS 5-6½ 84 B-2HA 1 AU 0-1 * NP 38 8 GP-GM B-3 1 SS SS 2½ SM 3 SS 5-6½ NP SM 4 SS 7½ SS 10-11½ CH 6 SS 13½ B-4 1 SS 0-1½ 11 2 SS 2½ SS 5-6½ NP SM 4 SS 7½ SS 10-11½ 12 6 SS 13½ SS 15-16½ SP-SM 8 SS 20-21½ CL 9 SS 25-26½ NP SM 10 SS 30-31½ CL 11 SS 35-36½ SS 40-41½ SS 45-46½ SM 14 SS 50-51½ 20 Note: SS Split Spoon Sample AU Hand Auger Sample SPTR Split-Spoon refusal NP Non-Plastic by Test *Hand Auger refusal at indicated approximate depth USCS CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A15

52 SUMMARY OF FIELD & LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis /Testing PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation DATE: 12/18/13 PROJECT NO.: CLIENT: AGCQC Moreno Cardenas Inc. Boring No. Sample No. Sample Type Approx. Sample Depth (ft.) N-Value Water Content (%) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index % Passing No. 4 Sieve % Passing No. 200 Sieve USCS B-5 1 SS 0-1½ 52 2 SS 2½ SC 3 SS 5-6½ 83 4 SS 7½ SS >50 SPTR 6 SS 13½ >50 SPTR SC-SM B-6HA 1 AU 0-1 * NP GM B-7 1 SS >50 SPTR 2 SS 2½ >50 SPTR NP SM 3 SS >50 SPTR SM 4 SS 8½ >50 SPTR Note: SS Split Spoon Sample AU Hand Auger Sample SPTR Split-Spoon refusal NP Non-Plastic by Test *Hand Auger refusal at indicated approximate depth CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A16

53 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION PROCTOR NO.: 1 SAMPLED BY: CS SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: CBR -1 (Near Boring Location B-1) SAMPLE DATE: 10/28/2013 SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0'-3' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Poorly Graded, Brown to Multicolored with silt and sand Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Sieve Size/No. Percent Retained Percent Passing Project Specifications Limit Test Index Test Result Specified 2-1/2" NS LL -- NS 2" NS PL -- NS 1-3/4" NS PI NP NS 1-1/2" NS NP-Non Plastic 1" NS NS - Not Specified 3/4" NS 1/2" NS Soil Classification: GP-GM 3/8" NS Test Method: ASTM D 2487 No NS No NS No NS No NS No NS NS- Not Specified Moisture - Density Curve Moisture-Density Relationship Test Test Method: ASTM D 1557, Method " C " Test Sample No. Moisture Content Sample Dry (%) Density (pcf) Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Moisture Content, %: SAMPLE TEST RESULTS Soil Dry Density, pcf Soil Moisture Content, % CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A17

54 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION PROCTOR NO.: 2 SAMPLED BY: FO SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: S-1 SAMPLE DATE: 12/20/2013 SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0'-2' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Poorly Graded, Brown to Multicolored with silt and sand Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Sieve Size/No. Percent Retained Percent Passing Project Specifications Limit Test Index Test Result Specified 3" NS LL -- NS 1-1/2" NS PL -- NS 1" NS PI NP NS 3/4" NS NP-Non Plastic 1/2" NS NS - Not Specified 3/8" NS No NS Soil Classification: GP-GM No NS Test Method: ASTM D 2487 No NS No NS No NS NS- Not Specified Moisture - Density Curve Moisture-Density Relationship Test Test Method: ASTM D 1557, Method " C " Moisture Content Sample Dry Test Sample No (%) Density (pcf) Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Moisture Content, %: SAMPLE TEST RESULTS Soil Dry Density, pcf Soil Moisture Content, % CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A18

55 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION PROCTOR NO.: 3 SAMPLED BY: FO SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: S-2 SAMPLE DATE: 12/20/2013 SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0'-2' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Silty, Sandy, Brown Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Sieve Size/No. Percent Retained Percent Passing Project Specifications Limit Test Index Test Result Specified 2-1/2" 9 91 NS LL -- NS 1-1/2" NS PL -- NS 1" NS PI NP NS 3/4" NS NP-Non Plastic 1/2" NS NS - Not Specified 3/8" NS No NS Soil Classification: GM No NS Test Method: ASTM D 2487 No NS No NS No NS NS- Not Specified Moisture - Density Curve Moisture-Density Relationship Test Test Method: ASTM D 1557, Method " C " Moisture Content Sample Dry Test Sample No (%) Density (pcf) Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Moisture Content, %: SAMPLE TEST RESULTS Soil Dry Density, pcf Soil Moisture Content, % CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A19

56 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION PROCTOR NO.: 4 SAMPLED BY: FO SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: S-3 SAMPLE DATE: 12/20/2013 SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0'-2' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Silty, Brown with gravel Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Sieve Size/No. Percent Retained Percent Passing Project Specifications Limit Test Index Test Result Specified 3" NS LL -- NS 1-1/2" 3 97 NS PL -- NS 1" 8 92 NS PI NP NS 3/4" NS NP-Non Plastic 1/2" NS NS - Not Specified 3/8" NS No NS Soil Classification: SM No NS Test Method: ASTM D 2487 No NS No NS No NS NS- Not Specified Moisture - Density Curve Moisture-Density Relationship Test Test Method: ASTM D 1557, Method " C " Moisture Content Sample Dry Test Sample No (%) Density (pcf) Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Moisture Content, %: SAMPLE TEST RESULTS Soil Dry Density, pcf Soil Moisture Content, % CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A20

57 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION PROCTOR NO.: 5 SAMPLED BY: FO SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: S-4 SAMPLE DATE: 12/20/2013 SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0'-2' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Gravelly, Silty, Brown Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Sieve Size/No. Percent Retained Percent Passing Project Specifications Limit Test Index Test Result Specified 3" NS LL -- NS 1-1/2" 5 95 NS PL -- NS 1" NS PI NP NS 3/4" NS NP-Non Plastic 1/2" NS NS - Not Specified 3/8" NS No NS Soil Classification: SM No NS Test Method: ASTM D 2487 No NS No NS No NS NS- Not Specified Moisture - Density Curve Moisture-Density Relationship Test Test Method: ASTM D 1557, Method " C " Moisture Content Sample Dry Test Sample No (%) Density (pcf) Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Moisture Content, %: SAMPLE TEST RESULTS Soil Dry Density, pcf Soil Moisture Content, % CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A21

58 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION PROCTOR NO.: 6 SAMPLED BY: FO SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: S-5 SAMPLE DATE: 12/20/2013 SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0'-2' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Poorly Graded, Brown to Multicolored with silt and sand Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Sieve Size/No. Percent Retained Percent Passing Project Specifications Limit Test Index Test Result Specified 3" NS LL -- NS 1-1/2" NS PL -- NS 1" NS PI NP NS 3/4" NS NP-Non Plastic 1/2" NS NS - Not Specified 3/8" NS No NS Soil Classification: GP-GM No NS Test Method: ASTM D 2487 No NS No NS No NS NS- Not Specified Moisture - Density Curve Moisture-Density Relationship Test Test Method: ASTM D 1557, Method " C " Test Sample No. Moisture Content Sample Dry (%) Density (pcf) Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Moisture Content, %: SAMPLE TEST RESULTS Soil Dry Density, pcf Soil Moisture Content, % CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A22

59 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation SAMPLE INFORMATION PROCTOR NO.: 7 SAMPLED BY: FO SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: S-6 SAMPLE DATE: 12/20/2013 SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0'-2' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: On-Site Subsurface Soils / GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Poorly Graded, Brown to Multicolored with silt and sand Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318 Sieve Size/No. Percent Retained Percent Passing Project Specifications Limit Test Index Test Result Specified 3" NS LL -- NS 1-1/2" 5 95 NS PL -- NS 1" NS PI NP NS 3/4" NS NP-Non Plastic 1/2" NS NS - Not Specified 3/8" NS No NS Soil Classification: GP-GM No NS Test Method: ASTM D 2487 No NS No NS No NS NS- Not Specified Moisture - Density Curve Moisture-Density Relationship Test Test Method: ASTM D 1557, Method " C " Moisture Content Sample Dry Test Sample No. (%) Density (pcf) Maximum Dry Density, pcf: Optimum Moisture Content, %: SAMPLE TEST RESULTS Soil Dry Density, pcf Soil Moisture Content, % CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A23

60 6802 Commerce, Unit A El Paso, Texas Ph.(915) Fax No. (915) CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR) TEST RESULTS ASTM D PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/2013 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation PROCTOR NO.: 1 SAMPLED BY: CS SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: CBR -1 (Near Boring Location B-1) SAMPLE DATE: 10/28/2013 SOIL SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-3' SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION: TEST SPECIMEN INFORMATION: SPECIMEN SWELL TEST INFORMATION: Soil Sample Height, in. 4-1/2" Intial Swell Reading: Soil Sample Approx. Diameter, in. 6" Final Swell Reading: Sample Vertical Swell, % Soil Optimum Dry Density, pcf Soil Optimum Moisture Content, % 5.7 Before Soaking After Soaking Dry Density, pcf CBR Test Data: Moisture, % % Compaction Stress Contact Area, in Sample Surcharge Load, lbs UNCORRECTED CALCULATED SOAKED CBR VALUES: Soaking Period, hr's " Penetration " Penetration 31 Stress Versus Penetration Data PEN. Load, lbs. Stress, psi SAMPLE INFORMATION On-Site Subsurface Soils / GRAVEL, Fine, Subangular, Poorly Graded, Brown to Multicolored with silt and sand Calculated Test Sample Contact Stress, psi CBR Test Stress - Penetration Test Data Piston Penetration, in. CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A24

61 3801 Doris Lane Round Rock, TX Phone: Direct Shear of Soil Under Consolidated-Drained Conditions Client: CQC Testing and Engineering, LLC RRC Project No.: Project: Austin Pond Improvements (AGCQC13-043) Test Method: ASTM D 3080 Specimen: S-1 (0-2 ft) Test Date: 01/17/14 Note: Area Correction Has Been Applied psi 8 8 Shear Stress, (psi) psi Shear Stress, (psi) 6 4 ' d = psi 2 c' d = 1.4 psi Horizontal Displacement (in) Effective Normal Stress, ' (psi) Vertical Displ Change (in) psi 5 psi 10 psi Horizontal Displacement (in) expansion settlement Note: The soil was air dried and passed through a No. 4 sieve to eliminate any over sized particles. Specimens remolded to 135 pcf dry density at 3.0 % moisture content per a test request. However, it was very difficult to achieve the target dry density for the remolded specimens. Sample Number Diameter, in Height, in (before consol) Water Content, % Saturation, % Dry Density, pcf Void Ratio Height, in (prior to shear) Final Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Void Ratio Peak Normal Stress, ' (psi) Peak Shear Stress, (psi) Displacement at Failure (in) Displacement rate (in/min) Sample Type Remolded ' d, degrees 31.0 G s (assumed) 2.65 c' d, psi 1.4 Initial Condition Post Consol Cheng-Wei Chen, Ph.D. 01/20/14 Analysis & Quality Review/Date Specimens prepared and tested by: Nadia Sanchez The results shown on this report are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained and apply only to the sample tested and / or inspected. They are not intended to be indicative of qualities of apparently identical products. The use of our name must recieve prior written approval. Reports must be reproduced in their entirety. Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project.

62 3801 Doris Lane Round Rock, TX Phone: Direct Shear of Soil Under Consolidated-Drained Conditions Client: CQC Testing and Engineering, LLC RRC Project No.: Project: Austin Pond Improvements (AGCQC13-043) Test Method: ASTM D 3080 Specimen: S-4 (0-2 ft) Test Date: 01/15/14 Note: Area Correction Has Been Applied psi 8 Shear Stress, (psi) psi Shear Stress, (psi) 6 4 ' d = psi 2 c' d = 1.7 psi Horizontal Displacement (in) Effective Normal Stress, ' (psi) Vertical Displ Change (in) psi 4 psi expansion settlement 10 psi Horizontal Displacement (in) Note: The soil was air dried and passed through a No. 4 sieve to eliminate any over sized particles. Specimens remolded to 125 pcf dry density at 4.0 % moisture content per a test request. However, it was not easy to achieve the target dry density for the remolded specimens. Sample Number Diameter, in Height, in (before consol) Water Content, % Saturation, % Dry Density, pcf Void Ratio Height, in (prior to shear) Final Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Void Ratio Peak Normal Stress, ' (psi) Peak Shear Stress, (psi) Displacement at Failure (in) Displacement rate (in/min) Sample Type Remolded ' d, degrees 27.3 G s (assumed) 2.65 c' d, psi 1.7 Initial Condition Post Consol Cheng-Wei Chen, Ph.D. 01/21/14 Analysis & Quality Review/Date Specimens prepared and tested by: Nadia Sanchez The results shown on this report are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained and apply only to the sample tested and / or inspected. They are not intended to be indicative of qualities of apparently identical products. The use of our name must recieve prior written approval. Reports must be reproduced in their entirety. Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project.

63 3801 Doris Lane Round Rock, TX Phone: Direct Shear of Soil Under Consolidated-Drained Conditions Client: CQC Testing and Engineering, LLC RRC Project No.: Project: Austin Pond Improvements (AGCQC13-043) Test Method: ASTM D 3080 Specimen: S-6 (0-2 ft) Test Date: 01/18/14 Note: Area Correction Has Been Applied psi 8 Shear Stress, (psi) psi Shear Stress, (psi) 6 4 ' d = psi 2 c' d = 1.2 psi Horizontal Displacement (in) Effective Normal Stress, ' (psi) Vertical Displ. Change (in) psi 8 psi 10 psi expansion settlement Horizontal Displacement (in) Note: The soil was air dried and passed through a No. 4 sieve to eliminate any over sized particles. Specimens remolded to 135 pcf dry density at 4.5 % moisture content per a test request. However, it was very difficult to achieve the target dry density for the remolded specimens. Sample Number Diameter, in Height, in (before consol) Water Content, % Saturation, % Dry Density, pcf Void Ratio Height, in (prior to shear) Final Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Void Ratio Peak Normal Stress, ' (psi) Peak Shear Stress, (psi) Displacement at Failure (in) Displacement rate (in/min) Sample Type Remolded ' d, degrees 33.3 G s (assumed) 2.65 c' d, psi 1.2 Initial Condition Post Consol Cheng-Wei Chen, Ph.D. 01/21/14 Analysis & Quality Review/Date Specimens prepared and tested by: Nadia Sanchez The results shown on this report are for the exclusive use of the client for whom they were obtained and apply only to the sample tested and / or inspected. They are not intended to be indicative of qualities of apparently identical products. The use of our name must recieve prior written approval. Reports must be reproduced in their entirety. Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project.

64 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis /Testing SOIL PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS DATE: December 18, 2013 CQC PROJECT NO.: PROJECT NAME: AGCQC General Soils Evaluation EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St. TEST INFORMATION TEST DATE: October 31, 2013 TEST HOLE CLOSURE: GROUNDWATER DEPTH: Backfilled with Existing Soil Material Approx. 23 feet (Suspected perched water zone and water seepage observed) READING INTERVAL / TOTAL TEST TIME: 10 minutes / 90 minutes Hole No. Approx. Test Depth (ft.) P-1 25 Visual Soil Description at Bottom of Borehole SAND, Fine Grained, Poorly Graded, Multicolored with silt Estimated Avg. Percolation Rate at Test Depth: min./in. Notes: 1. Test bore hole was saturated for a period of at least 20 min. before testing. 2. A minimum of 4 inches of fine gravel was placed at the bottom of the test hole. 3. Percolation Test was performed within the approximate location indicated on the General Soil Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheet 1. *Standing water observed at bottom of test bore hole for over 72 hours. Remarks: According to information provided by our Client, the pond shall have an invert depth of approximately 20 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. Based on our observations, water was noted in the borehole at a depth of approximately 23 feet. As a result and due to the interbedded layers of clay encountered in our boring, slow fluid infiltration into the subsurface soils was observed and noted. In addition, it should be noted that once the pond has been cut to the final invert depth, normal and steady water infiltration through the subsurface soils shall be highly dependent on the degree of sediment built-up at the bottom of the pond, which shall ultimately decrease the infiltration rate. Periodic maintenance and cleaning of the pond bottom shall be required in order to ensure that proper and steady infiltration continues to occur. The delineation of the lateral extent or lateral water seepage of stormwater infiltration and impacts to adjacent structures was beyond our scope of work, but should be considered by the owner. In order to further evaluate the suspected perched water zone, it is recommended that temporary monitoring piezometer wells (i.e., PW-1 and PW-2) be installed at this site. Potential suggested locations of the wells are indicated in the soil Boring Plan, Sheet A1. * CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A28

65 6802 Commerce, Unit "A" El Paso, Texas Ph.(915) Fax No. (915) DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) TEST RESULTS CQC PROJECT NO.: AGCQC REPORT DATE: 12/18/13 PROJECT NAME: General Soils Evaluation TEST DATE: 11/2/13 EPWU - Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. & Lackland St. CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. DCP No. of Accumulative Penetration Penetration Hammer DCP CBR PSF PSF K Depth No. Blows Penetration per Blow Set per Blow Blow Index % F.S = 2.5 Value in. mm mm mm Factor ,656 1, ,314 1, DCP-1* ,917 1, ,348 3, ,725 3, ,847 3, DCP-2* ,721 1, ,725 3, ,847 3, Note: *DCP penetration refusal was experienced at indicated depths. CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A29

66 Date: December 18, 2013 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. Project No. AGCQC Project Name: EPWU Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. Lackland St. DCP DATA RESULTS Estimated Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, psf F. S. = Depth,(in) DCP-1 DCP-2 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A30

67 Date: December 18, 2013 Client: Moreno Cardenas Inc. Project No. AGCQC Project Name: EPWU Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements NE of Altura Ave. Lackland St. DCP DATA RESULTS Correlated K value, psi/in Depth,(in) DCP-1 DCP-2 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet A31

68 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing APPENDIX B People Committed to Delivering Top-Quality Services Consistently

69 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis /Testing GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TECHNICAL REFERENCE INFORMATION DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS SPT N Value Relative Density SPT N Value Consistency < 4 Very Loose < 2 Very Soft 4 10 Loose 2 4 Soft Med. Dense 5 8 Medium Stiff Dense 9 15 Stiff Very Dense Very Stiff > 80 Hard > 80 Very Hard DEGREE OF PLASTICITY Nonplastic Trace of Plasticity Low Plasticity Med. Plasticity High Plasticity Has no cohesion; will not roll into a thread. Barely hold its shape when rolled into a thread. Has sufficient cohesion to form a thread but will quickly rupture when deformed. Has considerable cohesion. Can be molded into a thread and will withstand considerable deformation without rupture. Can be kneaded like dough without trace of rupture. MOISTURE DESCRIPTIONS GRANULAR SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Dry No Apparent Moisture No Apparent Moisture Slightly Moist < Than 3% by Weight < Less Than Plastic Limit Moist 3% to 9% by Weight Approximately Plastic Limit Very Moist > 9% by Weight > than PL but < than LL Wet Submerged or Saturated Submerged or Saturated PLASTICITY Cohesion Plasticity Degree of TSF Index Plasticity None Low Moderate Plastic > 40 Highly Plastic > 2.0 ABBREVIATIONS V. Very Fl. Fairly Sl. Slightly Med. Medium Tr. Trace < - Less Than > - Greater Than PL Plastic Limit Mod. Moderately CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet B1

70 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis /Testing SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet B2

71 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis /Testing GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SOIL CLASSIFICATION REFERENCE INFORMATION Cohesive Soil Classification Chart U.S.STANDARD SIEVE 12 3 ¾ BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE ( ) Laboratory Test Methods: Moisture Content Tests: SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Moisture Contents are determined from representative portions of a soil sample. The samples initial weight is recorded and it is then dried to a constant weight. From this data the moisture content is calculated. Atterberg Limit Tests: Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL) and Shrinkage Limit (SL) tests are performed to aid in the classification of soils and to determine the plasticity and volume change characteristics of the materials. The Liquid Limit is the minimum moisture content at which a soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The Plastic Limit is the minimum moisture content at which the soil behaves as a plastic material. The Shrinkage Limit is the moisture content below which no further volume change will take place with continued drying. The Plasticity Index (PI) is the numeric difference between the Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit and indicates the range of moisture content over which a soil remains plastic. Grain Size Distribution Test (Particle Size Analysis, Sieve Analysis): The distribution of soils finer than the No. 200 sieve is determined by passing a representative soil sample through a standard set of nested sieves. The weight of material retained on each sieve is determined and the percentage passing (or retained) is calculated. For determination of the percentage of material finer than the No. 200 sieve, the specimen is first washed through the sieve. The distribution of the materials finer than the No. 200 is determined by use of the different size particles while suspended in water. CQC Testing and Engineering LLC TBPE Firm Registration No. F Sheet B3

72 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis/Testing APPENDIX C People Committed to Delivering Top-Quality Services Consistently

73 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis / Testing CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NAME: El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements PHOTO NO. 1 Existing conditions at Lackland St. looking south. PHOTO NO. 2 Existing conditions at Lackland St. looking north. PHOTO NO. 3 View of proposed west pond slope PHOTO NO. 4 View of proposed west pond slope and area of proposed culvert structure looking south. Project No. AGCQC Date: 12/18/13 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC Sheet C1 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

74 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis / Testing CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NAME: El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements PHOTO NO. 5 View of proposed west. area of culvert structure looking PHOTO NO. 6 View of proposed cul-de-sac limits at Lackland Street looking east. PHOTO NO. 7 View of existing conditions at the west slope of the pond looking south. PHOTO NO. 8 View of existing conditions at the west slope of the pond looking north. Project No. AGCQC Date: 12/18/13 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC Sheet C2 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

75 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis / Testing CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NAME: El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements PHOTO NO. 9 View of portion of existing soil berm along the south side of the pond washed away by apparent water infiltration. PHOTO NO. 10 View of existing conditions at the south slope of the pond looking west. PHOTO NO. 11 View of existing conditions at the east slope of the pond looking east. PHOTO NO. 12 View of existing conditions at the east slope of the pond looking north. Project No. AGCQC Date: 12/18/13 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC Sheet C3 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

76 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis / Testing CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NAME: El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements PHOTO NO. 13 View of existing conditions at the north slope of the pond looking northwest. PHOTO NO. 14 View of existing conditions at the north slope of the pond looking north. PHOTO NO. 15 View of existing conditions at the north slope of the pond looking west. PHOTO NO. 16 View of proposed area of box culvert structures looking north. Project No. AGCQC Date: 12/18/13 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC Sheet C4 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

77 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis / Testing CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NAME: El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements PHOTO NO. 17 View of proposed area of box culvert structures looking northeast. PHOTO NO. 18 View of proposed area of box culvert structures looking south. PHOTO NO. 19 View of standing water within the excavated pond area. PHOTO NO. 20 View of existing conditions within the excavated pond area looking north. Project No. AGCQC Date: 12/18/13 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC Sheet C5 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

78 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis / Testing CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NAME: El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements PHOTO NO. 21 View of existing conditions within the excavated pond area looking south. PHOTO NO. 22 View of existing conditions within the excavated pond area looking southwest. PHOTO NO. 23 View of existing conditions within the excavated pond area looking south. PHOTO NO. 24 View of existing conditions within the excavated pond area looking southeast. Project No. AGCQC Date: 12/18/13 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC Sheet C6 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

79 Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis / Testing CLIENT: Moreno Cardenas Inc. PROJECT NAME: El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) Proposed Austin Stormwater Pond Improvements PHOTO NO. 25 View of drilling operations at Boring location B-4A. Water was noted in the borehole at a depth of approximately 23 feet. PHOTO NO. 26 View of installation of PVC pipe for percolation test. PHOTO NO. 27 View of PVC pipe and water at bottom of test bore hole. PHOTO NO. 28 View of location of pipe left in place to monitor suspected perched water zone. Project No. AGCQC Date: 12/18/13 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC Sheet C7 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632