The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 November 10, 2014 Alan Gibbs, P.E. City Engineer Development Services City of College Station College Station, Texas RE: Letter Acknowledging City Standards—Castlegate II Subdivision— Section 206 Dear Mr. Gibbs: The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the water, sanitary sewer, streets and drainage for the above-referenced project, to the best of my knowledge, do not deviate from the B/CS Design Guideline Manual. I also acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge, the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the B/CS Standard Details. Sincerely, •)W0" OF - s."*.#14\\* Jo ph . Schultz, P.E. Civil Engineer 'A •••-••• ••••- *• JflSEPN P. SCHULTZ 141111,4 414 Oil 65889 tbismo 14.4,41 F-12327 /z"1"7/ SCHULTZ ENGINEERING, LLC, P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com 14 aOt I n _ 2 I FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: OS -2n\ DATE SUBMITTED: 02' 1 2 'I S Off" TIME: ' 2(� CITY OF COI]Fr,E STATION STAFF: f)\-.Hone of TexarAdM Usiry' , PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. ❑ New Project Submittal ❑ Incomplete Project Submittal-documents needed to completenan application. Case No.: Existing Project Submittal. Case No.: \4 _ C 1 \ Project Name C/s \ 1 SQc., 2 V Contact Name -- Phone Number We are transmitting the following for Planning&Development Services to review and comment(check all that apply). ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Non-Residential Architectural Standards ❑ Rezoning Application El Irrigation Plan El Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance Request ❑ Preliminary Plan ❑ Development Permit ❑ Final Plat Development Exaction Appeal ❑ Development Plat ❑ FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR ❑ Site Plan ❑ Grading Plan ❑ Special District Site Plan ❑ Other-Please specify below ❑ Special District Building/Sign ❑ Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Waterline Construction Documents ❑ TxDOT Driveway Permit ❑ Sewerline Construction Documents ❑ TxDOT Utility Permit ❑ Street Construction Documents ❑ Drainage Letter or Report ❑ Easement Application ❑ Fire Flow Analysis Other- Please specify c n . c o0Ame --, Special Instructions: 10/10 Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 February 12, 2015 Kevin Ferrer Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77840 Re: Castlegate II Subdivsion—Sec 206—14-00900291 Dear Mr. Ferrer: Attached are 4 sets of construction documents for stamping. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Schultz Engineering,LLC. i' 1611111Alitt. Joe 1 ultz,P.E. Civil ngineer P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com 5. Updated title info dated within 60 days of request, and submittal of all required lien releases and subordinations. 6. Submittal of all bonds when required. 7. Breakdown of actual costs of the Project, with documentation, including receipts. **Reimbursement is to be based on actual costs up to the maximum agreed to and NOT engineer's estimates** It is vital that staff review actual costs and makes proper analysis as to amount owed developer/owner. Timeline Notes: In general there are standard submittal deadlines (in the Planning and Development Services Department for development projects) every other week for Council items which the meeting would then be six weeks after the submittal deadline. This time frame requires that all submittals are complete and adequate and that the owner's signatory is able to sign a contract on a short turnaround within that timeframe as well. P:\Legal\PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FORMS\Flow Sheets\Flow sheet-requiremts construct public infrastruct.docxl2/5/20144:35:37 PM Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 December 31, 2014 Alan Gibbs, P.E. City Engineer Development Services City of College Station College Station, Texas RE: Letter Acknowledging City Standards—Castlegate II Subdivision—Section 206 Dear Mr. Gibbs: The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the water, sanitary sewer, streets and drainage for the above-referenced project, to the best of my knowledge, do not deviate from the B/CS Design Guideline Manual except that waterline W-8 from station 40+00 to station 42+00, shown on Sheet 17, has a bury depth more than 5' in order for the waterline to have 2' separation under the existing pipeline. Also, the sanitary sewer lines crossing Etonbury Avenue will not be in casings. All other sanitary sewer lines crossing major collectors in this subdivision have been installed without casings. No other alternate design or construction methodology was used. I also acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge, the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the B/CS Standard Details. Sincerely, ci-Ty\f\p- 4, ' '.JoSchultz, P.E. * * Civil Engineer `JOSEPH P. SCAITZ 1111riis1k01111a11a.1*044a+011*asr0a111. 85889 tbisnOtts, ( Z- 3(-I F-1: 7 SCHULTZ ENGINEERING„ LLC. P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 December 31,2014 Fax: 979.764.3910 Kevin Ferrer Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77840 Re: Request for Oversize Participation Expenditures Castlegate II Subdivision,Section 206 Dear Mr.Ferrer: With this letter we wish to initiate a request for Oversize Participation by the City of College Station for the 12" water line being installed with Section 206 of the Castlegate II Subdivision. This water line was designed to comply with the City's Water Master Plan. The construction plans for the water system are included with this submittal for your review. They show approximately 804 linear feet of 12"water line routed through Section 206. In the attached Water System Report,the water system has been modeled using an 8"water line as the main line. The model demonstrates that the system performs above minimum standards using the 8" line as the main line. We conclude that anything larger than an 8" line can be considered oversized. Also, included with this submittal is an estimated cost of the water system using 12" lines and another using 8" lines. The difference in construction cost between the two line sizes and the related fittings is $17,088. We believe this is a conservative number and that the actual construction costs should not exceed that figure. I also estimate a cost of$4,500 for the performance and payment bonds and other fees. The total Oversized Participation request is$21,588. This figure is approximately 12.6%of the overall water system cost and is well below the threshold limit of 30%,where competitive bidding becomes a requirement. We ask that you review this submittal and let us know what subsequent steps we need to take to move forward with this request. Sincerely, Schultz Engineering,LLC. Joe Se,' ltz,P.E. Civil Engineer/Manager Attachments P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com �` Office Use Only: (fr ffil44OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION Time: INFORMATION SHEET Date Submitted: CITY or COLLEGE GE STATION Staff: Home of Texas AerM University' THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER(S) :Dos Dorado Development,LLC d/b/a 3-D Development (Names must be exactly as they appear on the deed) STREET ADDRESS :4490 Castlegate Drive CITY :College Station STATE: Tx ZIP CODE : 77845 ALL LENDERS (Please furnish copies of all lien documents) :Diebel Family Partners,Ltd.3113 Triple Crown Court, (Name and Addresses) Denton,TX 76210 IF OWNER IS A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, OR JOINT VENTURE (also see#5 below) : 1. State of Incorporation/Registration : Texas 2. Partners' Names (if applicable) : N/A 3. Person Authorized to Sign :Wallace Phillips IV,Manager (Name and Title) LEGAL DEPARTMENT MUST BE PROVIDED WITH THE FOLLOWING : (Please check items that are attached) ❑x 1. A copy of a recent(within 90 days) deed or title insurance policy showing names of the grantors/owners. ❑x 2. For Unplatted property, a signed, sealed and dated metes and bounds description and a diagram of the property showing the location. ❑ 3. For Platted property, a copy of the plat showing the lot, block, subdivision and recording information. XQ 4. Corporate or partnership owners must furnish a copy of a corporate resolution or other proof of authority to sign on behalf of the corporation, partnership, or joint venture. X❑ 5. Name, address and phone number of person who is to receive the oversize participation. Wallace Phillips IV,4490 Castlegate Drive,College Station,Tx,77845,979.690.7250 Print Form _ N 0 rn `° > (n �C w O 00 0 x v, r tri > w V1 N 00 .--i l0 I". E chi 0 rt V o O RA 1/1 00 oo CL ri d: M N O O o — y c c C o0 O N 00 • J 0 0 J N CO > 5 0 £ U c o0 00 ✓ N a N U d C1 X co p w N 0.4) oo a > 4. Z U U II Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Dec 23 2014 Culver 418 - 10 Yr Storm Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 314.58 Calculations Pipe Length (ft) = 80.00 Qmin (cfs) = 6.19 Slope (%) = 1.00 Qmax (cfs) = 8.48 Invert Elev Up (ft) = 315.38 Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2 Rise (in) = 18.0 Shape = Circular Highlighted Span (in) = 18.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 6.19 No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 6.19 n-Value = 0.012 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Culvert Type = Circular Concrete Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 3.99 Culvert Entrance = Square edge w/headwall (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 5.18 Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 HGL Dn (ft) = 315.81 HGL Up (ft) = 316.34 Embankment 72_ Hw Elev (ft) = 316.87 Top Elevation (ft) = 318.32 Hw/D (ft) = 0.99 Top Width (ft) = 38.00 Flow Regime = Inlet Control Crest Width (ft) = 38.00 Elev(1) Culver 418-10 Yr Storm Hr Oept(R) 31900 3.62 311.00 2"82 317.00 _ 1.12 31900 ...... 0.12 315.00 -0.31 314.00 -1.31 313.00 -2.38 0 10 20 30 40 60 9) 70 111 90 100 110 120 Greeter Culvert 1401. Embank Reach(R) 0 1 1 e I 1 I 1 1 Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Dec 23 2014 Culver 418 - 100 Yr Storm Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 314.58 Calculations Pipe Length (ft) = 80.00 Qmin (cfs) = 6.19 Slope (%) = 1.00 Qmax (cfs) = 8.48 Invert Elev Up (ft) = 315.38 Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2 Rise (in) = 18.0 Shape = Circular Highlighted Span (in) = 18.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 8.48 No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 8.48 n-Value = 0.012 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Culvert Type = Circular Concrete Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 5.17 Culvert Entrance = Square edge w/headwall (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 5.96 Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 HGL Dn (ft) = 315.89 HGL Up (ft) = 316.51 Embankment 7Z Hw Elev (ft) = 317.29 Top Elevation (ft) = 318.32 Hw/D (ft) = 1.28 Top Width (ft) = 38.00 Flow Regime = Inlet Control Crest Width (ft) = 38.00 Bev(8) Culver 418-100 Yr Storm 1;"cea'h(ft) 319.00 3.62. 3161)0 ! 2.82 , Pr 'NI ..... ..,.._.._ __._..._.__ ._ .. ._.__.._...rl{£46 ... 31700 1.82 316.00 _-__........ 0.82 ................................. 395.00 438 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .... ._...... ......._ ........ ................ ...............................] 314.00 _1.36 313.00 -210 0 10 20 30 40 60 W 70 80 80 100 110 120 OkNrPivot HOl Embank !j Ruch(I) Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday,Dec 23 2014 Culver 419 - 10 Yr Storm Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 303.79 Calculations Pipe Length (ft) = 48.00 Qmin (cfs) = 7.58 Slope (%) = 1.00 Qmax (cfs) = 10.42 Invert Elev Up (ft) = 304.27 Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2 Rise (in) = 18.0 Shape = Circular Highlighted Span (in) = 18.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 7.58 No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 7.58 n-Value = 0.012 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Culvert Type = Circular Concrete Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 4.71 Culvert Entrance = Square edge w/headwall (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 5.65 Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 HGL Dn (ft) = 305.07 HGL Up (ft) = 305.34 Embankment Hw Elev (ft) = 306.00 Top Elevation (ft) = 307.67 Hw/D (ft) = 1.16 Top Width (ft) = 12.00 Flow Regime = Inlet Control Crest Width (ft) = 12.00 Elev(R) Culver 419-10 Yr Storm hue Depth(rt) 308.00 3.73 30700 2.73 306.00 1.73 306.00 _........ .......... 0.73 304.00 30300 -1.27 302.00 -2.27 0 5 10 16 20 26 30 35 40 46 50 66 60 66 70 Circe.ar Culvert HOl. Embolic Reach(0) Culvert Report Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk®AutoCAD®Civil 3D®by Autodesk,Inc. Tuesday,Dec 23 2014 Culver 419 - 100 Yr Storm Invert Elev Dn (ft) = 303.79 Calculations Pipe Length (ft) = 48.00 Qmin (cfs) = 7.58 Slope (%) = 1.00 Qmax (cfs) = 10.42 Invert Elev Up (ft) = 304.27 Tailwater Elev (ft) = (dc+D)/2 Rise (in) = 18.0 Shape = Circular Highlighted Span (in) = 18.0 Qtotal (cfs) = 10.42 No. Barrels = 1 Qpipe (cfs) = 10.42 n-Value = 0.012 Qovertop (cfs) = 0.00 Culvert Type = Circular Concrete Veloc Dn (ft/s) = 6.16 Culvert Entrance = Square edge w/headwall (C) Veloc Up (ft/s) = 6.67 Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k = 0.0098, 2, 0.0398, 0.67, 0.5 HGL Dn (ft) = 305.16 HGL Up (ft) = 305.51 Embankment Hw Elev (ft) = 306.65 Top Elevation (ft) = 307.67 Hw/D (ft) = 1.59 Top Width (ft) = 12.00 Flow Regime = Inlet Control Crest Width (ft) = 12.00 Etev{rte Calver 419-100 Yr Storm HW Depth((01 1 308.00 3.73 307.00 2.73 1 � ....._. ...._ ......... 1 § 306A0 .._. ........ 1.73 306.00 ..._......._..._..............._... 0.73 ? 304.00 or i lj 903.00 ..............._...........EL _......_. ......................................................................................................................._........._......_.......................................................................................... -1.27 '.i 1 -227 5 ;1 302.00 0 6 10 16 20 36 40 46 60 66 60 66 70 CketiarCWvw! MI- Baer* RUM{R► i I 31 1 1 f 1 3 f 1 1 1 s 1 1 FOR OFFIC .E •NL CASE NO.: 02 DATE SUBMI EI: /A r/ al IF TIME: OF COLLEGE STATION me of Texas AefM University" STAFF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. ❑ New Project Submittal n Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application. Case No.: IXI Existing Project Submittal. Case No.: 14-00900291 Project Name CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION- SECTION 206 Contact Name JOE SCHULTZ, P.E. Phone Number 979.764.3900 We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment(check all that apply): Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Non-Residential Architectural Standards ❑ Rezoning Application I I Irrigation Plan ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance Request n Preliminary Plan n Development Permit Final Plat Development Exaction Appeal ❑ Development Plat FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR Site Plan X Grading Plan ❑ Special District Site Plan x Other- Please specify below ❑ Special District Building /Sign Civil Construction Plans ❑ Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: n Comprehensive Plan Amendment x Waterline Construction Documents I I TxDOT Driveway Permit ❑X Sewerline Construction Documents TxDOT Utility Permit n Street Construction Documents ❑ Drainage Letter or Report I I Easement Application n Fire Flow Analysis ❑ Other- Please specify Special Instructions: To Kevin Ferrer for stamping 1 on o Print Form (tIrri4FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: '0641 DATE SUBMITTED: Z• I t0• L CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TIME: Home of Texas A&M University' STAFF: 1 01 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. ❑ New Project Submittal Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application. Case No.: 'XI Existing Project Submittal. Case No.: 14-00900291 Project Name CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION- SECTION 206 Contact Name JOE SCHULTZ, P.E. Phone Number 979.764.3900 We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment (check all that apply): I I Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑- Non-Residential Architectural Standards ❑ Rezoning Application n Irrigation Plan n Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance Request n Preliminary Plan ❑- Development Permit n Final Plat LJ Development Exaction Appeal ❑ Development Plat ❑ FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR ❑ Site Plan n Grading Plan n Special District Site Plan n Other- Please specify below ❑ Special District Building /Sign Civil Construction Plans n Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: I I Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑X Waterline Construction Documents ❑ TxDOT Driveway Permit ❑x Sewerline Construction Documents TxDOT Utility Permit ❑X Street Construction Documents ❑X Drainage Letter or Report n Easement Application (l Fire Flow Analysis ❑ Other- Please specify Special Instructions: 1 oi10 Print Form Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 February 16, 2015 Kevin Ferrer Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77840 Re: Castlegate II Subdivsion—Sec 206—14-00900291 Dear Mr. Ferrer: Attached are one (1) set of revised construction documents for your review. The following changes were made to the City Stamped Plans: • The alignment of pipes 416 and 417 were changed so the pipes would be aligned with the lot line that will be proposed in the future development of Section 207 (sheet 12). • At the request of the pipeline company (email attached), 3' separation is provided between the proposed waterline w-8 and the existing pipeline(sheet 17). • Street lights were moved at the request of College Station utilities. Additional P.U.E.s were added to the plans(sheets 1 and 2). • Lot lines were moved at the request of the developer. Only water and sewer services were moved. No proposed mainline layout or slopes were changed. (Final Plat and All sheets) All changes to the plans are marked with a revision cloud and an addendum description. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Schultz Engineering,LLC. 4iLlakali 1 / Joe Sc z,P.E. Civil E' a neer P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com Ricky Flores From: Leynes, Caesar <cleynes@eprod.com> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 6:38 AM To: Ricky Flores Subject: RE: 7882-Castlegate II, Sec 206-Rds, Utils, Walks-Greens Prairie Rd & Etonbury in Brazos Co., TX Because our operations found out there are anomaly issues on the pipeline, in cases like that we need 3 feet.The 2 feet I advised you OK to me was without knowing yet the issue. I hope you understand where I was coming from. Thanks. Caesar C. Leynes ENG - Field Engineering- Encroachments Office: 281-887-3347 cleynes@eprod.com From: Ricky Flores [mailto:ricky@schultzengineeringllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:45 PM To: Leynes, Caesar Subject: RE: 7882-Castlegate II, Sec 206-Rds, Utils, Walks-Greens Prairie Rd & Etonbury in Brazos Co., TX Caesar, We agreed on 2 feet separation From: Leynes,Caesar [ma ilto:cleynes@eprod.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:05 PM To: Ricky Flores Subject: RE: 7882-Castlegate II, Sec 206-Rds, Utils, Walks-Greens Prairie Rd & Etonbury in Brazos Co.,TX Hi Ricky, On your proposed 12-inch PVC waterline, because we may leave the pipeline in idle status and that we may modify it in the future (subject to our higher management's decision latest by next week), can you please confirm to install that waterline with 3 feet vertical clearance to the bottom of the pipeline via trenchless construction method? Call me please if you have any question. Thanks. Caesar C. Leynes ENG - Field Engineering- Encroachments Office: 281-887-3347 cleynes@eprod.com From: Leynes, Caesar Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 2:20 PM To: 'Ricky Flores' Subject: RE: 7882-Castlegate II, Sec 206-Rds, Utils, Walks-Greens Prairie Rd & Etonbury in Brazos Co., TX 1 Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 February 16, 2015 Jessica Bullock Staff Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77840 Re: Castlegate II Subdivsion—Sec 206—14-00900291 Dear Ms. Bullock: Attached are one (1) 24" x 36" copy of the revised Final Plat and thirteen (13)11"x17"copies of the revised Final Plat. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Schultz Engineering,LLC. Joe Sci� tz,P.E. Civil E gineer P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com Jessica Bullock From: Jessica Bullock Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 5:40 PM To: Ricky Flores Cc: 'dustyphillips52@yahoo.com'; Kevin Ferrer Subject: FW: Castlegate II 206 Ricky, We will need 13 11x17s of the plat for the P&Z meeting. We currently have it set for the meeting on March 5th. I took a look at the fees paid on Section 202 and moving forward only community development fees will be due on the other sections. Prior to filing parkland dedication of$32,500 will be due and paid tax certificates if not current. If you have not already please also send the digital version of the plat to pdsdigitalsubmittal@cstx.gov. Let me know if you have any questions, Jessica Bullock Staff Planner Planning & Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1 101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Office: 979.764.3757 Fax: 979.764.3496 Email:jbullock@cstx.gov Website: www.cstx.gov From: Kevin Ferrer Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:31 PM To:Jessica Bullock Subject: FW: Castlegate II 206 Can you let Ricky know what we need for P&Z. Thanks, Kevin From: Ricky Flores [mailto:ricky@schultzengineeringllc.com] Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:06 PM To: Kevin Ferrer Subject: RE: Castlegate II 206 1 0 Ricky From: Kevin Ferrer [mailto:kferrer@cstx.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:57 AM To: 'Ricky Flores' Subject: RE: Castlegate II 206 Ricky, No not yet. I plan to look at it later today after my PAC or tomorrow. Please tell your client that we have a 2 week review process. I have a lot going on right now and I will get to it as soon as possible. Thanks, Kevin From: Ricky Flores [mailto:ricks@schultzengineeringllc.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:52 AM To: Kevin Ferrer Subject: Castlegate II 206 Kevin, Did you get a chance to look at the Castlegate II 206 plans? I have the client asking me when we can get the development permit Thanks Ricky City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University 3 ` FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ( CASE NO.: 1(1 DATE SUBMITTED:02_- OZ.1111*-r TIME: `Z_! CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas AerM University' STAFF: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. ❑ New Project Submittal Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application. Case No.: n Existing Project Submittal. Case No.: 14-00900291 Project Name CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION- SECTION 206 Contact Name JOE SCHULTZ, P.E. Phone Number 979.764.3900 We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment(check all that apply): I I Comprehensive Plan Amendment Non-Residential Architectural Standards ❑ Rezoning Application Irrigation Plan n Conditional Use Permit Variance Request ❑ Preliminary Plan n Development Permit IXI Final Plat _ Development Exaction Appeal I I Development Plat ❑ FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR Site Plan 0 Grading Plan Special District Site Plan X Other- Please specify below n Special District Building /Sign Civil Construction Plans I Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: n Comprehensive Plan Amendment n Waterline Construction Documents n TxDOT Driveway Permit n Sewerline Construction Documents TxDOT Utility Permit ❑X Street Construction Documents AXI Drainage Letter or Report ❑ Easement Application Fire Flow Analysis ❑ Other- Please specify Special Instructions: 10/10 Print Form Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 February 2,2015 Jessica Bullock Staff Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77840 Re: Castlegate II Subdivsion—Sec 206—14-00900291 Dear Ms. Bullock: Attached are one (1) 24" x 36" copy of the revised Final Plat, 1 set of revised construction documents and the response to staff comments. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Schultz Engineering,LLC. f Joe Sc�, ltz,P.E. Civil ngineer P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com ` FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 2,6kCASE NO.: —I — �l DATE SUBMITTED: 01 J 02—ill S TIME: 5'.3�j CITY OF COLLEGE STATION n 3 Home of Texas A&M University" STAFF: i'� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. New Project Submittal Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application. Case No.: n Existing Project Submittal. Case No.: 14-00900291 Project Name CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION- SECTION 206 Contact Name JOE SCHULTZ, P.E. Phone Number 979.764.3900 We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment (check all that apply): I I Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Non-Residential Architectural Standards Rezoning Application n Irrigation Plan I I Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance Request Preliminary Plan I I Development Permit n Final Plat I I Development Exaction Appeal Development Plat FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR Site Plan ❑X Grading Plan ❑ Special District Site Plan ❑X Other- Please specify below n Special District Building /Sign Civil Construction Plans ❑ Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: I I Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑x Waterline Construction Documents TxDOT Driveway Permit Sewerline Construction Documents TxDOT Utility Permit ❑X Street Construction Documents x Drainage Letter or Report ❑ Easement Application Fire Flow Analysis n Other- Please specify Special Instructions: 10/10 �; _` Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 December 31,2014 Jessica Bullock Staff Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77840 Re: Castlegate II Subdivsion—Sec 206—14-00900291 Dear Ms. Bullock: Attached are one (1) 24" x 36" copy of the revised Final Plat, 2 sets of revised construction documents,the revised Engineer's Estimate, 2 copies of the revisions to the drainage report, a revised oversized participation request, 2 copies of the lift station design and the response to staff comments. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Schultz En ' eering,LLC. I� Jo �.chultz,P.E. Ci '1 Engineer P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com `41' FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: mum TIME: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of TexasAeMUniversity' STAFF: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. New Project Submittal ❑ Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application. Case No.: M Existing Project Submittal. Case No.: 14-00900291 Project Name CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION- SECTION 206 Contact Name JOE SCHULTZ, P.E. Phone Number 979.764.3900 We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment (check all that apply): Comprehensive Plan Amendment n Non-Residential Architectural Standards Rezoning Application n Irrigation Plan n Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance Request I I Preliminary Plan I I Development Permit Ixl Final Plat I I Development Exaction Appeal Development Plat ❑ FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR ❑ Site Plan n Grading Plan Special District Site Plan n Other- Please specify below n Special District Building /Sign Civil Construction Plans ❑ Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: Comprehensive Plan Amendment x Waterline Construction Documents ❑ TxDOT Driveway Permit Sewerline Construction Documents TxDOT Utility Permit n Street Construction Documents ❑X Drainage Letter or Report n Easement Application ❑ Fire Flow Analysis _ Other- Please specify Special Instructions: 10/10 Print Form Schultz Engineering, LLC Office: 979.764.3900 Fax: 979.764.3910 January 20, 2015 Jessica Bullock Staff Planner City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77840 Re: Castlegate II Subdivsion—Sec 206—14-00900291 Dear Ms. Bullock: Attached are one (1) 24" x 36" copy of the revised Final Plat, 2 sets of revised construction documents and the response to staff comments. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Schultz Engineering,LLC. / / i/ Joe ichultz,P.E. Civil Engineer P.O. Box 11995 • College Station,Texas 77842 schultzengineeringllc.com Kevin Ferrer From: Kevin Ferrer Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:19 AM To: 'Joe Schultz'; Israel Koite Cc: Dusty Phillips; Dornak, Mark E. Subject: RE: Castlegate II - Section 206 Hi Joe, I agree with your recommendations, but do retest Bellisor Court—report 0004 that has a low pH value,11.7. Thanks, Kevin From:Joe Schultz [mailto:joeschultz84@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 11:22 AM To: Kevin Ferrer; Israel Koite Cc: Dusty Phillips; Dornak, Mark E. Subject: Castlegate II -Section 206 Kevin, attached are the test results for the lime stabilized subgrade for this project. here is my analysis and recommendations: Etonbury Avenue—report 0003—ready for compaction testing and then pavement placement once passing compaction and moisture tests are achieved—Station 27+60 to Station 33+50, additional tests needed for pH and PI at Station 36+00, 38+00,40+00(recheck) and 41+00 to determine if additional lime needs to be added Uphor Court—report 0004—pH is low, 10.9, but PI is good, 13, additional tests needed for pH and PI at Station 1+00 and 3+00 to determine if subgrade is adequately stabilized Bellisor Court—report 0004—pH is low, 11.7 on one test, but PI is good, 14, so this street ready for compaction testing and then pavement placement once passing compaction and moisture tests are achieved Somerton Court—report 0005—pH and PI good, ready for compaction testing and then pavement placement once passing compaction and moisture tests are achieved Please review and let me know if you agree with my recommendation or have any questions. thanks Joe Joe Schultz, P.E. Schultz Engineering, LLC 2730 Longmire, Suite A College Station,TX 77845 Office 979.764.3900 1 Date: October 7, 2015 To: Kevin Ferrer: The time lime is: Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 8, 9, 10 and 26 are completed as of 10/7/2015. The permanent Pumps will be installed as soon as pumps show up. Should be here by November 1, 2015. The remaining electrical issues will be taken care of immediately. Items 6 will be taken care of this week. 3D Development will take full responsibilities for fees, liabilities, maintenance, and any other issue that may arise for a not completed Lift station, including pumping and cleaning out any sewer until the Lift station has been completed and accepted. We Understand a Letter of Completion will not be issued until all associated construction is complete. We understand and accept no Certificate of Occupancy or temporary Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until the Lift station has been completed and accepted. Thank you, Wallace "Dusty" Phillips IV 1 Castlegate II Section 206 Lift station punch list: 1. The temporary pumps that are currently installed in the wetwell have lifting chains and no bails. The permanent pumps must have a heavy stainless steel strap bail attached, which extends 24 inches above the top of the pump. This is shown on the drawings. 'k_The roof over the control panels needs to be raised 12 inches, and the welds need to be ground and cleaned up. N3,The roof frame needs to be primed and painted. We need and access step on the side of the wetwell/valve vault to provide a step up to the top of the wetwell/valve vault cover. The step is to have a rise of 9 inches and a tread of 12 inches. It is to be positioned on the side of the valve vault closest to the gate, and extend from where the wetwell and valve vault intersect to the nearest corner of the valve vault. \The valve covers on the valve boxes for the sewer lines are labeled as water valves. These need to be changed to be labeled as sewer valves. 6. A sign meeting TCEQ standard needs to be added to the fence of the lift station. The contractor said that he was going to get measurements and pictures of the sign on the Creek Meadows lift station and have the sign made to match that. "k Install a fork latch that will secure the gate and has provision for a lock so that it can be locked. \8,`The rock in the lift station is too coarse to provide good footing. The contractor said that he would bring in a layer of caliche dirt and put over the rock to provide a level, secure footing surface. '\Repair or replace the pump guide rail nearest to the gate has a pronounced curve to it. This rail must be straight. The cam lock fitting on the suction line (on top of the wetwell cover) is male. This needs to be changed to a female fitting, with cover. 11. Install white power light on top of the control panel as shown in the drawings. 12. There is not a fiber termination box provided on the panel support frame. This was specified by the City and is shown in the drawings approved by the City. This must be installed. C✓ rngiraerrnp,&Enurrsrtrartaf LGns+uItants, Inc. C August 26,2013 3-D Development, LLC 4490 Castlegate Drive College Station,TX 77845 Attention: Mr. Dusty Phillips Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Study for Proposed Etonbury Avenue in the Castlegate II Subdivision From Greens Prairie Road to Western Boundary of Castlegate II Subdivision College Station, Texas CSC Project Number 13097-34 Dear Mr. Phillips: CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) is pleased to submit to 3-D Development, LLC one (1) original unbound report describing the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study performed by CSC along the alignment of the proposed Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II Subdivision in College Station, Texas. An electronic copy of the report is also transmitted to you and also to the design engineer for the proposed roadway,Mr. Joe Schultz,P.E. of Schultz Engineering,LLC. The work associated with the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study performed for this project was executed in accordance with CSC's proposal to 3-D Development, LLC dated July 19, 2013. The proposal was accepted by Mr. Wallace S. Phillips, IV, President of 3-D Development, LLC on July 19, 2013. General Project Description. The proposed roadway will be constructed as part of development of the Castlegate II Subdivision and will extend northwest from a proposed intersection with Greens Prairie Road for a distance of approximately 4,160 feet to the western or northwestern boundary of the Castlegate II Subdivision as illustrated on Figure 1 — Project Vicinity Map and Figure 2 — Site Plan and Plan of Borings in Appendix A of the transmitted report. The proposed roadway alignment will cross one (1) small drainage way near the proposed intersection with Somerton Court. We do not anticipate that the proposed roadway will require any bridges or major culvert structures along the route of the alignment. The proposed roadway will be situated between two other existing major roadways along Greens Prairie Road,namely W.S. Phillips Parkway and Sweetwater Drive. We anticipate that the roadway will be constructed within a 77 foot wide right-of-way (ROW). We further anticipate that the paved roadway cross-section will be approximately 38 feet wide as measured from back-to-back of curb. The paved roadway section will include two (2) drive-through or travel lanes of 13-foot width and two (2) bike lanes with widths of 6-feet (to back of curb). We anticipate that the 3407 Tabor Road Phone(979)778-2810 Bryan, Texas 77808 Fax(979)778-0820 Mr. Dusty Phillips, 3-D Development,LLC Transmittal of Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Study for Proposed Etonbury Avenue Greens Prairie Road to Northwestern Boundary of Castlegate II Subdivision College Station,TX Page 2 pavement for the roadway will consist of a rigid pavement section constructed of Portland cement concrete(PCC). Sidewalks will be constructed on the both sides of the completed roadway section. No specific traffic studies are known to have been conducted by the City of College Station(City) for the proposed roadway project. Such traffic studies would typically provide information for traffic volumes, patterns, and vehicle characteristics (e.g., type of vehicles, percentage of heavy truck traffic, etc.). However, we believe that the volume of the traffic that will utilize the proposed roadway will be similar to that of a major collector street as defined under the current edition of the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys. We believe that the traffic utilizing the proposed roadway will predominantly consist of light passenger vehicles with a small percentage of heavy truck traffic. The fmal grading plans associated with the proposed roadway are not known at the present time, but we anticipate that depths of cuts or thickness of fill required to develop the roadway subgrade elevations will be no more that 1-foot with respect to existing surface grades. Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Study. The field exploration program was initiated and completed on July 27, 2013. The field exploration program consisted of drilling eight (8) borings that were advanced to depths varying from approximately 6 feet below the existing surface grade along the major portion of the roadway route where minimum cuts or fills were anticipated, to 10 feet below the existing surface grade at the planned drainage way crossing. Geotechnical laboratory classification and strength tests were assigned to selected soil samples recovered during the field exploration program. The laboratory testing for the project was completed on August 15, 2013. The transmitted report documents the results of the field exploration and the related laboratory testing programs. Subsurface Stratigraphy. The subsurface stratigraphy at the boring locations was somewhat variable along the approximately 4,160 feet length of the roadway as might be expected. In general, the subsurface stratigraphy at the boring locations consisted of two distinct zones: (1)a surficial zone; and(2) a near-surface or intermediate zone. The surficial zone consisted of both granular soils, i.e., sands, and cohesive soils, i.e., clays, that extended from the ground surface to depths ranging from 1 to 4 feet below the ground surface. The granular soils were present at six (6) of the eight (8) boring locations and consisted of clayey sands and silty, clayey sands and silty sands that extended to depths ranging from 1 to 3 feet below the existing ground surface at the various boring locations. These fine sands and silts could become very weak and exhibit "pumping" tendencies if they are in a very moist to wet condition at the time of construction. The surficial zone was underlain by a near-surface or intermediate zone that typically consisted of thick deposits of clays and sandy clays of moderate to generally high plasticity. The clays exhibited consistencies, i.e., strength categorizations, in the stiff to very stiff range. However, a sandstone stratum was present below a depth of 2 feet at the boring B-8 location near Greens Prairie Road. This stratum was hard to very hard below a depth of 3 feet where auger refusal was encountered during drilling. All of the borings were advanced using dry auger drilling techniques so that ground water levels could be monitored during and immediately following completion of drilling. No ground water was observed in any of the eight (8) boreholes during drilling or immediately following completion of the drilling operations. Report Recommendations. The report contains recommendation for the rigid pavement section that is being considered for the proposed roadway. The recommended pavement section was determined from CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Mr. Dusty Phillips, 3-D Development,LLC Transmittal of Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Study for Proposed Etonbury Avenue Greens Prairie Road to Northwestern Boundary of Castlegate II Subdivision College Station, TX Page 3 the assumed traffic characterization outlined in the report and the anticipated natural and fill soil subgrade conditions. The rigid pavement section is composed of a Portland cement concrete(PCC) surface course and a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil layer. The report recommends the removal of the fine sands and silts that may be present in the subgrade and foundation zones of the pavement section following stripping of the area and excavations to the top of the planned roadway subgrade elevation. As stated in the report, these fine sands and silts will be very difficult to compact if they are in a wet condition at the time of construction. Select roadway fill soils as defined in the report should be used to replace the excavated soils in areas where it is necessary to use fill to achieve final grades. Furthermore, if planned excavation depths extend below 2 feet in the area of Greens Prairie Road and boring B-8, the contractor should be prepared to utilize heavy construction equipment to penetrate the sandstone formation in that area. The transmitted report presents recommendations related to construction of the proposed project including fill placement and preparation of the subgrade soils, stabilization of the pavement subgrade soil layer, and material characteristics and placement requirements for roadway project materials. Closing. CSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to 3-D Development, LLC on this project and looks forward to continuing our working relationship in the future. If you have any questions or need any additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me at(979)778-2810. Kindest regards, oatAttehiLeD11„ M. Frederick Conlin,Jr.,P.E. Senior Engineer MFC:rc Enclosures via e-mail [dustyphillips52@yahoo.com] cc: Mr. Joe Schultz,P.E. Schultz Engineering, LLC 2730 Longmire Drive, Suite A College Station,TX 77845 via: e-mail [joeschultz84@verizon.net] CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . r REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE FROM GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO NORTHWESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS Prepared for 3-D Development,LLC 4490 Castlegate Drive College Station,TX 77845 Prepared by CSC Engineering&Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3407 Tabor Road Bryan, Texas 77808 Texas Board of Professional Engineers Firm Registration Number: F-1078 CSC Project Number: 13097-34 roRrotk7IS ei:*.*****s:10,••••••••44 M F CONLIN,JR. * August 26, 2013 /.....00......4*.**.:* . titv 44481 V'Perass2c -.et' - A. .. Q,LADJ2,,„ „,, ,._ M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E. W. R. Cullen,RE. Senior Engineer QAJQC Reviewer- Senior Engineer CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.1.1 Sources of Project Information 1 1.1.2 General Description of Proposed Project 1 1.1.3 Proposed Project Grading Plans Along Roadway Alignment 2 1.1.4 Traffic Characterization 2 1.1.5 Pavement Sections 3 1.1.6 Utilities Associated With Proposed Roadway Project 4 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY 4 1.3 LIMITATIONS OF SCOPE OF STUDY 5 1.4 REPORT FORMAT 5 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 7 2.1 BORING LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS 7 2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES 7 2.3 OBSERVATION OF GROUND WATER LEVELS IN BOREHOLES 8 2.4 BORING LOGS 8 2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY 8 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 10 3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS AND MOISTURE CONTENT TESTS 10 3.2 STRENGTH TESTS 11 4.0 SITE OBSERVATIONS OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 12 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY 12 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE OR STRATIGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS 12 4.2.1 Soil Classification System Used in Subsurface Descriptions 13 4.2.2 General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy 14 4.2.3 Limitations of General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy 16 4.2.4 Water Level Observations 16 5.0 GENERAL PAVEMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS 19 5.1 GENERAL ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN OF PAVEMENT SECTION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY 19 5.2 SUBGRADE CLASSIFICATION 19 5.2.1 General Discussion of Anticipated Pavement and Fill Area Subgrade Soils 19 5.2.2 Potential Problem Areas Of Existing Soils Within the Planned Subgrade Zone of the Pavement and In Areas Planned for Roadway Fill Placement 20 5.2.3 Chemical Stabilization of Roadway Pavement Subgrade Soils 21 5.3 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CHARACTERISTICS 22 5.4 PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS 22 5.5 PAVEMENT SYSTEM DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE 24 5.5.1 Pavement Drainage 24 5.5.2 Pavement Maintenance 24 6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 26 6.1 CLEARING OF EXISTING SURFACE VEGETATION AND STRIPPING OF SURFICIAL ORGANIC MATERIALS 26 ii CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 6.2 PROOF ROLLING OF ROADWAY SUBGRADE SOILS OR AREAS PLANNED FOR FILL PLACEMENT 26 6.3 COMPACTION OF SUBGRADE SOILS IN PAVEMENT AREAS 27 6.4 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE 27 6.5 SELECT ROADWAY FILL SOILS MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PLACEMENT PROCEDURES 28 6.5.1 General 28 6.6 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS 29 6.7 RIGID PAVEMENT SECTION MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS 30 6.7.1 PCC Pavement, Curb and Gutter, and Drainage Structures 30 7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 32 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Additional Pavement Design Values For Proposed Etonbury Avenue(Rigid Pavement Section Only) 4 Table 2. Pavement Thickness Schedule for Conventionally Reinforced and Jointed PCC 23 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A—Figures,Boring Logs,and Key Sheets to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs Figures Figure 1 —Project Vicinity Map Figure 2—Site Plan and Plan of Borings Boring Loss B-1 through B-8 Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs Appendix B—Summary of Laboratory Test Results iii CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) for 3-D Development, LLC and documents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study of geologic conditions along the route of the proposed roadway known as Etonbury Avenue. The proposed project will involve the construction of a new roadway as part of development of the Castlegate II Subdivision which is located to the southwest of the existing Castlegate Subdivision as illustrated on Figure 1 —Project Vicinity Map in Appendix A of this report. The area of the proposed roadway project is hereinafter referred to as the project site, subject site, or simply"the site." The work associated with the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study performed for this project was executed in accordance with CSC's proposal to 3-D Development, LLC dated July 19, 2013. The proposal was accepted by Mr. Wallace S. Phillips, IV, President of 3-D Development, LLC on July 19,2013. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1.1 Sources of Project Information Information concerning the project was provided in an e-mail of July 18, 2013 from Mr. Joe Schultz, P.E. of Schultz Engineering, LLC (SE), project engineer for the proposed development. That e- mail communication included a plat of the proposed development created by Phillips Engineering which illustrated the proposed roadway alignment. 1.1.2 General Description of Proposed Project CSC understands that a new road will be constructed as part of development of the Castlegate II Subdivision and that SE is the design engineering firm for the project. The proposed roadway will extend northwest from a proposed intersection with Greens Prairie Road for a distance of approximately 4,160 feet to the western or northwestern boundary of the Castlegate II Subdivision as illustrated on Figure 2— Site Plan and Plan of Borings in Appendix A. The proposed roadway alignment will cross one(1) small drainage way near the proposed intersection with Somerton Court. We do not anticipate that the proposed roadway will require any bridges or major culvert structures along the route of the alignment. The proposed roadway will be situated between two other existing major roadways along Greens Prairie Road, namely W.S. Phillips Parkway and Sweetwater Drive. 1 , I CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX We understand that the proposed roadway will be functionally classified as a major suburban collector. A major collector is defined under the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys (2012), which is hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines. Table VI — Street Classification Definitions of the referenced Guidelines defines a major collector street as... A street which primarily serves vehicular traffic (in the general range of 5,000 to 10,000 VP [vehicles per day]from residential streets and minor collectors to arterials. A collector may also provide very limited access to abutting properties is approved by the City. We anticipate that the roadway will be constructed within a 77 foot wide right-of-way (ROW). We further anticipate that the paved roadway cross-section will be approximately 38 feet wide as measured from back-to-back of curb. The paved roadway section will include two (2) drive-through or travel lanes of 13-foot width, as well as two (2) bike lanes with widths of 6-feet (to back of curb). We anticipate that the pavement for the roadway will consist of a rigid pavement section constructed of Portland cement concrete (PCC). Sidewalks will be constructed on the both sides of the completed roadway section. 1.1.3 Proposed Project Grading Plans Along Roadway Alignment The final grading plans associated with the proposed roadway improvements are not known at the present time, but we anticipate that depths of cuts or thickness of fill required to develop the roadway subgrade elevations will be no more that 1-foot with respect to existing surface grades. 1.1.4 Traffic Characterization No specific traffic studies are known to have been conducted by the City of College Station(City) for the proposed roadway project. Such traffic studies would typically provide information for traffic volumes, patterns, and vehicle characteristics (e.g., type of vehicles, percentage of heavy truck traffic, etc.). However, we believe that the volume of the traffic that will utilize the proposed roadway will correspond to that of a major collector street as defined under the previously referenced Guidelines. As indicated in the previously stated defmition, major collectors are defined as roadways that may have to accommodate a volume of traffic in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Consequently,we have assumed an average daily traffic count(ADT)of 7,500 vehicles per day for design of the proposed roadway. The traffic volume is believed to be representative for the average daily traffic volume over a 30-year design period. The stated ADT is assumed to have already incorporated growth factors over the indicated 30-year design period. 2 . CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX By definition, the ADT represents two-way traffic per day. There are only two (2) drive-through lanes planned for the proposed roadway with one (1) drive lane in each direction. Therefore, the design traffic volume for each of the directional drive lanes will be one-half of the referenced ADT, or approximately 3,750 VPD. Therefore 3,750 VPD has been used as the traffic volume for the design lane for the project. In addition, we anticipate that a small percentage of the traffic on the proposed roadways will consist of medium- to heavy-weight trucks. We believe that the volume of heavy-weight trucks that will be part of the daily vehicle count for the proposed roadway will be a relatively small percentage of the total volume of traffic. The estimated small percentage of heavy-weight trucks is due to the limited connectivity of the proposed roadway with any adjoining streets other than Greens Prairie Road and also to the predominantly residential character of the property adjacent to and in the general area of the proposed roadway. We believe that the percentage of trucks using the proposed roadway will be in the order of 2 percent of the ADT. Heavy weight trucks are described as those with two (2) or more axles and six (6) or more tires. Most of the heavy-weight trucks that will utilize the proposed roadways are expected to be no larger than typical solid waste collection trucks, i.e., trucks having a single front axle and a tandem rear axle group. The maximum loading of the front axle is expected to be 20,000 pounds and the maximum loading of the tandem rear axle is expected to be 34,000 pounds that would result in a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of approximately 54,000 pounds. Only a few very heavy-weight trucks, such as large tractor-trailer combinations, are expected to utilize the roadway. The very heavy-weight trucks would have a single front axle, and a middle and rear tandem axle with similar axle loads as previously described for the heavy-weight trucks that would result in GVWs in the range of 72,000 to 80,000 pounds. Other pavement design values are presented in Table 1 — Other Pavement Design Values on the following page. The referenced traffic information was utilized to develop projections of anticipated traffic volumes,patterns,and vehicle characteristics that could be expected for the proposed roadway. 1.1.5 Pavement Sections As previously discussed, we believe that only rigid pavement sections are being considered for construction of the proposed roadway. The rigid pavement section will consist of a surface course of Portland cement concrete (PCC) constructed over a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil layer. 3 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX Table 1. Additional Pavement Design Values For Proposed Etonbury Avenue (Rigid Pavement Section Only) Reliabilit 90 •ercent 90 •ercent Standard Deviation 0.35 0.45 28-da Flexural Stren:th 650 •si -- Load Transfer,J 2.7 -- Draina.e Coefficient 0.9 -- Initial Serviceabilit Index 4.5 4.2 Terminal Serviceabili Index 2.25 2.25 1.1.6 Utilities Associated With Proposed Roadway Project We anticipate that no public utility line construction will be associated with the proposed project. However, some underground storm sewer construction will be included with the proposed roadway but burial depths of the storm sewer piping is expected to be relatively shallow in the order of 4 to 6 feet below the existing surface grade. 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY We understand that the current geotechnical study is being performed to identify subsurface conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway. The specific objectives of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study were to: • Secure information on the general surface and subsurface conditions at the widely spaced boring locations along the length of the proposed roadway. • Evaluate the subsurface information developed from the field exploration and laboratory testing program. • Perform an engineering analysis of the subsurface information developed from the field exploration and laboratory testing program in order to develop recommendations for pavement design for the proposed roadway. 4 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 1.3 LIMITATIONS OF SCOPE OF STUDY It should be recognized that the exclusive purpose of this study was to develop general recommendations for the pavement system of the proposed roadway. This study did not directly assess, or even attempt to address, specific environmental conditions encountered at the site (e.g., the presence of waste products [except as their mechanical properties might impact the proposed pavement systems], gasoline, diesel, or other fuels or pollutants in the soil, rock, ground water, or surface waters), historical uses of the site, threatened or endangered species, or the presence of jurisdictional wetlands or"waters of the United States" on the site. These environmental conditions are typically addressed as part of separate biological studies, environmental constraints studies, environmental site assessments (ESAs), or ecological assessments(EAs). 1.4 REPORT FORMAT The following sections of this report initially present descriptions of work and test procedures employed to collect the subsurface information for the project. The later sections of the report present analysis of the information developed from the field and laboratory studies and offer recommendations for foundation support of the proposed project elements. First, descriptions of the field exploration program are presented in Section 2. Appendix A contains the project vicinity map, the project site plan and boring location map (plan of borings) that illustrates where the exploratory borings were drilled. The boring logs, which indicate the types of soils encountered at each of the boring locations and present the results of some field test procedures and observations,are also presented in Appendix A. Section 3 of the report presents a summary discussion of the laboratory tests performed for the project. The summary results of the laboratory testing program are presented in tabular form in Appendix B. Some laboratory test results are also presented numerically and symbolically on the boring logs in Appendix A. Section 4 of the report offers a description of our observations of surface conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway at the time of the field study. A general discussion and interpretation of subsurface conditions developed from the field and laboratory studies is also presented in Section 4. Section 5 of this report presents CSC's recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed rigid pavement system. Section 6 of the report offers a general discussion of surface and subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations that might have a significant impact upon site development and 5 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX construction operations. Section 6 also offers specific guidance with respect to construction material characteristics and placement requirements for the materials expected to be associated with the proposed project. Finally, Section 7 presents the basis for the recommendations given in the report and the general limitations for the information presented as part of the report. 6 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM 2.1 BORING LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS Subsurface conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway project were explored by drilling a total of eight (8) sample borings. The boring locations were selected by CSC in consultation with SE. The boring locations are illustrated on the previously referenced Figure 2 in Appendix A of this report. As can be seen from a review of Figure 2, the borings extended along the entire length of the planned roadway alignment with boring B-1 being located near the northwestern end of the proposed roadway and boring B-8 being situated near the planned intersection of the roadway with the existing Greens Prairie Road at the southeastern end of the roadway alignment. Seven (7) of the eight (8) borings drilled along the major portion of the length of the planned roadway alignment were initially proposed to be advanced to depths of 6 feet. However, boring B-8 encountered rock at a depth of approximately 2 feet and could only be advanced to a depth of 3 feet. The remaining or eighth boring,which was designated as boring B-5,was drilled near the crossing of drainage swale that is an un-name tributary to Peach Creek South Tributary 16.4. Boring B-5 was advanced to a depth of 10 feet. All of the boring depths are referenced to the ground surface elevation existing at each boring location at the time of the field exploration. Existing ground surface elevations at each of the boring locations are not known at the present time and surface elevations could not therefore be noted on the logs of boring. It should be recognized that subsequent discussions and recommendations presented in this report are referenced to the surface grade existing at the time of the field study. If adjustments to the present surface elevations are made as part of site grading operations prior to construction of the proposed paving system, some adjustment in the subsequent discussions and recommendations with respect to subgrade and foundation conditions may have to be made. 2.2 DRILLING AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES All of the borings were drilled with a Mobil B-60 rotary drill rig mounted on an all-terrain vehicle or ATV. The boreholes were advanced with a solid auger using dry drilling techniques in order to monitor short-term ground water conditions both during and immediately following completion of the drilling activities. Soil samples were obtained from all of the borings continuously to the maximum depths of exploration which varied from 3 to 10 feet. 7 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station,TX Samples of cohesive soils, i.e., clays, and cohesive-granular soils, i.e., clayey sands, were obtained by mechanically pushing a 3-inch-diameter, thin-wall "Shelby-tube" sampler in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 1587-00 - Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes. Purely granular soils are typically sampled during the performance of the standard penetration test (SPT). The SPT involves driving a split-barrel sampler into the soil in accordance with procedures outlined in ASTM D 1586 — Standard Test Methods for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. However, no significant thicknesses of purely granular soils wee encountered during the field exploration program and consequently, no SPTs were performed. The depths at which samples were collected, the types of samples collected, and the results of field tests are presented on the individual boring logs in Appendix A. 2.3 OBSERVATION OF GROUND WATER LEVELS IN BOREHOLES As previously mentioned, all of the boreholes were drilled using dry rotary drilling techniques so that ground water could be observed during and immediately following completion of drilling activities. The results of the ground water observations are presented in a Section 4 of this report. Following completion of drilling and short-term ground water monitoring, the boreholes were filled with soil cuttings to limit moisture infiltration into surface formations and as a safety precaution for construction workers and other pedestrian traffic within the project area. 2.4 BORING LOGS A field geotechnical engineer was present during the field exploration to describe the subsurface stratigraphy and to note obvious anomalies in the stratigraphy that may have been present at specific bor- ing locations. Descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at the individual boring locations are shown on the individual boring logs presented in Appendix A of this report. A"Key to Symbols and Soil Classification" sheet explaining the terms and symbols used on the logs is presented immediately following the logs. The logs represent CSC's interpretation of the subsurface conditions based upon the field geotechnical engineer's notes together with engineering observation and classification of the materi- als in the laboratory. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries only,as transitions between materials may be gradual. 2.5 SAMPLE CUSTODY Representative soil samples recovered during the drilling operations were sealed in appropriate packaging and placed in core boxes for transportation to the geotechnical laboratory for further analysis. 8 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX The samples will be stored for at least 30 days following the date of this report. At the end of the 30-day storage period, the samples will be discarded unless a written request is received from the owner requesting that the samples be stored for a longer period and appropriate arrangements are made. 9 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Samples of subsurface materials recovered from the borings were examined and classified by the geotechnical engineer and various laboratory tests were assigned by the geotechnical engineer on selected samples. The laboratory tests were performed to aid in foundation soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487-11 — Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), or USCS. The laboratory testing program also employed strength tests to determine the engineering characteristics of the foundation materials. The laboratory testing program activities for this project were completed on August 15, 2013. The laboratory test results are presented in a summary tabular form in Appendix B. In addition, the laboratory test results are also presented both numerically and symbolically on the individual boring logs in Appendix A. As previously stated,the symbols and terms used on the logs of boring are explained both on the logs and also on the Key to Symbols and Soil Classification sheet presented immediately following the logs. 3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS AND MOISTURE CONTENT TESTS As previously indicated, laboratory tests were performed in order to classify the foundation soils in accordance with the USCS and to determine the soil-moisture profile at the boring locations. The classification tests consisted of Atterberg limit determinations (liquid limit and plastic limit) and grain- size distribution determinations. The Atterberg limit determinations were performed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D4318-10 — Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. In addition to the selected Atterberg limit tests, grain-size distribution tests were also performed. The percent of soil particles passing the U.S. Standard sieve size No. 200, i.e., the materials "finer" than 75 gm size, was the only determination made on the recovered samples. The gradation test was performed by washing the soils through the No. 200 sieve in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D1140-00(2006)—Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than No. 200 (75µm)Sieve. The soil fractions passing the No. 200 sieve size are the silt-and clay-size particles and are generally referred to as"fines." The natural moisture content of individual samples was determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D2216-10 — Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. 10 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 3.2 STRENGTH TESTS Emphasis was also directed toward an evaluation of the strength or load-carrying capacity of the foundation soils. Strength tests were performed to develop an estimate of the undrained cohesion or c- value of the soils. The unconfined compression test was performed in the laboratory on undisturbed samples of cohesive soils to determine the compressive strength characteristics. The test procedures outlined in ASTM D2166-06 —Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil were utilized. The unit dry weight was also determined for each unconfined compression test sample in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2166. In addition, hand or pocket penetrometer tests were also performed both in the field and in the laboratory on undisturbed or relatively undisturbed soil samples. The hand or pocket penetrometer tests provide only an approximate indication of the unconfined compression strength of the soils. Experience with similar soils in the vicinity of the proposed project site has indicated that the direct readings obtained from the hand penetrometer tests tend to overestimate the unconfined compression strength of the soil samples and need to be adjusted. 11 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 4.0 SITE OBSERVATIONS OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY The ground surface along the alignment of the proposed roadway was predominantly covered with woodlands at one time but the approximate right-of-way of the proposed roadway has recently been cleared. The woodlands contained numerous types of trees of varying sizes, and there was a thick underbrush beneath the tree canopy. The developed and developing urban residential lots of the Castlegate Subdivision II lie immediately to the north and northeast of the proposed roadway alignment. Undeveloped, heavily vegetated woodlands lie to the south and southwest of the proposed roadway alignment. The topography along the alignment of the proposed roadway is influenced by the presence of an un-named shallow drainage swale that is tributary to Peach Creek South Tributary 16.4. The un-named shallow drainage swale crosses the east-central portion of the roadway alignment near the proposed intersection of Somerton Court with Etonbury Avenue. The side slopes of the drainage way are flat and there was little to no water in the drainage swale at the time of the field investigation. The ground surface slopes downward in a southeasterly direction towards the drainage way from the northwestern limit of the roadway near boring B-1 at approximately EL 330 Mean Sea Level (MSL)to approximately EL 312 near the drainage swale at the boring B-5 location. The ground surface slopes upward in a southeasterly direction from the swale towards the proposed intersection with Greens Prairie Road at an elevation of approximately EL 316 near the location of boring B-8. Furthermore, there is a 3 to 4 feet deep and narrow man-made drainage channel cut between borings B-6 and B-7 in the southeastern portion of the roadway alignment. The apparent purpose of the man-made channel is to allow storm water runoff from portions of the already developed sections of the Castlegate II Subdivision to flow to the large storm water detention basin that has been excavated south of the proposed Etonbury Avenue alignment and immediately adjacent to Peach Creek South Tributary 16.4 and Greens Prairie Road. 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE OR STRATIGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS The subsurface stratigraphy at the boring locations drilled along the route of the proposed roadway is presented in detail on the individual boring logs in Appendix A. The individual boring logs should be consulted for a detailed description of the stratigraphy at a particular location along the alignment of the proposed roadway. The engineering descriptions and classifications used to describe the stratigraphy followed the general guidelines of the previously referenced USCS as discussed in more 12 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX detail in the following Section 4.2.1 of this report. A general and idealized description of the stratigraphy present at the boring locations based upon the USCS is presented in Section 4.2.2 of this report. 4.2.1 Soil Classification System Used in Subsurface Descriptions The soils comprising the proposed roadway subgrade and foundation zones were generally classified in accordance with the criteria set forth in the previously referenced USCS. Classification of the soils was primarily based upon the test results derived from the laboratory classification testing of the various soil strata within the stratigraphy, but visual and manual classification of some of the soils was also utilized in conformance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 2488-00 — Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure). As previously discussed, the laboratory performed classification tests consisted of determining the percent "fines" of the soils and of determining the Atterberg limits of the soils. The percentages of fines, i.e., the silt- and clay-size particles, were measured by determining the percentage of soils that would pass through or be "finer than"the No. 200 U.S. Standard sieve size. The openings in the No. 200 sieve are approximately 75-p.m(microns)which roughly corresponds to the smallest size soil particle that can be seen by the "naked" eye(i.e.,unaided by a microscope). The particles that are retained on the No. 200 sieve are generally referred to as granular soils and consist of sands and gravels. Thus, the portion of the sample that does not consist of fines represents granular soils, and typically only of sands. Soils with a percent fines content of 50 percent or greater would classify as clays or silts under the USCS. Conversely, by definition, sands and/or gravels would have a percentage of fines of less than 50 percent. Sands are designated by the letter S under the USCS and modifiers such as M or C are used to designate silty sands (SM) or clayey sands (SC), respectively. "Pure" sands with a very low percentage of fines are given the designators W and P to represent well graded sands(SW)or poorly graded sands(SP). The Atterberg limit tests are cumulatively defined as consisting of the liquid limit (LL) test and the plastic limit (PL) test, along with the shrinkage limit test. Only the more common LL and PL tests were performed as part of the classification testing of the present study. These limits distinguish the boundaries of the several consistency states of plastic soils. The LL represents the moisture content at which the soil is on the verge of being a viscous fluid(i.e., a"very wet"condition), and the PL represents the moisture content at which the soil behaves as a non-plastic material(i.e., a"slightly moist"condition). The plasticity index(PI) of soil is defined as the range of moisture contents at which the soil behaves as a plastic material and is defined as the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit (LL - PL = PI). The magnitude of the PI of a soil is typically considered to be an indication of the clay content and the volumetric change (shrink-swell) potential of the soils (although the volumetric change can also vary with the type of clay mineral and the nature of the ions adsorbed on the clay surface). 13 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX Although the soil classifications utilized in the subsequently presented descriptions and discussions generally follow the criteria established by the current USCS, there is one exception with respect to clays. Under the current USCS,highly plastic clays with a LL value equal to or greater than 50 are given a CH designation (C for clays and H for high plasticity) and clays with a LL value of less than 50 are given a CL designation(C for clays and L for low plasticity). However, when Arthur Casagrande performed the original work for the soil classification system, he proposed an intermediate classification in which clays with LL values between 30 and 49 were termed CM (M for moderate) soils, or clays of moderate plasticity. Therefore, clays of moderate plasticity that have LL values ranging between 30 and 49 have been designated by the letters CM in the following discussions in accordance with the originally proposed USCS. Although not adopted by ASTM, the CM designation is still sometimes used to describe in greater detail the soils with plasticities between the low and high ranges. 4.2.2 General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy The subsurface stratigraphy was somewhat variable along the approximately 4,160 feet length of the roadway as might be expected. In general, the subsurface stratigraphy at most, but not all, of the boring locations consisted of a surficial layer of clayey sands that, depending upon the final grading plan for the roadway and the planned depths of cut, will likely comprise the subgrade soil layer for the pavement section. The surficial zone of granular soils was generally underlain by clays of moderate to generally high plasticity. However, there were important variations in the subsurface stratigraphy both horizontally between the different boring locations and also vertically with depth at any single boring location. For example, a rock stratum of hard sandstone was encountered below the surficial layer of granular soils at the location of boring B-8 near Greens Prairie Road. Nevertheless, the subsurface stratigraphy can generally be described as consisting of two (2) distinct zones: (1) a surficial zone; and (2) a near surface or intermediate zone. The surficial zone extended to depths ranging from 1 to 4 feet below the existing surface grade at the eight (8) boring locations. The soils of the surficial zone generally consisted of granular soils composed of clayey sands, silty,clayey sands, and silty sands, although sandy, lean clays of moderate plasticity were present at a few boring locations. The underlying near-surface or intermediate zone was generally composed of strong clays and sandy clays of moderate to high plasticity that extended from immediately below the bottom of the surficial zone to the maximum exploration depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet below the surface at the various boring locations, except at the location of boring B-8 where a rock formation of sandstone was encountered below a depth of 2 feet. Each of these zones is described in more detail in the following sub- sections of this report. Surficial Zone. As previously indicated the surficial zone extended from the ground surface to depths range from 1 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface at the various boring locations and 14 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station,TX consisted of both granular materials, i.e., sands, and of cohesive materials, i.e. clays. The sands were present at the locations of borings B-1, B-2, B-4, B-6, B-7, and B-8, and the clays were present at the locations of borings B-3 and B-5. These sands are described in the following paragraph and the clays in the subsequent paragraph. Laboratory classification tests performed on samples of the granular soils recovered from the surficial zone indicated that the percent fines within the soils ranged from 21.7 to 47.3 percent. Since fines are described as silt and clay sized particles, the percentage of the soil samples that are not considered as fines will represent the sand and gravel portions of the samples, with the sands generally being much more common than the gravels. Therefore, the samples of the granular soils within the surficial zone soils that were tested in the laboratory exhibited a wide variation in sand content that ranged from 52.7 percent(100 percent total soil sample—47.3 percent fines=52.7 percent sands) to 78.3 percent(100 percent total soil sample—21.7 percent fines= 78.3 percent sands). As previously discussed, the fines represent either silts or clays. The Atterberg limit test results indicated that the fines present within the sands ranged from silts to clays. The LL values of the tested soils where the fines consisted of clays ranged from 37 to 42, and the corresponding PI values ranged from 20 to 25. Where the fines consisted of silts, the Atterberg limit tests indicated that the sands were non-plastic. Therefore, the sands classified as either SC type soils, i.e., as clayey sands, or as SM type soils, i.e., as silty sands, or as SC- SM type soils, i.e., silty, clayey sands, under both the originally proposed USCS and the current USCS. Based upon the results of the pocket penetrometer tests performed on the sands,the relative density of the sands was estimated to vary from loose to medium dense. The laboratory test results performed for the clays encountered within the surficial zone of the stratigraphy at the locations of borings B-3 and B-5 indicated high percentages of sands within the clays. The percentages of fines ranged from 53.5 to 59.1 percent which corresponded to 40.9 to 46.5 percent sands. The Atterberg limit tests indicated LL values ranging from 29 to 48 and corresponding PI values ranging from 14 to 30. The subgrade soils therefore classified as CL types soils, i.e., as clays of low plasticity, under the current USCS, and as CL or CM type soils, i.e., as clays of low to moderate plasticity, under the originally proposed USCS. The consistency, i.e., the strength categorization, of the clays of the subgrade soil zone was estimated from the pocket penetrometer tests and our manual examination of the samples to range from firm to very stiff. One exception to the above description was at the boring B-5 location where a thin surficial layer of soft clays of high plasticity, i.e., soils classifying as CH type soils under both the current and the originally proposed USCS, were present from the ground surface to a depth of 0.5 feet. Near-Surface or Intermediate Zone. The near-surface or intermediate zone extended from immediately below the surficial zone to depths ranging from 6 to 10 feet at the boring locations. The soils within the near-surface or intermediate zone typically consisted of clays or sandy clays of moderate to 15 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL ULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station,TX high plasticity, although as subsequently explained, sandstone was present within the near-surface or intermediate at the boring B-8 location near Greens Prairie Road. The results of the laboratory classification tests performed on samples of the clayey soils of the near-surface or intermediate zone indicated that the clays exhibited LL values that varied widely from 46 to 84, although most of the LL values were above 50. The corresponding PI values ranged from 28 to 59 with most of the PI values being above 47. The measured percentage of fines in the clays also generally varied widely from 61.9 to 84.2 percent. Therefore, the clay samples exhibited a wide variation in sand content of from 15.8 to 38.1 percent. The laboratory tests results indicated that the majority of the clays classified as clays of high plasticity, i.e., as CH type soils both the originally proposed USCS as well as the current USCS. Some of the soils also classified as clays of low plasticity, or as CL type soils under the current USCS, or as clays of low medium plasticity, i.e., as CL to CM type soils, under the originally proposed USCS. The results of the unconfined compression test and the pocket penetrometer tests indicated that the consistency of the clays ranged from stiff to very stiff and was generally very stiff. As previously mentioned, rock consisting of sandstone with an estimated compressive strength ranging from soft to hard was encountered below a depth of approximately 2 feet at the location of boring B-8 near Greens Prairie Road. Furthermore, there were small boulder size pieces of broken sandstone present across the ground surface around the excavation for the storm water detention basin near Greens Prairie Road which indicated that the rock formation was present throughout the area. The upper portions of the rock formation was relatively weathered but drilling became very difficult below 2.5 feet as the compressive strength of the rock increased and auger refusal was experienced at 3 feet depth. 4.2.3 Limitations of General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy The previously described generalized stratigraphy was utilized in the analysis as described in subsequent sections of this report. As previously indicated, it should be recognized that there may be some variations in the generalized stratigraphy between the boring locations along the length of the proposed roadway alignment. Furthermore, subsurface conditions are known to be variable in proximity to drainage ways. Consequently, soil conditions encountered along the portions of the proposed roadway alignment in proximity to the planned crossing of the existing drainage way may vary from the conditions encountered at the boring locations drilled at the high banks and other portions of the drainage way. 4.2.4 Water Level Observations As previously discussed, all of the borings were advanced using dry auger drilling techniques to the maximum depths of exploration which varied from 6 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. No ground water was observed in any of the eight (8) boreholes during drilling or immediately following completion of the drilling operations. 16 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station,TX All of the boreholes were subsequently filled with soils cuttings following completion of the ground water observations as a safety measure for workers and pedestrians crossing the drill site. Therefore, longer term ground water readings could not be obtained for the project. It is also worth noting that there were significant thicknesses of granular soils present in the surficial zone at most of the boring locations. Sand seams were also present in the clay formations comprising the near-surface or intermediate zone of the stratigraphy. Sand strata and sand seams are significant in that they are typical of water bearing zones that can hold and/or transmit ground water. In addition, seams of sands and fissures or cracks in the clay formations can also be sources of ground water. Consequently, it is possible that although no ground water was present within the depths of exploration at the time of the field study, some ground water could be encountered in the sand strata and within the sand seams or fissures present within the clay formations at the time of construction, especially if some of the climatological conditions favorable to ground water development as discussed in the following paragraph are present. It is important to recognize that ground water elevations may vary both seasonally and annually. As previously indicated, the absence of ground water at the time of the field study or the presence of ground water at specific observed depths does not mean that ground water will not be present or will be present at the same observed depths at the time of construction. Ground water elevations at any site are known to fluctuate with time and are dependent upon numerous factors. Ground water levels can be af- fected by such factors as the following, among others: (1) the amount of precipitation in the immediate vicinity of the project site and in the regional ground water recharge area; (2)the amount of infiltration of precipitation through the surface and near-surface soils; (3)the degree of evapotranspiration from surface vegetation at the project site; (4) the water levels in adjacent bodies of water, such as the un-named drainage swale which crosses the proposed roadway alignment or the nearby storm water detention basin; (5) any dewatering operations on adjacent sites; and (6) the construction and post-development site drainage schemes which will influence the volume of storm water runoff directed towards, around, or away from the project site. The amount of precipitation that occurs immediately prior to the start of construction and also during the time frame of construction is especially important and will strongly influence ground water conditions that are experienced during construction operations. Furthermore, it should be understood that ground water information determined during this study was obtained to evaluate potential short term impacts on construction activities and should not be considered a comprehensive assessment of ground water conditions at the site. Consequently, as previously emphasized, the ground water levels observed at the time of the field investigation may vary from the levels encountered both during the construction phase of the project and also during the design life of the proposed project. Also as previously discussed, the long-term ground water levels may be somewhat dependent upon any changes to the existing storm water runoff patterns at the site caused by 17 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX construction of the subject project or adjacent projects. If the long-term variation of the ground water level is critical to some design aspect of the proposed project, an extended hydrogeologic study involving the installation and long-term monitoring of piezometers should be undertaken to better define the pertinent ground water conditions at the site that may influence the design. 18 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 5.0 GENERAL PAVEMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report presents our analysis and recommendations for foundation support of the paving system for the proposed roadway. 5.1 GENERAL ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN OF PAVEMENT SECTION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design procedure was used to compute the pavement thickness requirements for the rigid pavement section which is being considered for the proposed roadway. We have assumed that the pavement section would include a chemically-stabilized subgrade soil layer. The anticipated traffic loads and the load-carrying characteristics of the expected subgrade soils were used to determine required constructed thicknesses for the rigid pavement section as discussed in the following sub-sections of this report. 5.2 SUBGRADE CLASSIFICATION 5.2.1 General Discussion of Anticipated Pavement and Fill Area Subgrade Soils As previously indicated in Section 1 of this report, the fmal grading plans for the proposed roadway are not known at the present time. However, we anticipate that most of the length of the roadway will only require less than 1 foot of excavation or fill placement in order to achieve fmal subgrade elevations along the proposed roadway alignment. Fill may be required in some areas, such of the crossing of the un-name tributary to Peach Creek South Tributary 16.4, in order to elevate the roadway pavement surface above the water levels at the drainage way crossing location. Consequently, we anticipate that the proposed roadway will be constructed on both natural soils and fill soils. As previously indicated, based upon the borings drilled along the route of the proposed roadway, granular soils consisting of clayey sands, silty, clayey sands and silty sands will be present in the surficial zone of the stratigraphy at most of the boring locations. These granular soils typically extend to depths ranging from 1 to 3 feet below the existing ground surface and can develop very poor load support characteristics and be very difficult to compact if they are in a very moist to wet condition at the time of construction. Very moist to wet silty and fine sandy soils will tend to exhibit "pumping" characteristics as subsequently discussed. The soils underlying the surficial sands generally consisted of clays that are typically exhibit moderate to high plasticities. The natural clays are expected to have relatively high PI values of 28 or more. 19 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX We also anticipate that fill soils, such as those planned at the drainage way crossing, will be required for at least a portion of the proposed roadway alignment and may represent the subgrade soils for the proposed pavement section. These fill soils will likely consist of imported clay soils of moderate to high plasticity. Recommended properties of the clay fill soils are presented in Section 6 of this report. Potential problems with both the roadway subgrade soils and the fill area subgrade soils that could adversely impact the construction of the proposed roadway, including the proposed fill areas, are discussed in the following sub-section of this report. In any event,we anticipate that the subgrade soil layer for the pavement section will be improved if the soils are chemically stabilized and compacted as subsequently recommended. The chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soils will provide adequate support for the proposed pavement section. 5.2.2 Potential Problem Areas Of Existing Soils Within the Planned Subgrade Zone of the Pavement and In Areas Planned for Roadway Fill Placement The nature of the surficial soils of the stratigraphy along the alignment of the proposed roadway is very important since these soils will impact the design and construction of the both the roadway pavement and any areas planned for fill placement required as part of the proposed roadway project. For example, as previously discussed in Sections 4.2 and 5.2.1 of this report,the surficial soils at six(6)of the eight(8)boring locations consisted of granular soils with a high percentage of silts and/or fine sands. The surficial zone containing granular soils extended from the existing ground surface to depths ranging from approximately 1 foot depth(borings B-1 and B-2)to 3 feet depth(boring B-4). Surficial silty and fine sandy soils of low cohesion can be difficult to process and compact if the soils are in a very moist to wet condition at the time of construction. Surficial silts and fine sands that are underlain by clay formations (or rock formations as at the boring B-8 location) have a tendency to trap rainwater and to "pump" when compacted. Pumping refers to the condition when the energy applied during the compaction of the soils is transferred into the relatively incompressible water trapped within the void spaces of the silt or fine sand soil matrix and not to the soil structure itself. Thus,the compaction energy is "absorbed" by the water within the void spaces of the soil structure and not by the actual soil structure. As a result, the soil structure undergoes little or no densification under the applied energy of compaction. Rather, the compaction energy is transferred laterally within the water mass to produce a "wave" in the soil water that resembles a "water bed" effect. As a result, the silts and fine sands can remain in a loose condition and will not provide adequate subgrade support for either the roadway pavement or the roadway fill. Furthermore, although the clay soils below a depth of 0.5 feet at the boring B-5 location near the existing drainage swale were relatively strong and exhibited consistencies in the range of stiff to very 20 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX stiff, it is possible that weaker clays with a soft to firm consistency, such as present in the upper 0.5 foot at the boring location, could be encountered across the bottom of the drainage swale. If such weak soils are encountered during construction, we recommend that these potentially weak and difficult to process soils be stripped from the areas of proposed construction and replaced with select roadway fill soils as subsequently specified. In summary,we strongly recommend that the existing weak surficial soils present either along the planned roadway alignment or in the area of the drainage swale crossing be stripped from the site to at least the previously indicated depths at the boring locations. Deeper depths of stripping may be required along portions of the roadway alignment to effectively remove all of the weak surficial soils. The stripped soils should be replaced with select roadway fill soils as subsequently defined in this report. If the existing weak surficial soils and any associated organic matter are not removed, they may be very difficult to process and compact if they are wet at the time of construction. In addition, any ground- supported roadway elements such as the paving system or fill materials that are supported on such soils could experience appreciable movements due to the weak and compressible character of the existing subgrade soils. The movement could result in some distress to the supported pavement system. 5.2.3 Chemical Stabilization of Roadway Pavement Subgrade Soils The addition and processing of chemical-stabilizing agents, such as hydrated lime, fly ash, and/or Portland cement, into the pavement subgrade soils can increase the strength and volumetric stability of the soils within the treated subgrade zone, especially with compaction of the chemically-altered soils. Consequently,we strongly recommend that the subgrade soils for the proposed roadway pavement section be chemically stabilized. If the subgrade soils are not chemically stabilized, there may be a significant loss of subgrade support if the unstabilized soils become wet and saturated during the design life of the pavement system. Accordingly, we have assumed in our analysis that the subgrade soils will be chemically stabilized and compacted to a depth of at least 8 inches below the surface of the subgrade layer to improve the support capacity for the subgrade layer. The chemical used to stabilize the subgrade soils will depend upon the character of the subgrade soils. If the subgrade soils consist of clays or sandy clays of moderate to high plasticity with a minimum PI value of 20 as anticipated over the major portion of the roadway, these types of soils can readily be stabilized by the addition of hydrated lime. Details concerning material characteristics and placement procedures for a lime-stabilized subgrade are presented in Section 6.6 of this report. However, it should be noted that soils with PI values lower than 20 may also be encountered in some areas along the proposed roadway alignment. Subgrade soils with PI values between 7 and 19 should be stabilized with a mixture of Type A hydrated lime or Type C quick lime and Class C fly ash. Similarly, if subgrade soils have PI values of 7 or less, they should be stabilized with either Class C fly 21 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX ash or with Portland cement mixture. Specific percentages of the stabilizing agents for preliminary planning purposes and other recommendations for chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils are presented in Section 6.6. The recommended percentages of stabilizing agents should be confirmed at the time of construction once fmal grading operations are complete and the nature of the actual subgrade soils along the proposed roadway alignment have been identified. 5.3 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CHARACTERISTICS The traffic volume used in the pavement design analyses for the proposed roadway was based upon the assumptions outlined in Section 1 of this report. The characterization of the vehicles that are believed to comprise the traffic using the proposed roadway was also presented in Section 1. In addition, other traffic information that was required for the design of pavement sections was discussed in Section 1 of this report. The loading for all the different types of vehicles that may travel over the paved surface of the roadway is typically expressed in terms of a "unit" single axle load. The unit term is known as the equivalent 18 kips single-axle load, or ESALs. ESALs provide a means of expressing traffic loading from numerous types of vehicles with various axle configurations and loadings in terms of unit 18 kips single- axle loads. Thus, every vehicle,no matter what the axle loading, can be expressed as a number of 18 kips equivalent single-axle load units. For example,passenger cars with single-axle loads of 1 kip can have an ESAL of 0.00018,whereas a large truck with a single-axle loading of 20 kips can have an ESAL of 1.51. The traffic loading for the present project was calculated using the previously discussed traffic conditions, the subgrade strength properties (assuming that the subgrade soils will be chemically stabilized), and assumed typical paving material strength properties and reliability factors. The ESALs were computed for a 30-year design period for the rigid pavement system based upon the estimated average daily traffic volume and other traffic characteristics listed in Section 1. 5.4 PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS The pavement calculations utilized the previously discussed traffic conditions as expressed by the ESALs, the previously indicated subgrade strength properties (assuming that the subgrade soils will be chemically stabilized and compacted to a minimum depth of 8 inches in accordance with the provisions of a subsequent section of this report), and assumed typical paving material strength properties and reliability factors. The required total pavement section thickness was computed for the rigid pavement system that is being considered for the proposed roadway. 22 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX The recommended rigid pavement section for the proposed roadway consists of a two-layer system that incorporates a surface course of PCC and a subgrade layer composed of chemically stabilized and compacted soils. The minimum thicknesses for the various layers of the rigid pavement section are presented in the following Table 2. Table 2. Pavement Thickness Schedule for Conventionally Reinforced and Jointed PCC Thickness (inches)Note 1 Material Description 7.0 Note 2 Reinforced Portland cement concrete surface course Note 3 8.0 Compacted chemically-stabilized subgrade soils Note 4 15.0 Total constructed pavement thickness Notes: 1. The design section for entrances to adjoining property driveways and tie-ins to intersecting city and state roadways may differ from those presented in the table,and should be established based on applicable requirements. 2. The Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys(2012)specifies a minimum"concrete pavement"thickness of 8 inches and a minimum subgrade treatment of"6-in Lime-Stab."For streets classified as collectors. 3. Concrete assumed to have a minimum modulus of rupture(as determined in a third point beam loading test)corresponding to 650 psi (approximately equivalent to concrete with a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi). 4. The requirements for compaction and chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils are presented in Section 6. The recommended pavement section presented in the table represents the minimum required thicknesses for the planned roadway. It should be noted(as indicated in the footnotes to the table)that the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines for Streets and Alleys (2012) may specify a greater thickness of pavement section for certain street classifications than indicated by the calculated minimum required thicknesses. Also note that tie-in sections to existing streets or highways should be made in accordance with applicable city/state design criteria if these section thicknesses are greater than indicated in the table. All of the concrete paving should be reinforced with steel reinforcing bars to minimize temperature and shrinkage cracking, to discourage widening of any cracks that may form, and to aid in transferring loads across joints. We recommend that the PCC paving be reinforced with a minimum of#4 reinforcing steel bars placed at the mid-point of the paving section at spacings corresponding to 16 inches on-center, each way (OCEW), which is slightly "tighter" that the 18 inches OCEW specified in the Bryan/College Station Unified Construction Details for Streets (2012), which is hereinafter cited as B/CS Unified Details. In addition, adequate jointing of the concrete pavement should be included in the design and construction of the pavement system. Concrete pavement should be segmented by the use of control or contraction joints placed a recommended spacing of 12 feet center to center and a maximum spacing of 15 feet. Keyed and doweled longitudinal joints should be located in all roadway sections greater than one lane (10 to 13 feet) in width. Expansion and/or construction joints should be placed at a maximum spacing of 120-foot intervals. Expansion joints should not be placed through the middle of area inlet 23 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station,TX boxes in the pavement. Isolation joints should be placed between the pavement and all existing or permanent structures (such as retaining walls or drainage inlets). All joints should be sealed with Sonoborn Sonolastic SL1 (or equivalent) to minimize infiltration of surface water to the underlying subgrade soils. Please note that the B/CS Unified Details may require a closer spacing of joints than recommended in this report. The edges or periphery of pavement sections are a natural weak point due to the lack of edge support beyond the paved area. Parallel cracks in the pavement section along the edge of many paved areas are a common indication of partial edge failure. Some provision for support of the edge of the paved areas should be included in the current design plans. The most common means of edge support is a PCC curb and gutter. In addition, we recommend that the exterior boundary of the chemically-stabilized subgrade layer extend at least 2 feet beyond the edge of the pavement surface layer. These extensions will help to minimize the formation of edge cracks in the pavement system due to either a lack of boundary support under wheel loading as previously discussed or due to shrinking of subgrade soils away from the outer edge of the pavement during dry weather and the subsequent loss of subgrade support. 5.5 PAVEMENT SYSTEM DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE 5.5.1 Pavement Drainage The control of surface drainage and sometimes even ground water drainage is a critical factor in the performance of a pavement system. Adequate provisions for surface and subsurface drainage should be included in the pavement design scheme. Drainage provisions should include the following, among other items and features: a steeply graded pavement surface to quickly transport storm water to collection or discharge points that drain away from the paved areas; an adequate number of storm water catch basins or curb inlets in the paved areas to capture the storm water; and adequately sized storm sewer piping. In addition, landscaping or "green" areas and other potential sources for moisture infiltration within the limits of the paved areas should be minimized. The landscape waterings in these "green" areas should be carefully controlled to minimize the introduction of excess moisture into the pavement subgrade soils. 5.5.2 Pavement Maintenance The owner should institute and budget for a regular maintenance program for the paved areas. Regular pavement maintenance is a prerequisite for achieving acceptable performance levels over the anticipated life of the pavement system. Cracks occurring in the surface course of the pavement should be sealed as soon as they occur in order to minimize storm water infiltration into the underlying pavement system layers and subsequent degradation of performance. Sealants that can withstand exterior exposures, 24 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX such as Sonoborn SL-1 for rigid pavements sections or rubberized asphalt sealants for flexible pavement sections or subsequently overlays, should be considered for these purposes. A periodic inspection program should be conducted to identify the formation of cracks, eroded areas, and other indications of pavement distress, such as ruts,pot holes,areas of ponded water, etc. The need for possible repair of these localized areas of distress or the overlaying of the entire pavement system should be anticipated over the expected life of the pavement. 25 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station,TX 6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS General construction recommendations for various aspects of the construction phase of the proposed project are offered in the following sub-sections of this report. These items should be considered "minimum standards" and are intended to be used in conjunction with the project specifications developed by the design engineer. 6.1 CLEARING OF EXISTING SURFACE VEGETATION AND STRIPPING OF SURFICIAL ORGANIC MATERIALS The existing vegetation, which includes grass and any bushes or trees, as well as all organic topsoils, should be stripped from the area of proposed paved area and any proposed fill areas in order to reduce the potential detrimental effects of these organic materials on the proposed pavement systems and roadway embankments. In addition and as previously discussed,we recommend that all of the potentially weak surficial zone soils with high percentages of fines and low clay contents be stripped from the construction areas. Special attention should be directed during the stripping operations to the removal of all roots. It is very important to remove the major root systems associated with any large trees that are either present within the proposed roadway alignment or which may have been previously present within the alignment boundaries. Removal of the root systems of large trees should include all desiccated soils present within the "root bulbs" of such trees. The clearing and stripping operations should also include the removal of any existing organic materials or"muck"that may be present in the existing drainage way that crosses the proposed roadway alignment. Any identified organic materials or "muck" should be excavated and removed from the site. The excavated organic materials and topsoils should either be removed from the site or stockpiled and used in landscaped areas that will not have to support structural elements. If the existing organic materials and topsoils are not removed from the site prior to construction of the paved roadway, it is possible that these existing materials will interfere with the proposed construction and could potentially adversely impact the future performance of the proposed roadway pavement system. 6.2 PROOF ROLLING OF ROADWAY SUBGRADE SOILS OR AREAS PLANNED FOR FILL PLACEMENT All surfaces exposed after the stripping of the vegetation and topsoils and planned for fill placement should then be proof-rolled with a 20-ton pneumatic roller or equivalent vehicle in order to 26 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX identify soft or weak areas of soils, especially in the areas in proximity to existing drainage way that is tributary to Peach Creek South Tributary 16.4. Any soft or weak soils identified during the proof rolling process should be excavated down to "firm" ground, removed from the project site, and replaced with compacted select fill that meets the material characteristics and that is placed in accordance with the recommendations subsequently presented in Section 6.5. Over-excavated areas or areas of depressions created by the removal of tree root bulbs or existing utilities that are to be replaced or relocated should also be backfilled with compacted select roadway fill. The reasons for proof-rolling of the subgrade is that some soils have been found to compact to minimum density requirements but to still exhibit "pumping" tendencies. Proof-rolling of the subgrade should identify the soils that have a tendency to pump so that they can be removed and replaced with more suitable foundation soils 6.3 COMPACTION OF SUBGRADE SOILS IN PAVEMENT AREAS The subgrade soils should be compacted following proof-roll testing to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698-07e1 — Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)) at moisture contents in the range of the OMC to 4 percent above the OMC, inclusive. Compaction characteristics of the subgrade layer in the general fill areas should be verified by in-place density tests. The tests should be performed at an average rate of one test for every 5,000 square feet (sq ft)of planned fill area or for every 300 linear feet of roadway alignment,whichever criterion produces the greater testing frequency. 6.4 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE As previously mentioned, the surface soils in some areas of the project may consist of silt and sands that could be in a wet condition at the time of construction. As discussed in Section 5.2 of this report, these silty and sandy soils will exhibit poor load-bearing characteristics with increased moisture contents, such as could occur after periods of heavy and/or prolonged precipitation. Consequently, the contractor should make early efforts to crown and grade the surface of the paved areas as soon as possible following stripping of the surface vegetation to promote positive drainage away from proposed roadway alignment during construction. Inadequate site preparation and protection of roadway pavement and fill area subgrade soils has been associated with numerous distressed paving systems in this area since the structural layers of the pavement and the roadway fill are supported on the subgrade soils. In no event should water be allowed to pond next to the paved areas or the areas of fill placement. Also, consideration should be given to the stabilization of the exposed soils within ground-supported pavement areas or in 27 CSC ENGINEERING Sc ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX roadway fill areas as soon as possible. Weak or unsuitable surficial soils in these areas should be removed and replaced with select roadway fill soils as previously recommended and as subsequently detailed. The replacement scenario should be consistent with compaction requirements outlined in Section 6.5. Also previously discussed, storm water generated by development of the project should be managed to ensure that precipitation runoff does not pond in the work areas but is routed away from the construction areas and discharged downstream of the work areas into existing storm drainage systems. Provisions should be made to the maximum extent possible to discourage utility trenches serving as pathways for water to migrate from outside to beneath the paved areas. Sloping the bottom of the utility trench away from the paved areas and the use of anti-seep collars(such as thin, vertical"sheets" of compacted clay) should be considered. The excavation contractor should recognize that rock formations may be encountered during excavations for either the roadway or for the utilities along the proposed roadway alignment, especially in the area of boring B-8 near Greens Prairie Road where a sandstone formation was present below a depth of 2 feet. The specific thickness of the sandstone formation could not be determined since"auger refusal" was encountered at a depth of 3 feet. Consequently, the excavation contractor should be prepared to employ heavy excavation equipment with rock teeth on excavation buckets and also pneumatic drills to remove the rock in some of the areas of the project. Some pre-drilling or fracturing of the rock may be required to facilitate general earthwork excavation operations. 6.5 SELECT ROADWAY FILL SOILS MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PLACEMENT PROCEDURES 6.5.1 General Any fill used to adjust grades in the paved areas, to construct any roadway embankments, to fill existing depression, or to fill over-excavated areas should conform to the requirements of select roadway fill. Select roadway fill is defined as materials that meet the following criteria with respect to material and placement requirements for the fill: • Selected fill material placed in the proposed paved areas should consist of a moderate plasticity material with a PI between 20 and 35, inclusive, and a LL value of between 35 and 55, inclusive. The select fill soils should classify as clays of moderate plasticity or CL type soils under the current USCS (and as CM type soils under the originally proposed USCS), or as clays within the lower range of high plasticity, or CH type soils under both the current and the originally proposed USC S. The minimum PI value of 20 should help to discourage storm water from infiltrating into the fill soils or into the pavement subgrade. 28 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station,TX • Soils containing an excessive amount of silt(i.e., greater than approximately 20 to 25 percent) should not be used unless there is a corresponding percentage of clay to "balance" the potential negative effects of the silt. Soils classifying as ML, OL, MH, OH, or PT type soils under the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) shall not be used as fill. • The fill soils exposed to impounded water, such as at the proposed roadway crossing of the un-named drainage swale, should also be characterized as non-dispersive soils. The non-dispersive character of the soils should be documented through the performance of pinhole dispersion tests(ASTM D4647/D4647M- 13 -Standard Test Methods for Identification and Classification of Dispersive Clay Soils by the Pinhole Test). • Compaction of the structural fill should be at moisture contents in the range of the OMC to 4 percent above the OMC, inclusive, and should be in lifts that not exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Density should be at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the previously referenced Standard Proctor compaction test,ASTM D 698. • Compaction characteristics of the roadway fill should be verified by in-place density tests. The tests should be performed on each 6-inch-thick lift at an average rate of one test for every 5,000 square feet of plan roadway area or every 300 linear feet of roadway,whichever produces the greater frequency of testing. 6.6 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS The pavement design recommendations presented in a previous section were developed assuming that the subgrade soil layer would be chemically stabilized and otherwise prepared as listed below and that the various materials comprising the pavement section would comply with the material requirements and would be constructed in accordance with the specifications listed below. The specifications include recommendations for chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils in the paved areas. If the subgrade soils in the paving area at the site are wet and not easily workable at the time of construction,the soils can also be chemically stabilized as a construction expedient. • A minimum depth of stabilization of 8 inches is recommended. • The pavement subgrade soils will likely consist of clays of moderate to high plasticity with PI values = or > 20). These soils should be stabilized with Type A hydrated lime or Type C quick lime. For preliminary planning purposes, the amount of lime to be added to the soils can be estimated to be approximately 6 percent. The percentage is measured with respect to dry soil unit weight. For example, for a subgrade soil layer of 8 inches in thickness that has a unit dry weight of approximately 100 pcf, approximately 36 lb/yd2 of hydrated lime should be used in the mixture. • If any of the pavement subgrade soils consists of clayey sands or very sandy clays of intermediate plasticity(i.e., 7 <PI< 20), these intermediate plasticity soils should be stabilized with a mixture of Type A hydrated lime or Type C quick and Class C fly ash in equal parts. For preliminary planning purposes, we recommend that 3 percent hydrated lime and 3 percent fly ash be used as the stabilizing mixture. The 29 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC . Subsurface Exploration& Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX percentages are measured with respect to dry soil unit weight. For example, a subgrade soil layer of 8 inches in thickness that has a unit dry weight of approximately 100 pcf should be stabilized with a mixture consisting of approximately 18 lb/yd2 of hydrated lime and 18 lb/yd2 of fly ash. • Similarly, in the event that nearly"pure" granular soils of low plasticity(i.e., PI= or < 7) are present in some of the areas to be paved, it may be estimated for preliminary planning purposes that these soils can be stabilized with Class C fly ash at a rate of 12 percent as measured by dry weight of soil (72 lb/yd2 for a lift of 8 inches thickness). Alternately, approximately 5 percent Type I Portland may be used in lieu of the fly ash. • Stabilization procedures should be in accordance with the Texas Department of Transportation's Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges (June 2004) Item 260,Lime Treatment For Material Used As Subgrade (Road Mixed), Type A Treatment specification, or Item 265, Lime-Fly Ash (LFA) Treatment For Materials Used As Subgrade. Modifications to this specification should include a minimum of 48 hours of tempering time before fmal mixing, a minimum of 60 percent of the lime/soil mixture passing a No. 4 sieve before compaction, and a restriction against the use of carbide or byproduct lime. • The stabilized layer should extend at least 2 feet beyond the curb or pavement edge. This extension of the stabilized area will assist in the formation of a moisture barrier and will help reduce moisture fluctuations in the underlying expansive soils. • Compaction of the stabilized subgrade soils meeting the requirements presented herein should be at moisture contents within the range of the OMC to 4 percent above the OMC, inclusive. Compaction density should be at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the previously standard Proctor compaction test,ASTM D 698. • The recommended percentages of lime, fly ash and cement to be admixed with the subgrade soils estimated for preliminary planning purposes should be confirmed by specific laboratory tests performed at the time of construction. 6.7 RIGID PAVEMENT SECTION MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS The pavement materials used for the proposed roadway construction should comply with the material requirements outlined in the Texas Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges (2004) (hereinafter abbreviated as SSCMHSTB) and in the current version of the joint Bryan/College Station Unified Technical Specifications (2012). More specifically, the following pavement material types, properties, and placement procedures are recommended for the rigid pavement section material. 6.7.1 PCC Pavement,Curb and Gutter,and Drainage Structures • The concrete used for the construction of any rigid pavement sections and any curbs and gutters, as well as all drainage structures associated with the proposed roadway construction should consist of a mix that has been shown to comply with the requirements of ACI 214 and ACI 301, Section 3.9.2.1. 30 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX • Submitted mix designs should indicate that the aggregates have been tested in accor- dance with ASTM C 33 within a time period that does not exceed one year. • The concrete used in the pavement system should also have a minimum modulus of rupture of 650 psi (as determined using a third point beam loading test, ASTM C78- 08 — Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Third-Point Loading), which roughly corresponds to a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM C 39. • The compression strength of the concrete should be verified by testing sets of concrete cylinders. A test set of concrete cylinders which consists of a minimum of four (4) cylinders should be cast during each placement of concrete at a rate of one set for every 75 cu yd of concrete placed, with at least one set of cylinders being cast during each placement day. One of the cylinders should be tested for compressive strength after a time lapse of 7 days following placement and the other two cylinders tested after a time lapse of 28 days. The fourth remaining cylinder may be held in reserve pending the evaluation of the compression test results for the first three (3) cylinders. • Water may be added to the mix at the site by an experienced materials engineer in order to develop design workability,but only to the extent that the water/cement ratio does not exceed 0.55 lb/lb. • If fly ash is used in the concrete, the replacement percentage should not exceed 20 percent of the total cementitious material. • An appropriate percentage of air entrainment admixture should be added to the concrete that is exposed to the weather elements. 31 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . Subsurface Exploration&Geotechnical Study Etonbury Avenue in Castlegate II; College Station, TX 7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations contained in this report are based in part on the project information provided to CSC. If statements or assumptions made in this report concerning the location and design of project elements contain incorrect information, or if additional information concerning the project becomes available, the owner or designer should convey the correct or additional information to CSC so that CSC may evaluate the correct or additional information and determine if any of the recommendations presented in this report should be modified. The field exploration which provided information concerning subsurface conditions was considered to be in sufficient detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the conceptual planning and final design of the foundation systems for the proposed roadway project. Recommendations contained in this report were developed based the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and upon generalizations of the subsurface stratigraphy based upon the assumption that the conditions present at the boring locations are continuous throughout the areas under consideration. It should be noted that regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is always a possibility that subsurface conditions encountered over a given area will be different from those present at specific, isolated boring locations. Therefore, we recommend that experienced geotechnical personnel be employed to observe con- struction operations and to document that conditions encountered during construction conform to the assumed generalizations which formed the basis for the recommendations presented in this report and any supplemental reports. Furthermore, the construction observers should document construction activities and field testing practices employed during the earthwork and pavement construction phases of the project. The owner's construction project manager should review the results of all field and laboratory construction materials tests for conformance with the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report and in the project construction documents and should verify that the assumptions made in design conform to as-constructed conditions. Questionable construction procedures and/or practices and non- conforming test results should be reported to the design team, along with timely recommendations to solve any issues raised by the questionable procedures,practices,and/or test results. The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made after preparation in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in this geographic area. No other warranty is implied or expressed. This report was prepared for the subject project specifically identified in the report. Information presented in the report shall not be used for other projects in the area of the subject project without the express written permission of the geotechnical engineer. 32 CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . APPENDIX A Figures Figure 1 — Project Vicinity Map Figure 2—Site Plan and Plan of Borings Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Key Sheets to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs Vf 0:''Cl'fr3 4 4 '-.4,-,'' .o.f', s r orK a �•. dam �4 Seal l',444'-k - ; �ia f tor, »a€ a �"a PROJECT SITE / —1 ' 3niP iT. t t'dfra, a JreL1 fi o- . ., 8 C ,,,'Ait, s,,,,' . kk 4.,i t t N �� or' ',for' a d4 i "4,4r S9 'w':�� ra'a'§fir"��,� € nt s O A, r 444f, `., k. 4 E4 a I. 3000 0 3000 FEET 3 Map Source:Google Map Image(2013) Map Modifications:Property Location(2013) F 0 5 C 0 '' Co;;u1ta zsaIncaiar ttrat> PROJECT VICINITY MAP Di C Registi ation Number F-1078 Prepared For: PROJECT: 13097-34 LOCATION: COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 3—D DEVELOPMENT, LLC. APPR: MFC REV. DATE: DRAWN BY: AEA SCALE: AS SHOWN 5 DATE: 08/16/13 FIGURE NO.: 1 C 5 LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings , I$(-- POCKET PENETROMETER O-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 0 -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST ,o1.o DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. c 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 m 07 o 2, a' a.. Plastic Water Liquid o A a i ., Gq Limit Content, 7. Limit it 1 SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN w '5 10�20 30 40 50 60 70 000 Loose, brownish–tan, silty, clayey SAND, dry w1. + Itikik Very stiff, mottled dark brown and tan, fat CLAY, with sand, slightly moist • + + — '12.4 7. Fines –2.5–/ X1.5+ / –becoming grayish–tan, with orange ferrous stains below 3' — –becoming tan below 4' El – 5 –/ .6Very stiff brownish–tan, sandy, lean CLAY, .. — with small pockets. of light tan sand, and with prange ferrous stains, slightly moist i –7.5- -10– -12.5- -15– • COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 0-- POCKET PENETROMETER 0-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST 4. A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. c. 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 o ,1) a'a Plastic Water Liquid ai ., 9 Limit Content, 7 Limit .o a q n SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN PI ] 10 20 30 • 50 60�70 Loose, tan, silty, clayey, SAND, dry Very stiff, mottled brown and tan, fat CLAY, with sand, dry to slightly moist /— 0 84 —2.5—/ 99.8 Of + 84.2 % Fines 2.8 0.— Stiff to very stiff, grayish—tan, fat CLAY, slightly moist — —becoming tan, with occasional small, white, calcareous nodules and orange ferrous stains 0 below 4' — 5 — —becoming slightly moist to moist below 5' El —7.5- -10- -12.5- -15— COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering Sc Environmental Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 0-- POCKET PENETROMETER 0-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. L. 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 a ra Plastic Water Liquid y a a ` ,> 5 Limit Content, 7. Limit SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN pq 10 20 30 • 50 60 70 Very stiff, light tan, very sandy, lean CLAY, • , dry 1.5+ 59.1 % Fines Very stiff, grayish–tan to tan, sandy, lean –2.5– CLAY, with orange and red ferrous stains, 1.5+ • V slightly moist • + 61.9 7. Fines —–with numerous horizontal and vertical seams and pockets of light tan, silty, fine sand below 4' – 5 - -' ' 15+ –7.5- -10– -12.5- -15– COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 21-- POCKET PENETROMETER 0-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. w 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 a°J 0 i a a Plastic Water Liquid ; 5 Limit Content, 7. Limit qell' n SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN as 10�20 30 • 50 60�70 Loose to medium dense, mottled tan and if brown, clayey, fine SAND, dry } • 40.2 % Fines –2.5– Stiff to very stiff, mottled tan and brown, sandy, fat CLAY, slightly moist to moist Very stiff, light grayish–tan, fat CLAY, with sand, and with orange ferrous stains, 31 – 5 –\ slightly moist ISI— –7.5- -10– -12.5- -15– COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 181 -- POCKET PENETROMETER 0-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST .0 D -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL , COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. c. . 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 i 0 9 a' a Plastic Water Liquid �' „ Limit Content, 7. Limit q n SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN ca ] 10�20 30 • 50 60#70 8" Soft, light gray, fat CLAY, wet k9 ..p. Firm to stiff, brown, sandy, lean CLAY, •�' + <Fdoi slightly moist to moist 535 % Fines –becoming stiff to very stiff, slightly moist 2/ — below 1.5' –with pockets and seams of brown, clayey { –2.5– r sand below 2' 56.3 % Fines 110.5 O Very stiff, brown to dark grayish–brown, fat CLAY, with numerous small pockets of light X1.5+ tan, silty, fine sand, slightly moist – 5 –\ /-- Very stiff, grayish–tan to light grayish–tan, fat CLAY, with sand, slightly moist + –7.5– 1.5+ –10-4111 — -12.5- -15– COMPLETION DEPTH: 10' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 0-- POCKET PENETROMETER 0-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL -.; .h " COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. w CO 1111111 c w U 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 m a' Plastic Water Liquid E9 Limit Content, 7. Limit q ,)En SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN pq10 20 30 • 50 60*70 \ Loose to medium dense, brown, clayey SAND, A dry Very stiff, dark gray, fat CLAY, with sand, slightly moist to moist /—–becoming slightly moist below 2' X1.5+ –2.5 4- 78.7 % Fines + Very stiff, tan to light tan, sandy, lean CLAY, klis slightly moist LS— –with numerous very thin seams of light tan, slightly fine sand below 4§4 ' – 5 – X1.5+ –7.5- -10– 32.5- -15– COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 0-- POCKET PENETROMETER 0-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST m .. .� COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL .> .., v • 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 0 , , a2 a" n Plastic Water Liquid ; - 9 Limit Content, 7. Limit q n SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN w10�20 30 • 50• 60#70 Loose to medium dense, brown, clayey SAND, 0 • slightly moist 47.3 7. Fir ess Medium dense, tan, silty, fine SAND, dry —2.5— Very stiff, dark gray to dark brownish—gray, icy sandy, fat CLAY, dry to slightly ,moist 1.5+ X15+ — 5 —0, —7.5- -10— 4 2.5- -15— COMPLETION DEPTH: 6' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 PROPOSED ETONBURY AVENUE GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO WESTERN BOUNDARY OF CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS TYPE: 3-1/2" Dry Auger DRILLER: HWD/CONLIN LOCATION: See Plan of Borings 0-- POCKET PENETROMETER 0-- UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST A -- TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL w COHESION, TON/SQ. FT. 1., D 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2 oi ul 0 p" A Plastic Water Liquid • .o o. 114 „ ag Limit Content, % Limit q ) SURFACE ELEVATION: NOT KNOWN ¢� lO' 20 30 • 50 60#70 • Loose, brown, silty, fine SAND, with 0 occasional gravel, dry • Non-Plastic 21.77. Finss ' — Soft to hard, light tan to whitish-tan _2 5_„� SANDSTONE, with occasional seams of sandy, . 1.5+ — lean clay, weaklycemented, with orange ,�.. -- ferrous stains, dry auger refused at 3 29.4 7. Finea - 5 - -7.5- -10- -12.5- -15- COMPLETION DEPTH: 3' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: No water in borehole during or DATE: 07/27/13 DATE: immediately after drilling. CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. KEY TO SYMBOLS AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) SAMPLE TYPES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTS AND LABORATORY TEST DATA >< \ '- ® 0 0 A Thin-Wall Split-Barrel Rock Core Cone Disturbed Cuttings No Hand Torvane Unconfined Compression U-U Tube w/Testable Penetrometer Recovery Penetrometer Recovery Triaxial Sample 30% Finer - Percent Finer than No. 200 Seive Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names Relative Density of Coarse Strained Soils Penetration Resistance ° d d Z GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand N Value Descriptive ° o Z ' .: .. Mixtures, Little or No Fines (Blows/Ft*) Term N L c a '6 N V) o o ,: g i� ° ° 0-4 Very Loose ' N o v Poorly Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand 4-10 Loose in (I)occ•- ,-z, 1.1.1v-1-6"" v GP Mixtures, Little or No Fines 10-30 Medium Dense ` :. (n o >o 30-50 Dense J N <S Q y H O z° c 0 N is-°' E GM Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Silt Over 50 Very Dense (n c Cg' 511: Mixtures * Based on driving a split-barrel o o 0 o Ftsampler with a 140 lb weight LSI ii 0< o Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Clay dropped 30 inches Z v o.. GC Mixtures o (Y S d �, a A• Soil Modifiers CD ' z w z Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, I o o cSW : Little or No Fines w 88 N °s \ cCLAYEY t ° S� < N �` Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly \\\\\ Q ° (n-J in v SP Sands, Little or No Fines O °< ° x <3:V r c SILTY o U7 N - °' c SM Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures rte' ' SANDY Na Q SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures ET�,c;sy,;.}?,;.: d N ML Inorganic Silts with Slight Plasticity Consistency Terms of Fine—Grained Soils z Compressive o (n Xn Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium Strength, qu Descriptive J (/) o CL Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Lean Clays (ton/sq ft) Term Oin Q v i i i a 0 to 0.25 Very Soft • N J i i i i i Organic Silts and organic Silty 0.25 to 0.50 Soft 0 Nin U J OL mil m i Clays of Low Plasticity 0.50 to 1.00 Firm Z o a°'� i I I I i 1.00 to 2.00 Stiff c 2.00 to 4.00 Very Stiff OL Q i in Inorganic Silts, Micaceous or o o 2S' MH Diatomaceous Fine Sand or Silty Over 4.00 Hard C7 2 N (n o c Soils, Elastic Silts I `o I- 5 a a- Z ° (n w CH Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Groundwater Levels Fat Clays o n , \ V - STATIC WATER LEVEL o \� Organic Clays of Medium to Highin - J o OH \\\\ Plasticity, Organic Silts - HYDROSTATIC WATER LEVEL HARDNESS CLASSIFICATION OF INTACT ROCK Rock Classification APPROX. RANGE OF UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH - I 11 HARDNESS (P.S.I.) :r SHALE II II I SILTSTONE EXTREMELY HARD >13,900 --- %//: LIMESTONE / / CLAYSTONE VERY HARD 6,940 - 13,900 ___ '/. HARD 3,470 - 6,940 SOFT 1,740 - 3,470 SANDSTONE COAL VERY SOFT 70 - 1,740 7":."7".- CSC , .7.CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC . APPENDIX B Summary of Laboratory Test Results a Z Rl 4 u E-o E . I O ‘..J `", N o etH cu Z ti) p b 4 o Y w 0 I— U y oa �, ° - + Y ,xyZ c r o •. °� a rr rr v M 7 5 ..yM fC M a) u. Z p L 0i i CAA A y Q O a 0 F p 0 U rtW L b° a d 0 7 7 z 0 F ri b .. J b 0 • E-0 C.) :3 ' l' .a I o I I- V1 c, a w 5 N W O e, o O ° v' •° 2 H d v . I . a O O U � r It c:::, te 1:1 o 14 N d 0 pp Go O `d : v \ v . E ,Eo 0 ▪ a Z pp t1a W ? 1 N . i N 1 N °:b •� C4 . . C) U c.8 ! rri a b Oi a v W O O G> ,-1t: o▪ to.I. o SO. 0 O cl Z '5 rNh C i LO .1 Ccu w m c, ^ o W WaNy te bu q >y i 4 i N , ^ u W N rG 7g O W a wcd > y O W d .. wc �cpa ';~ m u on C 6u b Z a y o ' : - � N 5 8 N b 8 O U .a N rh ,O N rF ,,O v p '« W 0. E 5.2 - Z vA O N rt O N rt 2w a - a> a 4 a. W rn CoQ p to._i, o Qy -- N M N M O¢ O O. I 1 1 .Y4z 0 U a V) z cn cn cn cn cn °°a. ", a Z • o II ii N w et a N cz ya �zz U 4 = Z CG Wo Z cd . u • U Z ea z k El a) )10 E".0 E I I 1 1 1 I cs C U N o ca 1.- Z Z ao Ja a> v Qo O O. Hir, o ° Y Y Y Y N-I-)+ 401 J CI m i ;!--% in + Lrl N N �• C •. 0. C.I 7 4 ' M N 'b •.I N N "O '8 41 z Up Qo '7 12. I 1 I 1 I I b 1n .5 p CA -Fo et U a °' L n • ca ° = 1 1 CA aij E� o w • E•1 C.) L _ ^ I I I CJ y L .7 • I i i cid W O o - Z E" t' Z o W a 71 L. ) 1 1 n '5� f • c L° o Cl Z ei c o $b Ga m c 1 1 cw F., p ++ U a A fa . Et 3 Po Z to y d o CO O q E C1 N R ° a O Z - -8 I a eg kr) 66 . a bo ' 1 G0 b • _ N I m I a Z 6 O .. Na •_ e: iv 0 d o o e O N a CY : i C N > °`�, U I N I In �u pc, � � et g8 � 74 W o > W d u W °e ° d ° 'ovI - I on c 5 2 3Z .. — b ° O °.:•' ? r? W d I I I 1 I I f~ p 8 y Z "d A O N �t O N 7 °' p, ti C.) a 4 a•: W p ° 8.q Q A Q„ a — N M N Cr) y a O C� ° I I I I I I +4 4 Z G U Ar CA z cn cn cn cn a° w Z II O II II N a, air.,4 a• U 015z ,o aszro p6 U Z 03 . H 2 j 1 o p E.o O U ,,, •,-I N o I- cet c F 0 Z at d0 4 11 O 0. Yrft o ,J p _ m Cl + + + + + m C v `? IIl V1 N V'1 L bA O. '' u '1? M V N V •.r N :Q78 Z L .=, .0., a I o I I I I I I b V1 A p y •E 0 H : ' a � L > a. cz _, • 1 b°3. I •I I• •I I• I > � J b c. Q .. 8 E- U °' a ' Q o n . H v1 Goo OL. ' Y F zo Z G o E W a ,7 o 1 V I 1 1 o C o o Z i4.1 cg Tu00 GG o 'y a V, 1 I I I I I O y U i ¢o _ a3 yid O � W1 o 6 + 73 .pi °... N M I •I •I 7 •I '0 •• O V , Z b V W a y _ N bszo9 1 I I � b .9-r:1 ! •, o O. 01 13 acs L9 0 Z 68•Sw U _ 0 0 7 _, o ..a .2) CIO u 0 d o o r --1 u . N y e in M I i 1 1 :1-4 cy y R� sg d Gr, It M '0 o0 G 7 W y a n N gow d wc �"e W y d u o �o ou 60 v Z o y o - 1 00 b � °'g Co) m c - O U I7 -4... y N CO N Q .v.a W ea' I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 E 'b o Z 'C A 0 N V a oo O N d' w •4••» y G4 0.., W °' aid c O Q„ O. •-.• N M 7 1/1 ,-• N M y� t 0. im EZ x0 �0. 0 a a cn cipcn cn CID v) ri) cn o a,O. z 11 O II II N ,� ..a ou d a 4 � o Tr, 'g w fizz a 4 ° z m c, °A `O z • U CAz o U N 0 o F- r 0 Z on Q Q p o. I- U d ° Y . Y 4- 4. Y o Igo z �' isuu . . J 0 d v + + + m p O Cl Vl V1 O 'n a, 3 •� a s te 5c•, M V' f cid .n. G F. N d '8 Z L d .� 1 1 V] G C y o H U d L T 01)c d F w b J W i et Tei J,4 ESU �' ;: t. a . 1 1 A ctt F cA C .a a 7 � Z F t> ° z o O z8� Z � � c o o 1 I I Al O O G> U •L ,", v N co. o �1 Y� \ v-, 1 z ° on > 4 rC �°_. N Z N ..o y O VA e , Z c a W a .1o 1 1 °z c0 b 'o � 8 a a . a Ncui - z P. §la.. Oi i et CA2 mi CA a .o v �j owa o N (,9 y ,� J Z, G o U o �w o o CI ° a C m 0 o w w G� V F. >y o m c c [� rh O 4, W 0 a w N N g 6 " 1 7 W c LL' r ° i tidd r.. N M N OD� a.b O i p 00 „ M ,_, 0 0 �.b N EJ 0 • F �. •J (' �,,, s N N N v p .. ;•14S.Z' I I I 10 o N C O N V C) N w a o G. o. ... N M N 15• O 9. p i Z I 1 1 I 1 x• 42 p i.. ° z v, v) v) v) vi a o U w Boaz ..a., ou Q a II N t a c. oo ,z �;a aizz 0 U 4 5 z ca ,o Ga rn o z