HomeMy WebLinkAbout43 Castlegate II Sec 200 11 37Water System Report
for
Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
College Station, Texas
February 2011
(revised April 2011)
Prepared By:
Phillips Engineering
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
(979) 690-3141
TPBE FIRM #13130
. '. .. .
General Information
Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
Water System Report
The Castlegate II Subdivision is a 202-acre residential subdivision being developed immediately
southwest of the existing Castlegate Subdivision in College Station. The recently approved
Preliminary Plat shows a total of 629 lots in the whole development. The first phase will be
Section 200, which is located adjacent to Castlegate Section 7 at the terminus of Victoria Avenue
and will contain 4 7 lots .
Since this is the first phase of a large development, an analysis was conducted on the entire water
system to ensure its ability to serve all lots under fully developed conditions . This analysis was
conducted with waterline sizes of 8" or less to demonstrate that larger size lines are not necessary
even though they may be required by the City for future development in the area. A second
analysis was conducted for Section 200 only to demonstrate that it can function as a stand-alone
system .
Revision Note: At the requ es t of th e City staff, two additional analyzes were conducted using th e
12 " lin es that are shown on the construction plans and included in th e oversize requ es t for S ection
200. Computer models were changed to incorporate 12 " lin es as shown on the Preliminary Plat in
both the fully developed conditions and in Section 200 by itself Exhibits showing th e results of
thos e models have been added to this report.
Design Criteria
Primary Water Supply:
Domes tic D emand:
Avg. Pop D ensity:
Average Flo w:
P ea king Fac tor:
Peak Flow:
D esign Flo w:
Fire D emand:
Fire Flow :
Pipe:
Roug hn ess Co e.ff:
Hydraulic Software:
Existing 8" line on Victoria Avenue and an 8" line that lies in an easement in
Section 7 of Castlegate. Both lines will be used with the construction of
Section 200 to provide looping in all future phases of the development.
2 .67 people per lot
100 gpd/cap or 267 gpd per lot = 0.18 gpm per lot
4
0.74 gpm per lot
1.50 gpm per lot
1000 gpm at most hydraulically remote point
PVC DR-14 C900
150 (Hazen Williams)
EPANet v.2.0
Existing City System Press ure Tes ts
Flow Hy drant #: V-037 (Camber @ Victoria)
Flowra te: 1430 gpm
Static Hy dra nt #: V -04 7
Static Pressure: 85 psi (196 ft water)
R es idual Pressure: 77 psi (178 ft water)
Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit A -College Station Utilities Flow Test Report
Water System Summary of Entire System under Fully Developed Conditions
In order to establish the most hydraulically remote point of the entire system, a model was run
under peak flow conditions without fire flow added to the demand. The point with the lowest
pressure is J107-3 , located in the lower left comer of Exhibit B . A fire demand of 1000 gpm was
added at the nearest fire hydrant location, which is J107-2 . Results of that model are shown below.
Cri te ria
Min. Pressure -fir e (p s i)
Ma x. Ve locity (fps)
Required
20
12
As
Des ign ed
52 .37
11 .72
Lo cation
J107-3
P107-4
Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit B -Overall Water System Layout
Exhibit C -Water System Analysis-Normal Conditions at Peak Flow
(Junction Summary)
Exhibit D -Water System Analysis -Fire Flow Conditions (Junction
Summary)
Exhibit E -Water System Analysis -Fire Flow Conditions (Pipe Summary)
Exhibit F -Wat e r System Analysis w/ Oversized Lines -Fire Flow
Conditions (Junction Summary)
Exhibit G -Wat er System Analysis wl Oversized Lines -Fire Flow
Condition s (Pip e Summa ry)
Water System Summary of Section 200 only
Criteria
Min. Pressure -fire (psi)
Max. Velo c ity {fps)
M ax. L ength of 6 " pipe (ft) j
(c onn ected to > 8 "on both !
Ma x L ength of 6 " pipe (ft) I
(not conn ected on both i
Max. L ength of 4 "pipe (ft) I
Required
20
12
1500
800
500
As
Design ed
66.84
6.1
903
NA
NA
Location
J200-6
P200-7
Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit H -Section 200 Water System Layout
Conclusion
Exhibit I -Water System Analysis -Fire Flow Conditions
Exhibit J -Water Sy stem Analysis w/ Oversize d Lines -Fire Flow
Condition s
Results from all four analyzes indicate that the planned system in Section 200 , as well as system for
the entire subdivision, will exceed the minimum requirements of the BCS Design Guidelines and
the State of Texas.
2
" ..
Date
Time
Test
completed by
Witness
Location
Nozzle size
Flow hydrant
Pitot read ing
G.P.M.
Static hydrant
Static PS I
Residual PSI
Comments
Exhibit A
College Station Utilities Flow Test Report
"··· 11 ······· · · · '.1· , ··• · .·uu·· • ··1··1·j· ···· ·· u D ... ege • ... · ... a .. IU D·. ·. > .. ; l l:BS
iteliabte, A#totda.IJ(e,,.Cammunity ·Qwner.I
Tuesday 24 August 2010
11:00 A.M.
Justin Tamplin
Vincent Rodriguez
4228 Camber
2.5
V-037
77
1430
V-047
85
77
REQUESTED FLOW TEST
;. .-,
'' Exhibit C
Castlegate II Subdivision, All Sections
Water System Analysis -NORMAL CONDITIONS AT PEAK FLOW
w I Minimum Required Line Sizes
February 4, 2011
EPA Net Junction Summary
Label E levation Demand HGL Pressure Label Elevation Demand HGL Pressure
ft gpm ft ps i ft gpm ft psi
June JI 00-1 319.5 18.00 494.43 75.80 Jun e J201-2 315 .5 18.00 494.64 77.62
Jun e JI 00-2 320 .0 28.50 494.25 75.50 Jun e J201-3 315.0 19.50 494 .62 77.83
June J 100-3 326.0 18 .0 0 494.08 72.83 Jun e J201 -4 318.0 18.00 494.54 76.50
Jun e JI00-4 323.0 30.00 493.98 74 .0 8 Jun e J201-5 316.0 24 .00 494.54 77.36
Jun e JlOl-1 330 .0 16.50 493 .9 4 7 1.04 Jun e J201-6 320.0 0.00 494.48 75.60
Jun e JIOJ-2 325 .5 27.00 493 .88 72.96 Jun e J201-7 323 .0 0.00 494 .37 74.25
June JIOl -3 336.0 0.00 493.87 68.4 1 Jun e J201-8 324.0 0.00 494.21 73.75
Jun e JIOl-4 336.0 19.50 493.87 68.41 Jun e J203-I 333.0 0.00 495.92 70 .59
Jun eJIOl-5 328.0 28.50 493 .83 7 1.86 Jun e J203-2 334.0 33 .00 495 .03 69 .77
Jun e Jl02-l 334 .0 0.00 493 .85 69.26 Jun e J203-3 328 .0 30.00 494 .79 72.27
Jun e J102-2 336.0 2 1.0 0 493 .85 68.40 June J203-4 322 .0 0 .00 494 .83 74.89
Jun e JI02-3 329.0 30.00 493.83 7 1.4 2 June J203 -5 327.0 16.50 494 .83 72.72
June Jl02-4 329.0 0.00 493.83 7 1.4 2 June J203-6 326.0 15 .00 494 .75 73.12
June JI 03-1 325.0 15 .00 494 .09 73 .27 Jun e J204-J 323 .0 30 .00 494 .66 74.38
Jun e JI 03 -2 325 .0 15.00 493.96 73.2 1 Jun e J204-2 323 .0 15 .00 494.67 74.38
Jun e 1104-1 325.5 6.00 494.09 73.05 June J205 -l 326.0 6.00 494.20 72.88
June Jl04-2 340.0 27.00 494.07 66.76 Jun e J205-2 338.0 18.00 494 .10 67.64
June 1104-3 325.5 6.00 493.95 72.99 Jun e J205 -3 326.0 6.00 494 .36 72.95
Jun e Jl04-4 334 .0 27.00 493 .72 69.2 1 Jun e J205 -4 337 .0 18.00 494.26 68.14
Jun e JI 05-1 328 .0 15.00 493 .87 71.87 Jun e J206-l 320 .0 6.00 494.48 75.60
Jun e JI05-2 329 .0 15 .00 493 .83 71.42 Jun e J206-2 330.0 18.00 494.47 7 1.27
Jun e JI06-l 328 .0 6.00 493.87 71.87 Jun e J206-3 3 16.0 0 .00 494.49 77.34
Jun e Jl06-2 335 .0 27.00 493 .63 68.74 Jun e J206-4 316 .5 6.00 494.4 8 77.12
Jun e Jl06-3 330.0 6.00 493.83 70.99 Jun e J206-5 322.0 18.00 494 .38 74 .69
Jun e JI 06-4 337 .5 27.00 493.59 67.64 Jun e J207-l 312.0 0 .00 494.51 79.08
Jun e Jl07-J 330.0 13 .50 493 .82 70 .98 Jun e J207-JO 310.0 18.00 494.46 79.93
Jun e JI 07-2 331.0 6.00 493 .82 70.55 Jun e J207-l 1 316.0 0.00 494.60 77.39
June J107-3 340.0 27.00 493.58 66.55 Jun e J207-12 306.0 0.00 494 .60 8 1.72
June 1107-4 330.0 0.00 493 .82 70.98 Jun e J207-2 313.0 6 .00 494 .50 78.65
Jun e J200-I 3 12 .0 0 .00 495 .92 79 .69 Jun e J207-3 314 .5 18 .00 494.40 77.95
June J200-2 314.0 0.00 495 .29 78.55 Jun e J207-4 312 .0 0 .00 494 .51 79.08
June J200 -3 321.0 0.00 495 .01 75.40 Jun e J207-5 3 13.0 0.00 494 .55 78.67
Jun e J200-4 321.0 24.00 494 .96 75 .38 Jun e J207-6 3 10.0 9 .00 494.54 79.96
Jun e J200 -5 319 .0 24.00 494 .77 76.16 Jun e J207 -7 3 13.0 21.00 494.38 78.59
Jun e J200-6 329 .0 0.00 494 .78 7 1.83 Jun e J207-8 312 .0 0.00 494.56 79.10
Jun e J207-9 3 11.0 6.00 494 .55 79.53
Jun e J208-l 3 15 .0 0 .00 494 .57 77.81
Jun e J208-2 317 .0 30.00 494 .58 76.95
June J208-3 320.0 15 .00 494.62 75 .66
Lowest Pressure Sections 100-200 66 .55 Lowest Pressure Sections 201-208 67.64
. '
Label
June JI 00 -1
Jun e JI 00-2
Jun e JI 00-3
June JI00-4
Jun e J 101-1
June JIOl-2
June JIOl-3
June JIOl-4
June JI0!-5
Jun e J 102-1
Jun e Jl02-2
Jun cJ102-3
June JI02-4
Jun e JI 03-1
Jun e J103-2
June JI 04-1
Jun e JI 04-2
June JI 04-3
June JI 04-4
Jun e JI 05-1
Jun e JI 05-2
June JI 06-1
June JI 06-2
June 1106-3
June Jl06-4
Jun e J107-l
June JI07-2
June J107-3
Jun e JI 07-4
June J200-l
Jun e J200-2
Jun e J200-3
June J200-4
June J200-5
June J200-6
Exhibit D
Castlegate II Subdivision, All Sections
Water System Analysis -FIRE FLOW CONDITIONS
w/ Minimum Required Line Sizes
February 4, 2011
EPA Net Junction Summary
Elevation Demand HGL Pres sure Label Elevation Demand HGL
ft gpm ft ps i ft gpm ft
319 .5 18.00 474.66 67 .23 Jun e J201-2 315.5 18.00 479 .12
320 .0 28 .50 473 .95 66 .7 1 June J201-3 315.0 19.50 479 .06
326.0 18.00 471.66 63.12 June J201-4 318 .0 18.00 478 .77
323.0 30.00 471.39 64.30 June J201-5 316 .0 24.00 478.73
330 .0 16 .50 469 .88 60.6 1 June J201-6 320 .0 0 .00 478 .36
325 .5 27 .0 0 469.58 62.43 June J201-7 323.0 0 .00 477.29
336 .0 0.00 468.59 57.45 June J20 1-8 324 .0 0 .00 475.32
336 .0 19.50 468.59 57.45 Jun e J203-l 333 .0 0.00 482.99
328.0 28.50 467.98 60 .65 Jun e J203-2 334 .0 33 .00 480.34
334.0 0.00 467 .75 57 .95 Jun e J203-3 328 .0 30.00 479.66
336 .0 2 1.0 0 467.75 57 .09 Jun e J203-4 322 .0 0 .00 479.81
329 .0 30.00 466.43 59 .55 June J203-5 327.0 16 .50 479.81
329 .0 0 .00 466.43 59.55 June J203-6 326.0 15 .00 479 .60
325.0 15.00 473.09 64.17 June J204-1 323.0 30.00 479 .31
325 .0 15.00 471.25 63 .37 June J204-2 323 .0 15.00 479 .35
325 .5 6 .00 473.09 63 .95 June J205-I 326 .0 6 .00 475 .31
340 .0 27 .00 473 .08 57 .66 June J205-2 338 .0 18.00 475 .21
325 .5 6 .00 47 1.25 63.15 June J205-3 326.0 6.00 477.29
334 .0 27 .00 471.01 59.37 Jun e J205-4 337.0 18 .00 477.19
328.0 15 .00 469.41 6 1.27 June J206-l 320 .0 6 .00 478.36
329.0 15 .00 467 .54 60.03 June J206 -2 330 .0 18 .00 478 .36
32 8.0 6 .00 469.41 61.27 June J206-3 316 .0 0 .00 478 .52
335 .0 27 .00 469 .17 58.14 June J206-4 316 .5 6 .00 478 .51
330 .0 6.00 467 .53 59.59 June J206-5 322 .0 18.00 478.41
337 .5 27 .00 467 .30 56.24 Jun e J207-I 312 .0 0 .00 478 .69
330 .0 13.50 465.14 58.55 June J207-I 0 310.0 18.00 478.89
331.0 1,006.00 461.09 56.37 June J207-l I 316.0 0 .00 479.11
340.0 27.00 460.86 52.37 Jun e J207-l 2 306.0 0.00 479 .11
330 .0 0.00 465 .14 58 .55 J une J207-2 313 .0 6.00 478 .69
312 .0 0 .00 482 .97 74.08 June J207-3 314.5 18 .00 478 .59
314 .0 0 .00 480 .17 72.00 June J207-4 312.0 0.00 478 .73
321.0 0 .00 479 .93 68.87 June J207 -5 313 .0 0 .00 478.94
321.0 24 .00 479.89 6 8.85 June J207-6 310 .0 9 .00 478 .93
319 .0 24 .00 479.48 69.54 June J207-7 313.0 21.00 478 .78
329 .0 0 .00 479.58 65 .25 June J207-8 3 12.0 0 .00 478 .99
June J207-9 3 11.0 6 .00 478 .99
June J208-1 315.0 0 .00 478 .95
June J208 -2 317 .0 30.00 479.04
June J208-3 320 .0 15.00 479.21
Pressure
psi
70.90
71.09
69.66
70.51
68.62
66.86
65 .57
64 .99
63.41
65 .71
68.38
66.21
66 .55
67 .73
67.75
64 .70
59.45
65.55
60 .74
68 .62
64.2 8
70.42
70 .20
67 .77
72.23
73.1 8
70.68
75 .01
71.79
71.10
72.24
71.90
73 .20
71.83
72 .36
72 .79
71.04
70 .21
68.9 8
Lowest Press ure in Sections 100-200 I 52 .3 7
Highlighted junction indicates location of nearest fire
hydrant where fire flow was mod eled.
Lowest Press ure in Sections 201-208 \ 59.45
"•
Label
Pipe PI00-1
Pipe P I 00-2
PipePI00-3
Pipe Pl00-4
Pipe PIO!-!
Pipe 1;'101-2
Pipe PIOl-3
Pipe PIOI-4
Pipe PIOI-5
Pipe PI02-l
Pipe Pl02-2
Pipe Pl02-3
Pipe Pl02-4
Pipe Pl03-l
Pipe Pl03-2
Pipe Pl03-3
Pipe Pl04-l
Pipe Pl04-2
Pipe Pl04-3
Pipe P l 04-4
Pipe Pl05-l
Pipe Pl05-2
Pipe PI05-3
Pipe Pl05-4
Pipe Pl06-l
Pipe Pl06-2
Pipe PI06-3
Pipe Pl06-4
Pipe Pl07-l
Pipe Pl07-2
Pipe Pl07-3
Pipe P107-4
Pipe Pl07-5
Pipe P200-l
Pipe P200-2
Pipe P200-3
Pipe P200-4
Pipe P2 00-5
Pipe P200-6
Pipe P200-7
Exhibit E
Castlegate II Subdivision, All Sections
Water Sy stem Analysis -FIRE FLOW CONDITIONS
w/ Minimum Required Line Sizes
February 4 , 2011
EPA Net Pipe Summary
Length Diameter Discharge Velocity Length Di ameter Discharge Lab el
ft in gpm ft/s ft in gpm
358.0 8.00 105 2 .19 6 .72 • Pipe P201-l 243.0 8.00 295 .60
465.0 8 .00 303 .13 1.93 Pipe P201-l0 782.7 8.00 423 .31
382 .0 8.00 731.06 4.67 Pipe P201-3 133 .0 6 .00 72.40
540.0 6.00 78 .54 0.89 Pipe P20l-4 1174.0 6 .00 52.90
296 .0 8.00 634.52 4.05 Pipe P201-5 354.0 6.00 34.90
540.0 6 .00 81.53 0.93 Pipe P201-6 351.0 8 .00 -253.64
291.0 8.00 536.49 3.42 Pipe P201-7 208.0 8 .00 328 .57
128.0 6 .00 0 .00 0.00 Pipe P201-8 307.0 8 .00 471.31
552 .0 6.00 119.54 1.36 Pipe P201-9 625 .0 8 .00 447.31
333.0 8.00 397.46 2.54 Pipe P202-l 756.0 8.00 0.00
173.0 8 .00 0.00 0.00 Pipe P203-l 305.0 8.00 -772 .39
572.0 8.00 376.46 2.40 Pip e P203-2 310.0 8.00 367.43
126 .0 8.00 0 .00 0.00 Pipe P203-4 665 .0 8.00 -2 12.74
671.0 8.00 274.63 1.75 Pipe P203-5 664.0 6 .00 31.64
649 .0 6.00 48.54 0.55 Pipe P203-6 436.0 8.00 0.00
291 .0 8.00 649.94 4 .15 Pipe P203-7 310 .0 8.00 -196 .24
68 .0 8.00 33 .00 0.2 1 Pip e P204-l 880 .0 6.00 48.44
642 .0 8.00 27 .00 0.17 Pipe P204-2 665 .0 6 .00 25 .92
67.0 6.00 33.00 0.37 Pipe P204-3 310 .0 8.00 25 8.34
456.0 4.00 27 .00 0.69 Pip e P204-4 310.0 8.00 212 .88
649.0 6.00 54 .53 0.62 Pip e P205-l 175 .3 6.00 24 .00
649 .0 6 .00 91.04 1.03 Pip e P205-2 420 .0 4.00 18 .00
291.0 8 .00 650.48 4 .15 Pipe P205-3 87 .0 6.00 24 .00
29 1.0 8.00 657 .01 4 .19 Pip e P205-4 420 .0 4.00 18 .00
67 .0 6 .00 33 .00 0.37 Pip e P206-l 87 .0 8.00 24.00
456 .0 4 .00 27.00 0.69 Pip e P206-2 555 .0 8.00 18 .00
68 .0 6.00 33.00 0 .37 Pip e P206-3 87.0 6 .00 24 .00
456 .0 4.00 27.00 0 .69 Pip e P206-4 420 .0 4 .00 18.00
659 .0 8.00 346.46 2.2 1 Pip e P206-5 307 .0 8.00 -166 .74
332 .0 8.00 700.04 4.47 Pip e P206-6 268 .0 8.00 -1 90 .74
126 .0 8.00 0 .00 0.00 Pip e P207 -l 87.0 6 .00 24 .00
67.0 6.00 1033.00 11.72 Pip e P207-l 0 547 .0 8.00 106 .71
453 .0 4 .00 27 .00 0.69 Pipe P207-2 420 .0 4 .00 18 .00
145 .0 8.00 11 89.1 l 7.59 Pipe P207-3 46 .0 8.00 -214.74
681.0 8.00 -1 36 .92 0 .87 Pipe P207-4 261.0 8.00 -214 .74
126 .0 8.00 136 .92 0.87 Pip e P207-5 160.0 6 .00 30 .00
966 .0 8.00 159 .23 1.02 Pipe P207-6 478 .0 4 .00 21.00
327 .0 8.00 272 .15 1.74 Pipe P207-7 347 .0 8 .00 -82.71
520 .0 6 .00 47.45 0.54 Pip e P207-8 88.0 6.00 24 .00
384 .0 6 .00 -47.45 0 .54 Pipe P207-9 405 .0 4 .00 18.00
Pip e P208-l 613.0 6.00 -64 .03
Pipe P208-2 267.0 6 .00 64 .03
Pipe P208-3 728 .0 6 .00 -50 .25
Pipe P208-4 268.0 8 .00 171.96
Pip e P208-5 35 l.O 8.00 205 .82
Pipe P208-6 418.0 8.00 -106 .71
Pipe P208-7 207.0 8 .00 162 .04
Velocity
ft/s
1.89
2.70
0 .82
0 .60
0.40
1.62
2.10
3 .01
2.86
0.00
4.93
2.35
1.36
0.36
0.00
1.25
0.55
0 .29
1.65
1.36
0 .27
0.46
0 .27
0.46
0 .15
0.1 l
0.27
0.46
1.0 6
l.22
0 .27
0 .68
0.46
1.37
1.37
0.34
0 .54
0 .53
0 .27
0.46
0 .73
0 .73
0 .57
I. I 0
1.3 l
0.6 8
l.03
Max Veloc ity Sections 10 0-200 1 11.72 Max Velocity Sections 201-208 1 4.93
Label Elevation
ft
June J l 00-1 3 19 .5
June J l 00-2 320.0
June J 100-3 326.0
June Jl 00-4 323 .0
June JlOl-1 330.0
Jun e JlOl-2 325.5
Jun e JlOl-3 336 .0
June JlOl-4 336 .0
June JlOl-5 328.0
Jun e Jl 02-1 334 .0
June Jl02-2 336 .0
Jun e Jl 02-3 329 .0
Jun e Jl02-4 329.0
Jun e JI 03-1 325 .0
Jun e 1103-2 325 .0
June J 104-1 325.5
Jun e J 104-2 340 .0
June JI 04-3 325.5
June J104-4 334 .0
JuncJl05-I 328.0
June Jl 05-2 329.0
Jun e Jl 06-1 328 .0
Jun e J 106-2 335 .0
June J 106-3 330.0
Jun e JI06-4 337 .5
Jun e JI 07-1 330 .0
June Jl07-2 331.0
June J107-3 340.0
June JI07-4 330 .0
Jun e J200-I 312.0
June J200-2 314 .0
June J200-3 321.0
June J200-4 321.0
Jun e J200-5 319.0
Jun e J200-6 329 .0
Exhibit F
Castlegate II Subdivision, All Sections
Water System Analysis -FIRE FLO W CONDITIO NS
w/Oversized Lines
April 8, 2011
EPA Net Junction Summary
Demand HGL Pressure Label Elevation Demand
gpm ft psi ft gpm
18.00 479 .09 69.15 June J201-2 315.5 18.00
28 .50 478.57 68 .71 Jun e J201-3 315 .0 19 .50
18.00 478.36 66.02 Jun e J201-4 3 18.0 18.00
30.00 477.72 67 .04 Jun e J201-5 3 16.0 24.00
16 .50 477.93 64.10 Jun e J201-6 320.0 0.00
27.00 477.08 65.68 Jun e J201-7 323 .0 0.00
0.00 477.64 61.37 June J201-8 324.0 0 .00
19.50 477.64 6 1.37 June J203-I 333 .0 0.00
28.50 476.35 64.28 Jun e J203-2 334 .0 33.00
0.00 477.47 62 .16 June J203-3 328 .0 30 .00
21.00 477.47 61.30 Jun e J203-4 322 .0 0 .00
30 .00 475.47 63.46 Jun e J203-5 327.0 16 .50
0 .00 475.47 63.46 Jun e J203-6 326 .0 15 .00
15 .00 477.96 66.28 Jun e J204-l 323.0 30.00
15.00 477.26 65.97 June J204-2 323 .0 15 .00
6.00 477.96 66 .06 Jun e J205-l 326 .0 6 .00
27.00 477.95 59.77 June J205-2 338.0 18.00
6.00 477.25 65.75 Ju ne J205-3 326.0 6 .00
27 .00 477.02 61 .97 June J205-4 337 .0 18 .00
15.00 476.39 64.30 Jun e J206-l 320 .0 6.00
15.00 475.25 63.37 Jun e J206-2 330 .0 18 .00
6.00 476.38 64.29 Jun e J206-3 316.0 0.00
27.00 476.15 61.16 Jun e J206-4 316 .5 6 .00
6.00 475 .25 62.94 June J206-5 322.0 18 .00
27.00 475.0 1 59 .58 Jun e J207-1 312 .0 0.00
13.50 473.43 62.15 Jun e J207-10 310.0 18 .00
1,006 .00 469 .38 59 .96 Jun e J207-I l 316.0 0 .00
27.00 469.15 55.96 Jun e J207-12 306.0 0 .00
0.00 473.43 62 .15 Jun e J207-2 313 .0 6.00
0.00 482 .99 74 .09 Jun e J207-3 314.5 18 .00
0.00 480.17 72.00 Jun e J207-4 312.0 0.00
0.00 480 .18 68 .97 June J207-5 313.0 0 .00
24 .00 480.18 68.97 Jun e J207-6 3 10 .0 9 .00
24 .00 479.97 69 .75 June J207-7 3 13.0 21.00
0.00 480.03 65.44 Ju ne J207-8 312.0 0.00
June J207-9 311.0 6 .00
Jun e J208-l 315 .0 0.00
Jun e J208-2 317.0 30.00
June J208-3 320.0 15.00
HGL Pressure
ft psi
479 .80 71.19
479 .76 71.39
479.64 70.04
479.63 70.90
479.49 69.l l
479 .14 67 .66
478.56 66 .97
483 .00 64.99
480.37 63.42
480 .07 65.89
480 .30 68 .59
480 .30 66.42
480 .09 66 .77
479.89 67.98
479 .93 68.00
478 .55 66 .10
478.45 60.86
479 .14 66 .36
479 .04 61.55
479.49 69.l l
479.48 64.77
479.53 70.86
479.53 70 .64
479.43 68.21
479 .60 72.62
479 .62 73.50
479.79 70.97
479.79 75.30
479.59 72.18
479.49 71.49
479.61 72.63
479.70 72.23
479.69 73.53
479 .54 72.16
479 .72 72.67
479 .72 73 .l l
479.7 1 71.37
479 .75 70 .52
479 .84 69.26
Lowest Pr essure in Section s 100-200 55.96 Lowest Pressure in S ections 201-208 I 60.86
Highlighted junction indicates location of nearest fire
hydrant where fire flow was modeled .
Label
PipePl00-1
Pipe PI00-2
Pipe PI00-3
Pipe PI00-4
Pipe Pl 01-1
Pipe PIOl-2
Pipe PIOl-3
Pipe PIOl-4
Pipe PIOl-5
Pipe P102-1
Pipe P102-2
Pipe P102-3
Pipe P102-4
Pipe P103-1
Pipe P103-2
Pipe P103-3
Pipe P104-1
Pipe P104-2
Pipe P104-3
Pipe P104-4
Pipe P105-l
Pipe P10 5-2
Pipe PI05-3
Pipe P105-4
PipeP106-l
Pipe PI06-2
Pipe P106-3
Pipe PI06-4
Pipe PI07-I
Pipe P107-2
Pipe P107-3
Pipe P107-4
PipeP107-5
Pipe P200-I
Pipe P200-2
Pipe P200-3
Pipe P200-4
Pipe P200-5
Pipe P200-6
Pipe P200-7
Length
ft
358.0
465.0
382 .0
540.0
296 .0
540.0
291.0
128.0
552.0
333 .0
173 .0
572.0
12 6.0
671.0
649 .0
291.0
68 .0
642 .0
67 .0
456 .0
649 .0
649 .0
291.0
291.0
67 .0
456 .0
68 .0
456 .0
659 .0
332 .0
126 .0
67 .0
453.0
145 .0
681.0
126 .0
966.0
327 .0
520 .0
384 .0
Exhibit G
Castlegate II Subdivision, All Sections
Water System Analysis -FIRE FLOW CONDITIONS
w/Oversized Lines
April 8, 2011
EPA Net Pipe Summary
Diameter Di scharge Velocity Length Diameter
Label
m gpm ft/s ft m
12.00 1267.60 3.60 Pipe P201-I 243.0 8.00
8.00 256.10 1.63 Pipe P201-10 782 .7 8.00
12.00 993 .51 2.82 Pipe P201-3 133 .0 6 .00
6.00 123.64 1.40 Pipe P201-4 1174.0 6.00
12.00 85 1.86 2.42 Pipe P201-5 354.0 6.00
6.00 143 .76 1.63 Pipe P201-6 351.0 8.00
12.00 691.60 1.96 Pipe P201-7 208.0 8.00
6 .00 0 .00 0 .00 Pipe P201-8 307 .0 8.00
6 .00 178.43 2.02 Pipe P201-9 625 .0 8.00
12.00 493.67 1.40 Pipe P202-I 756 .0 8.00
12.00 0 .00 0 .00 Pipe P203-I 305 .0 8.00
8.00 472.67 3 .02 Pipe P203-2 310 .0 8.00
8.00 0 .00 0.00 Pipe P203-4 665 .0 12 .00
8.00 227 .60 1.45 Pipe P203-5 664 .0 6.00
6.00 93 .64 1.06 Pipe P203-6 436 .0 12 .00
8.00 387.49 2.47 Pipe P203-7 310 .0 8.00
8.00 33.00 0 .2 1 Pipe P204-I 880 .0 6.00
8.00 27 .00 0 .17 Pipe P204-2 665.0 6.00
6.00 33 .00 0.37 Pipe P204-3 310 .0 8 .00
4.00 27 .00 0.69 Pipe P204-4 310 .0 8.00
6.00 11 6 .76 1.32 Pipe P205-I 175 .3 6.00
6.00 149 .93 1.70 Pipe P205-2 420 .0 4 .00
8.00 433.14 2.76 Pipe P205-3 87.0 6.00
8.00 501.90 3 .20 Pipe P205-4 420 .0 4 .00
6.00 33 .00 0 .37 Pipe P206-I 87 .0 8 .00
4.00 27 .00 0.69 Pipe P206-2 555 .0 8.00
6 .00 33.00 0.37 Pipe P206-3 87.0 6 .00
4.00 27.00 0 .69 Pipe P206-4 420 .0 4 .00
8.00 442.67 2.83 Pipe P206-5 307 .0 8.00
8.00 603.83 3 .85 Pipe P206-6 268 .0 8.00
8.00 0 .0 0 0.00 Pipe P207-I 87 .0 6.00
6.00 1033.00 11.72 Pipe P207-IO 547.0 8.00
4 .00 27 .00 0 .69 Pipe P207-2 420 .0 4.00
8.00 1193 .04 7 .61 Pipe P207-3 46 .0 8.00
12.00 -74 .57 0.21 Pipe P207-4 261.0 8.00
12.00 -74 .57 0 .2 1 Pipe P207-5 160 .0 6.00
12.00 -288 .51 0 .82 Pipe P207-6 478.0 4.00
8.00 189 .94 1.2 1 Pipe P207-7 347 .0 8.00
6.00 34 .84 0.40 Pipe P207-8 88 .0 6 .00
6.00 34.84 0.40 Pipe P207-9 405.0 4.00
Pipe P208-I 613.0 6.00
Pipe P208-2 267 .0 6.00
Pipe P208-3 728.0 6.00
Pipe P208-4 26 8.0 8.00
Pipe P208-5 351.0 8.00
Pipe P208-6 418 .0 8.00
Pip e P208-7 207 .0 8 .00
Discharge Velocity
gpm ft/s
200.78 1.28
207 .90 1.33
53.44 0 .61
33 .94 0.39
-15 .94 0 .18
-162.37 1.04
193.53 1.24
255 .90 1.63
23 1.90 1.48
0 .00 0.00
-768.46 4 .90
234 .76 1.5 0
-212 .19 0.60
-12 .74 0.14
0.00 0.00
-195.69 1.25
-33.02 0.37
24.22 0 .27
-182 .66 1.17
167 .96 1.07
24.00 0 .27
18.00 0.46
24.00 0.27
18 .00 0.46
24 .00 0 .15
18 .00 0 .11
24 .00 0.27
18.00 0.46
-86.37 0 .55
-110 .37 0.70
24 .00 0.27
-77.30 0.49
18.00 0.46
-134 .37 0.86
-134 .37 0.86
30 .00 0 .34
21.00 0 .54
-53.30 0 .34
24.00 0.27
18 .00 0.46
39 .22 0.45
39 .22 0.45
-36.44 0.4 1
128 .74 0 .82
143 .86 0.92
77.30 0.49
-111.07 0.7 1
Max Velocity Sections 100-200 1 11.72 Max Velocity Sections 201-208 I 4.90
i .• ~ .
Exhibit I
Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
Water System Analysis -FIRE FLOW CONDITIONS
w/ Minimum Required Lines Sizes
February 4, 2011
EPA Net PIPE SUMMARY
Label Length Diameter Discharge Velocity
ft in gpm ft/s
Pipe P200-1 145 8 403 2 .6
Pipe P200-2 681 8 403 2.6
Pipe P200-3 126 8 403 2.6
Pipe P200-4 966 8 107 0 .7
Pipe P200-5 327 8 485 3.1
Pipe P200-6 520 6 461 5.2
Pipe P200-7 384 6 539 6.1
Pipe P203-1 305 8 708 4.5
Pipe P203-2 310 8 569 3 .6
Highest Ve lo city in S ection 200 6.1
EPA Net JUNCTION SUMMARY
Label Elevation Demand Calcul ated Pressure
ft ft psi
June J200-1 312 0.00 493.99 78.86
June J200-2 3 14 0 .00 493.61 77 .83
June J200-3 321 0 .00 491.84 74 .03
June J200-4 321 24 .00 491.51 73.88
June J200-5 319 24.00 490 .31 74.23
June J200-6 329 1,0 00 .00 483.25 66.84
June J203-l 333 0.00 493.98 69.75
June J203-2 334 33 .00 491.73 68.34
June J203-3 328 30 .00 490.20 70.28
Lowest Pressure in S ection 200 I 66.84
. .. ...
Exhibit J
on, Section 200 Castlegate II Subdivisi
Water System Analysis -FIRE FLOW CONDITIONS
Labe l
Pipe P200-1
Pipe P200-2
Pipe P200-3
Pipe P200-4
Pipe P200-5
Pipe P200 -6
Pipe P200-7
Pipe P203-1
Pi e P203-2
La bel
June J200-1
June J200-2
June J200-3
June J200-4
June J200-5
June J200-6
June J203-1
June J203-2
June J203-3
in es w/ O versized L
A pril 8, 20
EPA Net PIPE SUMM
11
ARY
Length Diameter Discharge
ft in gp m
145 8 580
681 12 -580
126 12 58 0
966 12 -6 7
327 8 489
520 6 -465
384 6 -535
305 8 -53 1
3 10 8 565
Hig h est Ve lo city in S ec tion 2 00
EPA Net JUNCTION SUMMARY
Elevation D emand Calcul ated
ft ft
312 0.00 493.99
3 14 0.00 493.25
321 0 .00 492.76
321 24.00 492.67
319 24 .00 49 1.46
329 1,000.00 484 .29
333 0.00 493 .99
334 33.00 492.66
328 30 .00 49 1.1 5
Lowest Press ure in S ec tion 2 00 I
Velocity
ft/s
3 .7
1.6
1.6
0.2
3.1
5 .3
6.1
3.4
3 .6
6.1
Pressure
psi
78.85
77.67
74.42
74.39
74.73
67.29
69 .76
68 .75
70.69
67.29
-
/
ASPHALT OBSERVATIONS R
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0062
08 /24/11
08/26/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
ORT
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On August 24, 2011 , a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain Hot-Mix Asphaltic
Concrete (HMAC) cores and returned to the laboratory . Results of the tests performed are shown below .
SUMMARY DENSITY TEST RES UL TS OF ASP HAL TIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT CORES
DATE LOCATION THICKNESS DENSITY AIR VOIDS MATERIAL
CORED (IN.) (pcf) (%) DESIGNATOR
8/24/11 Hadleigh Lane
Station 2+50 , right of centerline 2 .00 140 .7 8.3 .0059
Toddington Lane
8/24/11 Station 1 +00, left of centerline 2.30 143.0 6.8 .0059
Station 7+50, right of centerline 1.90 140 .7 8.3 .0059
8/24/11 Odell Lane
Station 3+25 , right of centerline 2.40 142 .3 7.2 .0059
Average 2.15 141.7 7.7
MATERIAL DATE PAVED THEORETICAL MAXIMUM THEORETICAL MAXIMUM MATERIAL TYPE DES IGNATOR SPECIFIC GRAVITY DENSITY (pct)
.0059 8118111 2.459 153 .4 HMACTypeD
NOTE: Air voids based on Theoretical Maximum Density
**No charge for this service .
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Shane Sullivan Started: **
Reported To: Randy Sigford Finished: **
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(l) 3-D Development, Dusty Ph illips (I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) City of Co lle ge Statio n TX, Israel (I ) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Kaile
Reviewed By:
(!) Terracon Consultants, Inc., Email ed (l) Terracon Co nsultants, Inc., Emailed Mark E.Domak, E.l .T.
(l) Texcon General Contractors , Bruce Project Manager
Schoen
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods. Thi s report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reprod uced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properti es of other apparently similar or identical materials .
CTOOOI, 5-5-IO, Rcv .7 P age I of I
-.
CORING/THICKNESS REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-0 Development
Al 111051.00 60
08/J 9/11
0 8/22 /11
Attn : Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station , TX 77845
979-846-3 767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On August 19, 2011 , a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain Hot-Mix Asphaltic
Concrete (HMAC) cores and returned to the laboratory . Results of the tests performed are shown below.
SUMMARY DENSITY TEST RESULTS OF ASPHAL TIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT CORES
DATE LOCATION TIIlCKNESS UNIT WEIGHT AIR VOIDS
CORED (IN.) (pcf) (%)
Toddington Lane
8-19-11 Station 1 +00, 5' right of centerline 2 .05 135.9 * 11.4
Station 7+50, 7' left of centerline 2 .38 139.2 *9 .3
8-19-11 Hadleigh Lane
Station 7+75, 5' left of centerline 2.37 140.9 *8 .1
8-19-11 Odell Lane
Station 3+50, 5' right of centerline 2 .20 137 .7 * 10 .2
MATERIAL
DESIGNATOR DATE PAVED THEORETICAL MAXIMUM
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM
DENSITY (pct)
.0059 8-18-11
NOTE: Air voids based on Theoretical Maximum Density
*Does not meet 8 /CS Unified specifications .
Services: Asphalt Coring
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, James
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
2.459
Started:
Finished:
153 .4
0745
1000
MATERIAL
DESIGNATOR
.0059
.0059
.0059
.0059
MA TERI AL TYPE
HMAC Type D
(I) 3-D Dev elopm ent , Du sty Phillips
(I) City of College Stati on TX. Israel
Koite
(I) Terr aco n Cons ult ant s, In c .. Email ed
(I) 3-D Deve lopm ent, Walla ce Ph illip s
(I) Phill ips En gin eering , Kent Laza
(I) Terraco n Cons ultant s, In c., Email ed
Reviewed By:
ft}ld!_1
---~-' : G . Rog:s . P.E
Offi ce Manager Ill (I) Texco n General Con tr ac tors. Bru ce
Schoen
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the lo cation(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or ident ical materials.
Pa ue l of I
DEPTH CHECKS REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date :
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0067
09/2 0/11
09/2 1/1 1
Attn : Dusty Ph ill ips
4490 Cast legate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6 198 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3 767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subd iv ision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenu e
Castlegate Subdi vision
College Statio n, TX 77845
Proj ect Nu mb er: A 1111051
On September 20, 2011, a Terracon Co nsu lt ants, Inc ., representative was present at the above-referenced project to perform crushed roc k
depth checks on W .S. Phillips Parkway . Results of the tests performed are shown below .
TEST LOCATION
W.S. Phillips Parkway
(1) Station 24+00, northbound lane
(2) Station 25+00, centerline of road
(3) Station 26+00, southbound lane
**Time and mileage shown on Report No. A 1111051.0066 .
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, James
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of Coll ege Station TX, Israel
Koite
(I) Phillips Engineering. Kent Laza
(I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX, Josh
Norton
(I) Terracon Consul tant s, In c., Emailed
THICKNESS (INCHES)
Me as urement to the Nearest Y."
Started: **
Finished: **
Review ed By:
8~
8
8 Yi
(I) T erracon Consu ltant s, In c., Emai led (I) Texcon General Contractors, Bruce Office Manager III
Schoen
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the clie nt
indicated above and shall no t be reproduced except in full without the written cons ent of our co mpany . Test results tr ansm itte d herein are only applicable to
thP. actual samoles tested at t he location(s) referenced and are not necess~arily !ndJ~ative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT 1
ReportNumber: Allll051.0066
Service Date: 09 /2 0/11
Report Date: 09 /21/11
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
lrerracon
6 198 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Se c 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station , TX 77845
Proj ect Number : A 1111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Mat.
No.
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Al 111051.0040
Classification and Description
Crushed stone
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
3
Test Location
W.S. Phillips Parkway
Station 24 +00 , northbound lane,
6' from curb
Station 25 +00 , centerlin e of road
Station 26 +00, southb ound lane,
5' from curb
Lift I
Elev.
Final
Final
Final
Mat.
No.
Test Method
ASTM D155 7
Probe
Depth
(in)
8
8
8
Wet
Density
(pct)
147.7
14 9.4
146 .0
(%)
5.5
Water
Content
(pcf)
11.2
9 .9
10 .6
(pct)
139 .0
Water
Content
(%)
8.2
7 .1
7 .8
(%)
5 .5 -9.5
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
136 .5
139.5
135.4
(%)
95%
Percent
Compaction
(%)
98.2
100+
97.4
Datum: Gauge ID: 3430 Std. Cnt. M: 684 Std. Cnt. D: 22 17
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in-place density and moisture content tests with a Troxler type gauge to determine degree of
compaction and material moisture condition .
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, Jam es
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Stati on TX, Israel Koite
(I) Phillips Engi neering, Kent Laza
(I ) Terracon Co nsultant s, Inc., Emai led
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Wallace Phillips
(I) C ity of Co ll ege Station TX , Jo sh Norton
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
(I ) Texcon General Contractors, Bruce Schoen
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started: 1145
Finished: 1245 tfj' ;ia, Rog: P .E .
Reviewed By:
Office Manager Ill
The tests were performed in general acco rdance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
ind icated above and shall not be reprodu ce d except in full without the written consent of our compa ny . Test results transmitted herein are only appl ic able to the
actual samples tested at the loca tio n(s) referenced and are not necessari ly indicative of the properties of other appare ntl y similar or identical materials .
P~a" 1 of 1
LIME DEPTH CHECKS REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0065
09/13/11
09/14/11
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6 19 8 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979 -8 46-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co lle ge Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On September 13, 2011, a Terracon Consu lt ants, Inc., representative was present at the abo ve-referenced project to perform lim e-depth
checks on W.S. Phillips Parkway . Results of the tests performed are shown belo w .
TEST LOCATION
W.S. Phillips Parkway
(I) Station 26+ 10 , centerline
(2) Station 24+00, centerline
**Time and mileage shown on Report No . Al 111051.0064 .
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(!)City of College Station TX, Israel
Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc., Emai led
(I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering , Kent Laza
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
THICKNESS (INCHES)
Measurement to the Nearest II..''
**
**
8
8
Office Manager Ill (I) Texcon General Contractors, Bruce
Schoen The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, MSHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
ind icat ed above and shall no t be reproduced except in full without the written co nsent of our company. Tes t results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or id entical materials.
Pa11e 1 of 1 ·
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT ,
I
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 11105 L0064
09 /13 /11
09/14/11
Attn: Du sty Phillips
449 0 Castlegate Dr
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
I
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al I I 105L0045
Classification and Description
Brownis h gray lim e-treated
sub grade
Field Test Data
Test
No. Test Location
W.S. Phillips Parkway
Station 24 +00, ce nter line
Lift I
Elev.
Sub gra de
Mat.
No.
lrerracon
6198 Imp eria l Loop
Co lle ge Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Cast legate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Vi ctoria Avenue
Cast legate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
ProjectNumb er: Al lll051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Co ntent Compaction
Test Method
AS TM D698
Probe
Depth
(in)
8
Wet
Density
(pct)
I 08.1
(%)
18.5
Water
Content
(pct)
17.4
(pct)
91.7
Water
Content
(%)
19 .2
(%)
18,5 -22,5
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
90.7
(%)
98S/90NS
Percent
Compaction
(%)
98.9
Datum: Gauge ID: 34 1 IB Std. Cnt. M:687 Std. Cot. D: 2020
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted a bove.
Services: Perform in-pl ace density and moisture content tests wit h a Troxler ty pe gauge to dete rmine degree of
compaction and material moisture co ndition ,
T erracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Development, Dusty Phi ll ips
(I) City of Coll ege Station TX, Israe l Koite
(I) Terracon Cons ultants, Inc., Ema il ed
(I} Texcon General Contractors, Bruce Sch oen
(I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
(I) Terracon Consu lt ants, Inc ., Emai led
Test Methods: ASTM D 6938 -07 M ethod A
Started:
Finished:
1230
1330
Reviewed By: t!j'
;, Roge:. P .E.
Office Ma nager 111
The tests were performed in gen eral accordance wit h applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test meth ods . This rep ort is exclusively for the use of the client
in di cated a bove and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written co ns ent of our company . Te st results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessa rily indica tiv e of the prope rti es of other apparently sim il ar or ident ica l materia ls.
Pagel of l
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 11105 1.00 63
09 /07/11
09/07111
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
(
Mat.
No.
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al 111051.0030
Classification and Description
Gray lime-treated subgrade
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
Test Location
W.S. Phillips Parkway
Station 24+00, north side
Station 24+50, south side
Lift I Mat.
Elev. No.
Final
Final
lrerracDn
6198 Imperi a l Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Re g No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Test Method
ASTM D69 8
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
Wet
Density
(pct)
118.2
12 1.2
(%)
19.1
Water
Content
(pct)
20 .1
20 .8
(pct)
99.5
Water
Content
(%)
20.5
20 .7
(%)
19 .1 -23.1
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
98.1
100.4
(%)
98%
Percent
Compaction
(%)
98.6
100+
Datum: Gauge ID: 3430 Std. Cnt. M: 690 Std. Cnt. D: 2212
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in-place density and moisture content tests with a Troxler type gauge to determine degree of
compaction and material moisture condition .
Terracon Rep.:
Reported To:
Matcek, James
Randy with Texcon
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Developm ent, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of Coll ege Station TX, Israel Koite
{I) Terracon Consultants , In c., Emailed
{I) Texcon General Contractors, Bru ce Sch oen
{I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
{I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
(I) Terracon Consu ltants , Inc., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started: 1000
Finished: 1100 ~ ~.Rog:P .E . Reviewed By:
Office Manager III
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transm itted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples teste d at the lo cation(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
Page 1 of I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT r
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Tas k:
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Al 11 1051.0061
08/23/11
08/25/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
449 0 Castlegate Dr
Co lle ge Station , TX 77845
Material Information
lrerracon
6 198 Imp eri al Loop
Co ll ege Statio n, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Sub divisio n -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Cast legate Subdi visio n
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Proj ectNumb er: A llll051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project R eq uirem ents
Water Minimum
Mat.
No.
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Al 111051.0040
Field Test Data
Classification and Description
Crushed sto ne
Test Method
AS TM Dl 557
Probe Wet
(%)
5.5
Water
(pct) (%) (%)
139.0 5.5 - 9 .5 95%
Water Dry Unit Percent
Test Lift I Mat. D epth Density Content Content Weight Compaction
No. Test Location Elev. No. (in) (pct) (pct) (%) (pct) (%)
1 Station 22+50, left of centerlin e Gra de 1 6 145 .0 13 .9 10.6 * 131.1 94.3
2 RECHECK Test #1 of this Grade 6 148.2 12.4 9.1 135 .8 97.7
report
3 Station 20+00, right of Grade 6 145 .6 10.3 7 .6 135.3 97.3
center lin e
Datum: Gauge ID: 34 1 IB Std. Cnt. M:682 Std. Cnt. D: 20 15
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in -place d ens ity and moisture co nt ent tests wi th a Troxler type gauge to determine degree of
compaction and material moi sture condition .
Terracon Rep.: Mohamm ed Mo bee n
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development. Dusty Phi ll ips
(I) City of Coll ege Station TX, Israel Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
(I) Texcon General Contractors, Bru ce Schoen
(I ) 3-D Development. Wallace Phillips
(I) Phill ips Engineering, Kent Laza
(I) Terracon Consultant s, Inc., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started:
Finished:
0900
10 30
Reviewed By: {!fl'
:. Roge: P .E .
Office Manager f!I
*
The tests were performed in general accordance with appli cabl e ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT tes t methods . This rep ort is exclus ively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full w ith out the written co nsent of o ur company . Test res ults transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual sam pl es te sted at the location(s) referen ced and are not necess aril y ind ica ti ve of the properties of othe r apparently simila r or identical materi als .
Pagel o f l
ASPHALT LABORATORY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 11 10 51.0059
08/18/1 1
08/22/11
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivi s ion -Sec 200
Victoria Aven ue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Num b er: A 11 110 51
On August 18, 2011 , a Terracon Consu ltants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain a samp le of Hot-
Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC) and returned to the lab oratory. Results of the tests performed are shown below.
Location of pick-up : Had leigh Lane, Station 8+50, right of centerli ne
Temperature ofHMAC at pick-up: 250°F Temperatur e of Sub grade Surface at pick-up: 101 °F
TxDOT 2004 SPECS
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: KRHD01-J64 Type D ORIGIN OF SAMPLE :
Current JMF
SIEVE SIZE SAMPLE #1 Cumu lative Percent Tolerance Percentages
Passing
% Passing 112" 100 100 .0 98 -100
% Passing 3/8" 95 .6 95 .9 90 .9 -100
% Passing #4 67.4 63.3 58 .3 -68 .3
% Passing #8 40.2 38.0 37.9 -46
% Passing #30 19.6 19 .6 16 .6-22 .6
% Pas s ing #50 * 12.2 I 1.9 7 -I 1.9
% Pa ssing #200 4.9 5.6 2 -6.7
Asphalt(%) 5.4 5.2 4.9 -5.5
Hveem Stability(%) 59 .3
Laboratory Density (pct) 149.4
Maximum Densitv (pct) 153.4
Laboratory Density(%) 97.4 97.0 96 -98
*Does not meet JM F spec ifi cations.
Laboratory density determi ned by Hveem me thod.
TxDOT Tolerance Percentages #8 and Larger: ±5, #30 and Smaller: ±3, #20 0 : ±2
Asphalt Content: ±0 .3, Lab Density: ±1
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
R eported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development , Dusty Phillips
(I) Ci ty of Coll ege Station TX. Israel
Koite
(I) Terracon Consulta nts , Inc .. Ema il ed
(I) Texcon General C ontracto rs, Bruce
Schoen
(I) 3-D Dev el o pment , Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineerin g. Kent Laza
(I ) Terracon Co nsultants , Inc ., Emailed
Started:
Finished:
R ev iewed By:
1100
1230
Knife River
2004 TxDot Specs
Item 340
98 -100
85 -100
50 -70
35 -46
15 -29
7 -20
2-7
-
-
-
-
96.0
Office Manager lll
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, MSHTO , or DOT test meth ods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced excep t in full without the written co ns ent of our company . Tes t results transmitted herein are only applicable to
th" ;ir.tua l samples tested at the locatio n(s) referenced and are not necessarily indi cative of th e properties of other apparently simi lar or id entical materials .
Pal!e l of 1 _____________ __.
~SPHALT OBSERVATIONS REPQ "T
! -lrerracon Report Number: Al 11105 1.00 58
~e r v ice Date: 6 198 Imp eria l L oop
R eport Dat e :
T ask:
0 8/18 /1 1
08 /19/11 Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
979-846-376 7 Reg No: F-3272
Client
3-D Deve lop m ent
A ttn : Du sty Phillip s
449 0 Castlega te Dr
Coll ege Station , T X 77845
Project
Castlega te II Subdi v ision -Sec 200
Vic tori a A venue
Castlegate S u bdiv is ion
Co ll ege Stati on , TX 77 845
Proj ec t N o . A 11110 51
On Au gust 18, 2 011 , a Terracon Consu lt ant s, In c., representat ive was present at th e above -refer enced proj ec t to perform an asp ha lt
ro llin g pattern, as requ ested by Ran dy S igfo rd wi th T excon . Res ults were give to Mr. Sigford wh ile on site.
PAS S# I 2 3 4 5
RO L L E R T YP E -Drum Drum Pneumati P ne umati Drum c c
ROLL E R STA TUS -Vibratory Vibratory Stati c S tatic Stati c
-' t ') ; ·~·. \J/. ~ :<~~f.i,. .,t:. :;:~};'7,.·~·v;'.,1· ~ ·~, ~;~~~~ /f;.~:'( :t'\( :~ tf~r: :.:;ri· ~~ ·.,:.,,.-¥1 .~_.1r·: ~ T EST LO CA TION -·-. . " .~·" ... ;' \ : -f.:.'i
Hadleif[h Lane
Stati on O+ 17 138 .0 13 7 .4 146.4 147 .3 14 7.0
Station 2+00 130 .3 130.1 133 .4 138.1 136 .7
Stati o n 3+00 135 .5 14 3.0 144 .2 144.0 14 3 .0
NOTE: Measu reme nts were made usi ng th e nuc lea r gau ge backscatter meth od between ro ll er passes.
S ervices:
Terracon Rep: Rando lph E . Rohrbac h
Reported To:
Con t r a ctor:
Report Distribution
(I) 3-D Develo pment, Dusty Ph ill ips
(I ) City of College Station TX. Israel
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc., Emailed
Started: 07 00
Finished: 150 0
Lunch/NC :
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Wall ace Phi llips
(I) Phi ll ips Engin ee rin g, Kent Laza Reviewed By :
Office Ma nager !fl
T he tests w ere performed in general accorda nce with ap pli ca bl e ASTM , AA SHTO , or DOT tes t meth ods. Thi s report is exclusive ly for th e use of
the client indi cated above and shall no t be re pro duce d exce pt in full wi tho ut the writt en consen t of our compa ny. Test results tran smitte d herein are
--• .. -M1;~,,h1 ,. '" thP. ;ictua l samples teste d at the locatio n(s) re ference d an d are not necessa rily indi cat ive of the properties of othe r apparentl y
' F, "'.·~~~~~:. ·\~ ~.~·
DEPTH CHECKS REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Clie nt
3-D Development
Al 111051.0057
08/17111
08/18/11
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
(
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Ave nu e
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Proj ect Number: A 1111051
On August 17, 2011, a Terracon Cons u ltants , In c ., representative was present at the above-referenced proje ct to perform lime-depth checks
on W.S. Phillips Parkway. Result s of the tests performed are shown below.
TEST LOCATION
W.S. Phillips Parkway
(I) Station 19 +5 0, right of centerline
(2) Station 21 +5 0 , centerline
**Time and mileage shown on Report No. Al 111051.0057.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D De ve lopment , Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Dev elopment , Wallace Phillips
(I) City of Co ll ege Station TX. Israel
Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc .. Emailed
(I) Phillips Engine ering . Ken t Laza
THICKNESS (INCHES)
Meas urement to the Neares t y,"
Started: **
Finished : **
Reviewed By:
8%
9
Office Manager 111
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
• ----•~-•0 c1or1 "'the location {s ) referen ced and are not necessarily indi cative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
P • .,,, I of I
CONCRETE SAMPLE PICK-UP REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Deve lopment
All l 1051.0056A
08/17111
08/18/J I
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
(
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperi al Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On August 17, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain 1 set of 5 concrete
cylinders cast on August 16, 2011. The samples were returned to the laboratory for processing and curin g.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(!) 3-D Development , Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX. Israel
Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, In c .. Emailed
(I} 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I} Phillips Engin eering. Kent Laza
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
1430
1530
fe21
q G. Rog:,. P.E
Office Manager ll[
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test resul ts transmitted herein are only applicable to
• ---•--•0 ct<>rl "t the lo catio n(s ) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
Pae:e I of l
----------______________ _J
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STR,..'IGTH TEST REPORT lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0056
0 8/16/11
10/13 /11 Rev ision 3 -56-day results
Attn : Du sty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
6198 Imp erial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Cas tlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Aven ue
Cas tlegate Subdiv ision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 11105 l
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days
Sample Information
Sample Date: 08 /16/11 Sample Time: 1200
Mix ID: l" 3000 psi
Supplier: Brazos Valley Servi ces
Batch Time: I 059 Plant: Bryan , TX
Truck No.: 68 Ticket No.: 16856
Field Test Data
Test
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Laboratory Test Data
Result
4 1/2
1.7
95
90
14 7.2
Specification
Sampled By:
Weather Conditions:
Accumulative Yards:
Placement Method:
Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal):
Sample Location:
Placement Location:
Moh amm ed Mobeen
Partly cloudy, li ght wind
10/40 BatchSize(cy): 10
Dire ct Discharge
Stati on 1 +50, right of centerline
Sidewalk, Hadl eigh Lane
Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) {lbs) (psi) Type
I A 4 .00 12 .57 08/17 /11 08 /23/11 7 32,530 2,590 3
B 4.00 12 .57 08/17/11 09 /13/11 28 37,650 3,000 3
c 4.00 12 .57 08/17 /11 09 /13 /11 28 37,310 2,970 3
D 4.00 12 .57 08/17/1 1 09 /13 /1 1 28 36,570 2,9 10 3
Average (28 days) 2,960 *
E 4 .00 12 .57 08 /17 /11 10/1 1/11 56 3 8,370 3,050 5
Comments: Compressive strength of 56 day cylinders complies with the specified strength.
Specim en 1 E was re-marked for a 56-day brea k.
Samples Made By: Terracon
Services: Obtain samples of fresh concrete at the placement locations (ASTM C 172), perform required field tests and cast, cure, and
test compressive strength samples (ASTM C 31, C 39, C 12 31 ).
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen Started:
Reported To: Finished:
Contractor:
1130
1300
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Deve lopment, Wallace Phillips Reviewed By:
(I) City of Co ll ege Station TX, Israel Koite
(I) Phillips Engineering , Kent Laza
(I) Terracon Consu ltants , In c., Ema il ed
(I ) C ity of Co ll ege Station TX, Jos h Nort on
(I ) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
(I) T excon General Contractors, Bru ce Schoen
Test Methods: ASTM C 3 1, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM Cl064
I · n G. Rogers , P .E.
Office Manager Ill
The tests were performe d in general accordan ce with appli cable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without th e written conse nt of our company . Test resu lts tra nsmi tted herein are only appli cable to the
actual samples tested at the lo cation(s) referenced an d are not neces saril y indicative of the properties of ot her apparently similar or identical materials .
Page 1 of I
I
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE Si, ,cNGTH TEST REPORT lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0056
08 /16/11
09 /13/11 Revision 2 -28-day results
Attn: Dusty Phill ips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Project
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Cas tlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days
Samp le Information
Sample Date: 08116/11 Sample Time: 1200
Mix ID: l" 3000 psi
Supplier: Brazos Valley Services
Batch Time: 1059 Plant: B1yan, TX
Truck No.: 68 Ticket No.: 16856
Field Test Data
Test
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Laboratory Test Data
Result
4 1/2
1.7
95
90
147 .2
Specification
Sampled By:
Weather Conditions:
Accumulative Yards:
Placement Method:
Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal):
Sample Location:
Placement Location:
Mohammed Mobeen
Partly cloudy, li ght wind
10/40 Batch Size (cy): 10
Direct Discharge
Station 1 +50, right of centerline
Sidewalk, Hadleigh Lane
Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type
1 A 4.00 12.57 08117 /11 08 /23 /11 7 32,530 2,590 3
B 4.00 12 .57 08117111 09 /13111 28 37,650 3,000 3
c 4.00 12.57 08 /17/11 09/13 /11 28 37,310 2,97 0 3
D 4.00 12.57 08117111 09 /13 /11 28 36 ,570 2,910 3
Average (28 days) 2,960 *
E 4 .00 12.57 08/17111 10111 111 56
Comments: * Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders does not comply with the specified strength.
Specimen lE was re-marked for a 56-day break.
Samples Made By: Terracon
Services: Obtain samples of fresh concrete at the placement locations (ASTM C 172), perform required field tests and cast, cure, and
test co mpre ssive strength samples (ASTM C 31, C 39, C 1231 ).
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen Started: 1130
Reported To: Finished: 1300
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(1 ) 3-0 Development, Dusty Phi llips (1) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips Reviewed By:
( 1) City of College Station TX, Israel Koite
(1) Terracon Consultants , Inc., Emai led
{I) Texcon General Contractors, Bruce Schoen
(1) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
(1) Terraco n Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM Cl064
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our com pany. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the locati on(s) referenced and are not neces sarily indi ca tive of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materi al s.
CROOO 1, 8-27-11, Rev.5 Page I of I
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STR,...~GTH TEST REPORT lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.005 6
08 /16/11
0 8/25/11 Re vision 1 -7-day results
Attn : Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77 84 5
Project
619 8 Imperial Loop
College Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-32 72
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3 ,000 psi @ 28 day s
Sample Information
Sample Date: 08/16/11 Sample Time: 1200
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Mix ID: I" 3000 psi Weather Conditions: Partly cloudy, light wind
Supplier: Brazos Valley Services Accumulative Yards: 10/40 BatchSize(cy): JO
Batch Time: I 059 Plant: Bryan , TX Placement Method: Dire ct Discharge
Truck No.: 68 Ticket No.: 16856 Water Added Before (gal}:
Field Test Data
Test
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Result
4 1/2
1.7
95
90
147 .2
Specification
Water Added After (gal}:
Sample Location:
Placement Location:
Station I +50 , ri ght of centerline
Sidew alk, Hadleigh Lane
Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type
1 A 4 .00 12 .57 08 /17 /11 08 /23 /11 7 32,530 2,590 3
B 4 .00 12 .57 08 /17/11 09/13 /11 28
c 4 .00 12 .57 08/17/11 09113 111 28
D 4 .00 12 .57 08 /17/11 09113 /11 28
E 08/17/11 Hold
Comments:
Samples Made By: Terracon
Services: Obtain samples of fresh concrete at the placement lo cations (ASTM C 172), perform requir ed fi e ld te sts and ca st, c ure, and
Terracon Rep.:
Reported To:
Contractor:
test compressive strength samples (ASTM C 31, C 39 , C 1231).
Mohammed Mobeen Started:
Finished:
1130
1300
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Develo pment, Du sty Phillips (I ) 3-D Development, Wa ll ace Phill ips
(I) Phillip s En gineerin g, Kent La za
Reviewed By:
(I ) C ity of Coll ege Statio n TX, Is rae l Koit e
(I ) T erraco n Cons ultants, Inc ., Emai led
(I ) T excon General Contractors, Bru ce Schoe n
(I ) Te rracon Cons ulta nts, In c., Ema il ed
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM Cl064
J · n G . Roge rs , P .E.
Office Manager nI
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , MSHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reprodu ced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only appli cable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indi cative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
rROOOI 4-?R-10 Rev 4
P age I of I
DEPTH CHECKS REPORT
Report N umber:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Developm ent
Al I I 10 51.0055
08/12/1 1
08/12/1 1
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6 I 98 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Proj ect Number: A l I I I 05 I
On August 12, 20 11 , a Terracon Consu ltants, Inc ., representative was present at the above-referen ced proj ect to perform crushed rock
depth checks on fl ex base . Re sults of the tests performed are shown below.
Hadleigh Street
(I) Station 1+50
(2) Station 3+00
(3) Station 5+00
(4) Station 7+00
Toddington Street
(5) Station 1 +00
(6) Station 3+00
(7) Station 4+50
(8) Station 6+50
Odell Street
(9) Station 4+00
(10 ) Station 2+00
( 11) Station 0+50
TEST LOCATION
**Time and mileage shown on Report No . Al 111051 .0054 .
THICKNESS (INCHES)
Measurement to the Nearest Y."
7
7 .25
6.5
6 .5
7 .0
7 .0
6.75
6.5
6 .25
6.5
6.25
Services: Traveled to the project site to provide test in g/observation services as requested.
Terracon Rep .: DeBord, Quade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(1) City of Coll ege Station TX, Israe l
Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc .. Ema il ed
Started: **
Finished: **
(1) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza Reviewed By:
Office Manager Ill
The tes ts were pe rfo rmed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASH TO, or DOT te st methods . This report is exclusively for th e use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full wi thou t the written conse nt of our compa ny . Test results transmitted herein are on ly applicable to
the actual samples tested at the loca tion(s) referenced and are not necessari ly indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identica l materia ls .
.-.-......... .. .. • ... ... .. D<1on~ I l'\r I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT , I
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D De ve lopment
Al 111051.0054
08/12/J 1
08/12 /11
A ttn: Du sty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
A l 111051.0040
Classification and Description
Crushed stone
Field Test Data
Test
No .
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test Location
Hadleigh Street
Station 1 +50, right of centerlin e
Station 3+00, left of centerline
Station 5+00, right of centerline
Station 7+00 , left of centerline
Toddington Street
Station 1 +00, right of centerline
Station 3+00, left of centerl in e
Station 4+50 , ri ght of centerlin e
Station 6+50, left of centerline
Lift I
Elev.
Mat.
No.
lrerracon
6198 Imperi a l Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdi vis ion
College Sta tion , TX 77845
Proj ect Number: A 1111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Test Method
ASTM Dl 557
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pcf)
144.6
146.7
145.9
144 .3
144 .8
14 6.4
142 .0
14 2 .0
(%)
5.5
Water
Content
(pct)
10 .5
10 .1
9.7
8 .2
9.6
9.6
8.8
9 .8
(pct)
139 .0
Water
Content
(%)
7.8
7.4
7 .1
6.0
7 .1
7.0
6 .6
7 .4
(%)
5 .5 -9 .5
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
134.1
136 .6
136.2
136.1
13 5.2
136.8
133.2
132.2
(%)
95%
Percent
Compaction
(%)
96.5
98.3
98.0
97 .9
97.3
98.4
95 .8
95 .1
Datum: Gauge ID: 3430 Std . Cnt. M:557 Std. Cot. D: 1928
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report m eet project requirements as noted above.
Services : Perform in-p lace density and moisture co ntent tes ts with a Troxler type ga u ge to determine degree of
compaction and material moi sture co nditi on .
Terracon Rep.: DeB ord , Quade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Dev e lopment. Dusty Phillips
(I) City of C o llege Station TX , Is rael Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
(I) 3-D Development. Wa ll ace Phillips
(I } Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D 6938 -0 7 Method A
Started:
Finished:
0800
0930
Reviewed By:
· n G. Roge rs , P.E.
Office Ma nage r 111
The tests were performed in general ac cordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
ind icated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transm itte d herei n are on ly applicable to the
actua l samples tested at the location(s ) referenced and are not necessarily indi cat ive of the properties of other apparently similar or ide ntic al materials.
r o nnn1 ,_1 ,_.0 0 .,,, Page 1 of 1
CONCRETE SAMPLE PICK-UP REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
All 11051.0053A
08/11/11
08/11/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
(
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On August 11, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative was present at the above referenced proj ect to obtain I set of 5 concrete
cylinders cast on August I 0, 2011. The samples were returned to the laboratory for proces sing and curing.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: DeBord, Quade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
{I) City of College Station TX, Israel
Koite
(I) Terracon Consultant s, Inc ., Emailed
Started:
Finished:
(I ) 3-D Deve lopment, Wa ll ace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza Reviewed By:
100 0
110 0
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the lo cation(s) referenced and are not necess_arily ind!cative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE ST~,..'-'GTH TEST REPORT
Report Number: A l 11 105 1.005 3
0 8/10 /11
lrerracon
Se rvice Date:
Report Date: 09/08 /11 Revision 2 -28-day res ults
Task:
Client
3 -D D evelopment
Attn: Du sty Phillips
449 0 Castlegate Dr
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project
6 198 Im peri al Loop
Co ll ege Stati on , TX 7784 5
979 -84 6-37 67 Reg N o: F-3272
Cas tle gate II S ubdivi sion -Sec 200
V ictori a Aven u e
Cas tl egate Su bd iv is ion
Co ll ege Statio n, TX 77845
Proj ec t Nu mber: Al 111 05 1
Material Information
Specified S trength: 3,5 00 psi @ 28 days
Sample Information
S ample Date: 0 8/1 Oil I S ampl e Tim e: 064 0
S ampled By : D eBord , Qu ade
Mix ID: I" 3500 ps i Weather Conditions: Cloudy, li ght w ind
Supplier: Brazos Va lley Services Accumulative Yards: 10/2 0 Batch S iz e (c y): 10
Batch Time: 0601 Plant: Brya n, TX Placement M ethod: Direct Di sc harge
Truck No.: 66 Ticket No .: 16723 Water Added Before (gal):
Field Test Data
Test
S lump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Y ield (Cu . Yds.):
R esult
4
3 .0
90
80
146.4
Specification
Water Added After (gal):
S ample Location:
Placement Location:
I 0' S by I 0' E from n orth radius
Pav ing , int ersectio n ofTod di ngton
and Odell
Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (p s i) Type
I A 4.00 12 .57 08/11 /11 08 /1 7/11 7 46,730 3,720 3
1 B 4 .00 12 .57 08/11 /1 1 09/0 7/1 1 2 8 52,760 4,2 00 3
c 4 .00 12 .57 08/11 /11 09/07 /1 1 28 57,4 80 4,570 5
D 4 .00 12 .57 08/11 /11 09 /0 7/1 1 28 55, 150 4 ,39 0 5
Average (28 days) 4 ,3 90
E 08/1 1/1 1 Hold
Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength.
Sa mples Made By: T erracon
Services: Ob tain sa mpl es of fr es h co ncre te at th e pl ace ment locat ions (ASTM C 172), perform required fi e ld tes ts and cas t, cure, and
test compress ive strength samp les (A STM C 3 1, C 39, C 123 1).
T erracon R ep.: D eBo rd , Qu ade Sta rted: 0630
Reported To: F inished: 0730
C ontractor:
Report Distribution:
(I } 3-D Dev elopment, Dus ty Ph illips (I ) 3-D Deve lopmen t, W all ace Ph illips R evi ewed By:
(I} C ity of Co ll ege Station T X, Israel Koit e
(I } T e rracon Consu ltan ts, Inc ., Emai led
(I) T exco n Gene ra l Contracto rs, Bruce Sc hoe n
(I } Phillips Engin eer in g , Kent Laza
(I } Terracon Co nsulta nts, Inc., Emailed
Test M ethods: AS TM C 31, ASTM C l 43 , ASTM C23 1, ASTM C I0 64
I n G. Rogers , P .E.
Offi ce Manager II I
The tes t s were perfo rmed in general accordan ce wi th app licab le ASTM , AAS HTO , or DOT t est meth ods. This repo rt is exclusiv ely for the use of the client
ind icated above and shall not be repr oduce d except in full wit hou t th e written co nsent of o ur com pany . Test resu lts tr ansmi tted herein are o nly applicab le to the
act ual samp les te sted at the locati on (s) refere nced and are not necessarily ind ica tive of the propert ies of othe r appa re ntly simila r or ide nti cal mate ria ls .
rR OOOI R-17-11 R ev 5
Page I of I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT ,
(
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Develop ment
Al 111051.0052
08 /05 /11
08/08/11
Attn: Du sty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
A 1111051.0040
Classification and Description
Crushed stone
Field Test Data
Test Lift I Mat.
No. Test Location Elev. No. ---
Odell Lane
l Station 6+5 0, centerline Grade
2 Station 3+ 75, left of centerline Grade
3 Station l+ 75, right of centerline Grade
Datum:
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivi sion
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Laboratory Content Weight
Test Method (%) (pct)
ASTM Dl557 5.5 139.0
Probe Wet Water Water
Depth Density Content Content
(in) (pct) (pct) (%)
6 143 .9 8 .1 6.0
6 145 .1 11.6 8.7
6 146.0 I 0.1 7.4
Gauge ID: 3430 Std. Cnt. M:562
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Content Compaction
(%) (%)
5.5 -9.5 95%
Dry Unit Percent
Weight Compaction
(pct) (%)
135 .8 97.7
133 .5 96 .0
135.9 97.8
Std. Cnt. D: 1945
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in-place den s ity and moisture content tests with a Troxler type gauge to determine degree of
compaction and material moi stu re condition .
Terracon Rep.: Rand o lph E. Rohrbach
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Dcve lopmcnl. Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX, Israel Koite
(I ) Terr acon Consu lt ants, Inc ., Emai led
(I) 3-D Development. Walla ce Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started:
Finished:
1400
1530
Reviewed By: t!j nG. Roge: P .E.
Proj ect Manager
The tests were performed in general ac cordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively fo r the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduce d excep t in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transm itte d herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparentl y similar or identical materials .
rRnnn1 •-?R-10 Rcv .1 Page I of I
CONCRETE SAMPLE PICK-UP REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0051A
08 /05 /11
08 /08/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On August 5, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain I set of 5 concrete
cylinders cast on August 4, 2011 . The samples were returned to the laboratory for processing and curing.
Vehicle charge shown on All I 1051.0050A.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Matcek , James
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D De ve lopment, Du sty Phi llips
(I) C ity of Coll ege Station TX, Is rae l
Kai le
(I ) Terraco n C ons ultants , In c., Emai led
(I) 3-D Deve lopment , Wa ll ace Phillips
(I ) Phillips En g ineering, Kent Laza
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
0900
0930
A2-q G. Rog:•. P .E.
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general acc ordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are on ly applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or id ent ical materials .
-----· ·--~ ·-... " l>a nP 1 i\f 1
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRr-1\JGTH TEST REPORT
Report Number: Allll051.005 1
08/04/11
lrerracon
Service Date:
Report Date: 09 /02 /11 Re vision 2 - 2 8-day results
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77 84 5
Project
6198 Imperial Loop ·
College Station, TX 77845
97 9-846-3 767 R eg N o: F-3 2 72
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
C astlegate Subdivi sion
College Station , TX 77 845
Project Number : Al 111051
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3 ,500 psi @ 28 day s
Sample Information
Sample Date: 08/04/1 1 Sample Time: 0610
Sampled By: DeBord, Quade
Mix ID: 111 3500 Weather Conditions: Clear, li ght wind
Supplier: Brazos Valley Service s Accumulative Yards: 10/20 BatchSize(cy): 10
Batch Time: 053 2 Plant: Bryan , TX Placement Method: Direct Discharge
Truck No.: 68 Ticket No.: 16633 Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal): Field Test Data
Test Result
Sample Location:
Specification
Intersection of Od ell Street and W.S.
Phillips Pkwy
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
4 3/4
3 .0
90
80
142.2
Laboratory Test Data
Set Specimen Diameter
No. ID (in)
1 A 4.00
1 B 4 .00
c 4 .00
D 4 .00
E
Area
(sq in)
12 .57
12 .57
12 .57
12.57
Placement Location: Paving
Age at Maximum
Date Date Test Load
Received Tested (days) (lbs)
08 /05 /11 08 /11/11 7 45,250
08 /05/11 09/01/11 28 52,040
08 /05/11 09 /01 /11 28 48 ,330
08 /05 /11 09 /01 /11 28 52,330
Average (28 days)
08 /05 /11 Hold
Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength.
Samples Made By: Terracon
Compressive
Strength Fracture
(psi) Type
3,600 5
4 ,140 4
3,8 50 4
4,160 5
4,050
Services: Obta in samples of fresh concrete at the placement lo cations (ASTM C 172), perform require d fi e ld tes ts and ca st , cure , and
test compressive strength samples (ASTM C 31, C 39 , C 1231).
Terracon Rep.: DeBord, Quade Started: 0600
Reported To: Finished: 0730
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D De ve lo pment, Dusty Phillips
(I) C ity of Co ll ege Stat io n TX, Is rae l Koi te
(I ) Terracon Cons ultants , Inc., Ema il ed
(I ) Texcon General Contractors , Bruce Schoen
(I ) 3-D Deve lo pme nt, W all ace Phillip s
(I ) Phillips Eng ine e ring, Ke nt Laza
(I ) Terrac on Cons ulta nt s, Inc ., Ema il ed
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM Cl064
Reviewed By:
n G . Rogers, P .E .
Office Ma nager Ill
The tests were performed in general accordan ce with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exc lusively for the use of the client
indicated above and sha ll not be reprodu ced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transm itted herein are only appl icable to the
actual samples tested at the location (s) re feren ced and are not necessarily indicative of th e pro perties of othe r apparen tly similar or identical materials .
CROOO t , 8-27 -11, Rev .5 Page J of I
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE ST~,..."~GTH TEST REPORT lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Al 111051.0051
08 /04/11
\
Report Date: 08 /12 /11 Re v ision 1 - 7-day results
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3 ,500 psi @
Mix ID: I" 3500
Supplier: Brazos Valley Services
28 days
Batch Time: 0532 Plant: Bryan , TX
Truck No.: 68 Ticket No.: 16633
Field Test Data
Test Result Specification
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Laboratory Test Data
4 3/4
3 .0
90
80
142 .2
Set Specimen Diameter
No. ID (in)
I A 4 .00
1 B 4 .00
c 4 .00
D 4.00
E
Comments:
Samples Made By: Terracon
Area Date
(sq in) Received
12 .57 08 /05/11
12 .57 08 /05 /11
12.57 08 /05/11
12 .57 08 /05/11
08 /05/11
Project
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
Samp le Information
Sample Date: 08/04/11 Sample Time: 0610
Sampled By:
Weather Conditions:
Accumulative Yards:
Placement Method:
Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal):
Sample Location:
Placement Location:
DeBord , Quade
Clear, light wind
I 0/20 Batch Size ( cy): I 0
Direct Dis charge
Inters ection of Odell Street and W.S.
Phillips Pkwy
Paving
Age at Maximum Compressive
Date Test Load Strength Fracture
Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type
08 /11/11 7 45 ,250 3,600 5
09101/11 28
09 /01/11 28
09 /01/11 28
Hold
Services: Obtain samples of fresh concrete at the placement locations (ASTM C 172), perform required fi e ld tests and cast, cure, and
Terracon Rep.:
Reported To:
Contractor:
test compressive strength samples (ASTM C 31, C 39 , C 1231).
DeBord, Quade Started:
Finished:
0600
0730
Report Distribution:
{I) 3-D De ve lopment, Du sty Ph ill ips (I ) 3-D Dev e lop ment . Wall ace Phillip s
(I) Phillips Engi neeri ng, Kent Laza
Reviewed By:
(I) City of Co ll ege Stati on TX , Israe l Koit c
(I ) Terraco n Co nsultants , In c., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM C143, ASTM C231 , ASTM Cl064
1 n G. Rogers , P.E .
Ofii ce Manager II 1
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transm itted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location (s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
CROOOl. 4-2R -IO . Re v .4
Pa ge I of I
CONCRETE SAMPLE PICK-UP REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0050A
08/05/11
08 /08/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Cas tlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
(
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On August 5, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain I set of 5 concrete
cy linders cas t on August 4, 2011. The samples were returned to the laboratory for processing an d curing.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, Jam es
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution :
(I) 3-D De velopment, Dusty Phillips
(I) C ity of College Station TX. Israel
Ko it e
(I) Terracon Co nsultants, In c .. Emai led
(!) 3-D Development, Wa ll ace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
09 30
100 0
~ qG.Ro:s.PE
Office Manager lil
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the lo catio n(s) ref eren ced and are not ne cessa ril y indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or ide nti cal materials.
~ ................ ,. .... .... "' P ~oP 1 nf 1
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRr~GTH TEST REPORT
Report Number: Al 111051.0050
08 /04/11
lrerracon
Service Date:
Report Date: 09 /02 /l l Rev is ion 2 -28-day results
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77 845
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 day s
Mix ID: 1719
Supplier: Transit Mix
Batch Time: I 023
Truck No.: 2004
Field Test Data
Plant: 31 2/1364
Ticket No.: 2365839
Test Result Specification
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
I
2 .1
95
93
148 .8
Laboratory Test Data
Set Specimen Diameter
No. ID (in)
I A 4.00
1 B 4 .00
I c 4.00
D 4.00
E
Area Date
(sq in) Received
12 .57 08 /05 /11
12 .57 08 /05 /11
12 .57 08 /05 /11
12 .57 08 /05 /11
08 /05/11
Project
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castleg ate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77 84 5
Project Number: Al 1110 5 1
Sample Information
Sample Date:
Sampled By:
Weather Conditions:
Accumulative Yards:
Placement Method:
08 /04/11 Sample Time:
Matcek , James
Clear, li ght wind
40 /80 Batch Size (cy):
Direct Di scharge
Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal):
Sample Location: Stati on 6+2 5
Placement Location: Curb, Toddington Stree t
Age at Maximum Compressive
Date Test Load Strength
Tested (days) (lbs) (psi)
08 /11/11 7 46,900 3,730
09 101/11 28 61 ,270 4,8 80
09 /01111 28 56,120 4 ,470
09 /01/11 28 53,690 4 ,270
Average (28 days) 4,540
Hold
Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength.
Samples Made By: Terracon
1150
10
Fracture
Type
3
4
4
5
Services: Obtain sampl es of fresh concrete at the pl acement locations (ASTM C 172 ), perform requir ed fi e ld tes ts and cas t , c ur e , and
test compressive strength s ampl es (ASTM C 31, C 39, C 1231).
Terracon Rep.: Matcek , James Started: 1130
Reported To: Finished: 1300
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Develop ment , Du sty Phillips
(I) C ity of Co ll ege Stati on TX , Israe l Koite
(I ) Terr acon Consultan ts, Inc ., Ema il ed
(I) T excon Ge neral Co ntractors , Bru ce Schoen
{I) 3-D Deve lo pm ent , Wall ace Phillips
{I ) Phillip s Engi nee ri ng, Ken t Laza
{I ) Te rraco n Consu ltan ts, Inc ., Emai led
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, A STM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM C1064
Reviewed By:
I n G. Rogers, P.E .
O ffice Manager 111
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusivel y for the use of the cl ient
indicated above and shall not be reprodu ced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test re sults transm itted herein are only appli cable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s ) referen ced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other appare ntly si mi la r or identica l materials .
CROOO I, 8-27-11, Rev.5 P age I of I
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE ST~'"-'IGTH TEST REPORT
Report Number: Al 111051.0050
08 /04 /11
lrerracon
Service Date:
Report Date: 08 / 12 / 11 Revision I -7-day results
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3 ,000 psi @ 28 days
Mix ID: 17 19
Supplier: Transit Mix
Batch Time: 102 3
Truck No.: 2004
Field Test Data
Plant: 312 /13 64
Ticket No.: 2365839
Test Result Specification
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Laboratory Test Data
I
2 .1
95
93
148 .8
Set Specimen Diameter
No. ID (in)
I A 4 .00
B 4 .00
c 4 .00
D 4.00
E
Comments:
Sam ples Made By: Terracon
Area Date
(sq in) Received
12 .57 08 /05 /11
12 .57 08 /05 /11
12 .57 08 /05/11
12 .57 08 /05/11
08 /05/11
Project
6198 Imperial Loop
Co llege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Cast leg ate II Subd ivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdiv ision
Co llege Station, TX 77845
ProjectNumber: Alll1051
Sample Information
Sample Date:
Sampled By:
Weather Conditions:
Accumulative Yards:
Placement Method:
08/04/11 Sample Time:
Matcek, James
Clear, light wind
40/80 Batch Size (cy):
Direct Discharge
Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal):
Sample Location: Station 6+25
Placement Location: Curb, Toddington Street
Age at Maximum Compressive
Date Test Load Strength
Tested (days) (lbs) (psi)
08/11/11 7 46,900 3,730
09 /01/11 28
09 /01/11 28
09 /01 /11 28
Hold
1150
10
Fracture
Type
3
Services: Obtain samp le s of fresh concrete at the placement locations (ASTM C 172), perform required fie ld tests and cast, cure, and
test compressive strength samples (ASTM C 31, C 39, C 1231 ).
Terracon Rep.: Matcek , James Started: 1130
Reported To: Finished: 1300
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Devel o pment, Dusty Ph illip s (I) 3-D Dev e lo pment, Wa ll ace Phillips
(I) Phillips En g in eering, Kent La za
Reviewed By:
(I) City of C o ll ege Stati on TX , Is rae l Kail e
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM C l064
n G . Rogers , P .E .
Office Manager 111
The tests were performed in genera l accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
act ual samples tested at the loca tion(s) referenced and are not necessa rily indi cative of the properties of other apparently similar or identica l materials .
f:R nnn 1 4-2R-IO . Rcv.4 Page I of I
LIME DEPTH CHECKS REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 11 10 51.0049
08/0 1/11
08/02/1 1
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castl egate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
(
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenu e
Cas tl egate Subdivi s ion
College Station , TX 77845
Proj ect Number: A 11110 51
On August 1, 2011, a Terracon Consu ltants, Inc., representative was present at the above-r eferenced project to perform lim e-depth checks
on W .S. Phillips Parkway. Results of the te sts perform ed ar e s hown below.
TEST LOCATION
W.S. Phillips Parkway
(I) Station 2 0+50, right of centerline
(2) Station 2 1 +50, right of centerlin e
(3) Station 22+50, ri g ht of centerline
*Vehicle charge shown on Report No. A l 111051.0048 .
THICKNESS (INCHES)
M easurement to the Nearest v.''
11
11 Yi
12
Services: Trave led to the project site to prov id e testing/o bservation services as requ ested.
Terracon Rep .: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(t) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX. Israel
Koite
(I) Tcrracon Cons ultant s, In c .. Emailed
(I) Phi ll ips Engineering, Kent Laza
Started: 1300
Finished: 14 00
Reviewed By :
Office Man age r Ill
The tests were performed in general accordance w ith applicable ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the clie nt
indicated above and sha ll not be reprodu ced except in full without the written conse nt of our compa ny . Test results tra nsmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily ind icative of the propert ies of othe r apparently similar or identical material s .
,...,..nnn 1 cc'" n ~ .. 'l P~op. 1 r-.f l
CONCRETE SAMPLE PICK-UP REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
All l 1051.0048A
08/02 /11
08 /03/11
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
I
Proj ect
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdi v ision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On August 2, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain 1 set of5 concrete
cylinders cast on August 1, 2011 . The samples were returned to the laboratory for processing and curing .
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Develo pment , Dusty Phill ips
(I) C ity o f C ollege Stati o n TX, Israel
Koite
(I ) Terraco n C onsultants, In c ., Ema iled
(I ) 3-D Develo pm ent , Wa ll ace Ph illips
(I) Phillips Engin eering, Kent La za
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
143 0
153 0
Office Manager 111
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the lo cati o n(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
11rnnn1 1tL'>(.1n 1J. .. o PaQe I of 1
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STP,~'JGTH TEST REPORT lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.004 8
08 /01/11
0 8/29 /11 Re vision 2 - 2 8-d ay result s
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77 845
Project
6198 Imp erial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Re g No : F-32 72
Castlegate II Subdivision -Se c 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77 845
ProjectNumber: Allll051
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days
Sample Information
Sample Date:
Sampled By:
0 8/01 /1 I Sample Time: I 145
Mohammed Mo be en
Mix ID: 1719 Weather Conditions: Clear , no wind
Supplier: Tran sit Mix Accumulative Yards: 30 /90 Batch Size (cy): I 0
Batch Time: 0940 Plant: 312/1 364
Truck No.: 7061
Field Test Data
Test
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Laboratory Test Data
Ticket No.: 2363579
Result
1
5.5
95
90
142 .6
Specification
Placement Method:
Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal):
Sample Location:
Placement Location:
Curb M ac hine
Station 6+00 , left of centerlin e
Hadleigh Street
Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type
1 A 4 .00 12 .57 08 /02 /1 I 08 /08 /11 7 32,260 2 ,570 3
I B 4 .00 12 .57 08 /02/11 08 /29/11 28 40 ,240 3,200 3
c 4 .00 12 .57 08 /02/11 08 /29 /1 I 28 35 ,070 2,790 3
D 4.00 12 .57 08 /02 /1 I 08 /29 /1 I 28 40 ,890 3,250 5
Average (28 days) 3,080
E 08 /02 /11 Hold
Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength.
Samples Made By: Terracon
Services: Obtain sa mples of fresh concrete at the placement loc ations (ASTM C 172), perform requ ire d fie ld tests and cas t, c ure, and
Terracon Rep.:
Reported To:
Contractor:
test compressive strength sampl es (ASTM C 31, C 39 , C 1231).
Moh ammed Mobeen Started:
Finished:
1030
1200
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Development, D usty Phi lli ps (I ) 3-D Develop ment. Wa ll ace Ph illi ps
(I ) Philli ps Engi nee rin g, Ke nt Laza
Reviewed By:
(I ) City of Coll ege Station TX, Israel Ko it e
(I ) T erraco n Consultant s, Inc ., Emai led
(I ) Texcon Gene ral Co ntractors , Bru ce Sc hoen
(I ) Terr acon Co nsu lt ants , Inc ., Ema il ed
Test Methods: ASTM C 31 , ASTM Cl43 , ASTM C231, ASTM C1064
I n G . Roge rs, P .E .
Office Manager Ill
The tests were performed in general accordance with ap plicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT tes t methods . This report is exclusivel y for the use of the client
indi cated above and shall not be reproduced ex cept in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transm itted herein are only appl ic able to the
actual samples tested at the location (s) referenced and are not necessaril y ind icative of the properties of other apparently similar or ident ical materials .
CROO O I , 8-27 -11 , Rcv.5 Page 1 of I
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STP'""l\IGTH TEST REPORT
I lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Al 111051.0048
0 8/0 1/11
08 /08/11 Revision I -7-day results
Attn : Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co lle ge Station, TX 77845
6198 Imperial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
· 979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Cas tlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegat~ Subdivision
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 1110 5 1
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3 ,000 psi @ 28 days
Sample Information
Sample Date: 08 /0 I /1 1 Sample Time: I I 45
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Mix ID: 1719 Weather Conditions: Clear, no wind
Supplier: Transit Mix Accumulative Yards: 30/90 Batch Size (cy): 10
Batch Time: 0940 Plant: 312/1364 Placement Method: Curb Machine
Truck No.: 7061 Ticket No.: 2363579 Water Added Before (gal):
Field Test Data
Test
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu . Yds.):
Result
I
5 .5
95
90
142.6
Specification
Water Added After (gal):
Sample Location:
Placement Location:
Station 6+00, left of center lin e
Hadleigh Street
Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type
1 A 4 .00 12 .57 08 /02 /11 08 /08 /11 7 32,260 2,570 3
B 4 .00 12 .57 08 /02/11 08 /29 /11 28
c 4 .00 12 .57 08 /02/1 1 08 /29/11 28
D 4.00 12 .57 08 /02 /11 08 /29 /11 28
E 0 8/02/11 Hold
Comments:
Samples Made By: Terracon
Services: Obtain samples of fres h concrete at th e placement locat ions (ASTM C 172), perform required field tests and cast, cure, and
test compressi ve strength samp le s (ASTM C 3 1, C 39, C 123 1 ).
Terracon Rep.: M ohammed Mobeen Started: 1030
Reported To: Finished: 12 00
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Stati on TX, Israel Koite
(I ) Terracon Consultan ts, Inc., Ema iled
(I ) 3-D Deve lop ment, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Ken t Laza
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM CI064
Reviewed By :
I n G. Rogers, P.E .
Office Manager llJ
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, MSHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exc lusively for the use of the client
indica ted above and shall not be reproduc ed excep t in full without the written co nsent of our compa ny . Tes t results transm itted herein are only applicable to the
actual samp les tested at the location(s) referenced and are not neces sarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.
CROOOI, 4-28 -tO. Rev.4 Pa ge l of I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT (
Report Number: Al 111051.0047
Service Date: 08 /01/11
Report Date: 08 /01/11
Task:
Client
3-D De velopment
A ttn : Dusty Phillips
449 0 Castlegate Dr
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
I
Proctor
Ref. No.
A 1111051.0006
Classification and Description
T an and gray fat clay with sand
Field Test Data
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
Test Location
Lift I
Elev.
W.S. Phillips Parkway, 8" Sewer Line
Station 3+75 2 ' BG
Station 5+50 2' BG
W.S. Phillips Parkway, 12" Waterline
Station 4+00 2' BG
Stat ion 6+00 2' BG
Mat.
No.
lrerracon
6198 Imp erial Loop
Co lle ge Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivi sio n
College Station, TX 77845
Proj ect Number: Al 111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Test Method
ASTM D69 8
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pct)
124 .9
123 .9
123.2
123 . l
(%)
20.8
Water
Content
(pct)
22.2
22.3
21.6
22 .3
(pcf)
102 .1
Water
Content
(%)
2 1.6
21.9
21.3
22 .1
(%)
20.8 -24 .8
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
102.7
101.6
101.6
100.8
(%)
98
Percent
Compaction
(%)
100 +
99.5
99.5
98 .7
Datum: Gauge ID: 34 1 lB Std. Cnt. M:698 Std. Cnt. D: 20 12
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: P erform in-place density and moisture content tests w ith a Troxler type gauge to determine degree of
compactio n and material moisture condition .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Devel o pment. Dusty Phillips
(I) City of Co llege Station TX , Israel Ko it e
(I) T erraco n C o nsu ltants, Inc ., Emai led
(I ) 3-D Deve lop ment. Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips En ginee ring , Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started:
Finished :
0700
0830
Reviewed By:
Office Manager III
The te sts were performed in general accordance with ap pli cab le ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusive ly for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Tes t results i ransm itte d herein are on ly applicab le to the
act ual samples tested at th e location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the prope rt ies of othe r app arently similar or identica l materials.
CR0007. 4-28 -10. Rc v.3 Pa ge I of l
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT 1
Report Number: Al 111051.0046
Service Date: 07/29/I I
Report Date: 08 /0 I/II
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn: Du sty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
I
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al 111051.0045
Classification and Description
Brownish gray lime-treated
sub grade
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
3
Test Location
W.S. Phillips Parkway
Station 21 +50, centerline
Station 23+50, right of
centerline
Station 25 +50, left of centerlin e
Lift I
Elev.
Sub grade
Subgrade
Subgrade
Mat.
No.
lrerracon
6198 Imp erial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Vi c to ria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Coll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number : A 1111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Test Method
ASTM 069 8
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pct)
110 .3
111.6
111.2
(%)
18 .5
Water
Content
(pct)
19 .9
19 .1
19.2
(pct)
91.7
Water
Content
(%)
22 .0
20 .6
20.9
(%)
18.5 -22.5
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
90.4
92 .5
92.0
(%)
98
Percent
Compaction
(%)
98.6
100+
100+
Datum: Gauge ID: 341 IB Std. Cnt. M:686 Std. Cnt. D: 20 37
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in-pl ace density and moisture content tests with a Troxler type gauge to determine degree of
compaction and material moi sture condition .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development . Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX , Israel Koite
(I) Terra con Cons ult ants , In c., Emai led
(I) 3-D Dev elopment. Wa lla ce Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM 0693 8-07 Method A
Started:
Finished:
1130
1300
Reviewed By:
Office Manager rn
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclus ively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our comp any . Test results transm itte d herein are only appli cable to th e
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical ma te rials .
CR0007. 4-28-J o. Rcv .3 Page I of I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHAR! "'TERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT
( lre :rracon Report Numbe r : A 111105 1.004 5
Service Date:
Report Date:
07/29/l 1
08 /01/l 1
Client
3-D Development
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
So urce of Material: On site
Proposed Use : Treated subgrade
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Me th od A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 91.7
Optimum Water Content(%): 18.5
Comments: pH = 12 .5
6198 Im perial Loop
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Cast legate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivis ion
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 1111051
Sample Information
Sample Date: 07 /27 /11
Sampled By: DeBord, Quade
Sample Location: W .S. Phillips Pkwy, Station 23+50
Sam pl e Description: Brownish gray li me-treated subgrade
Liq uid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Ind ex:
Result
44
3 1
13
Specifications
In-Place Moisture(%):
uses:
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
Ze ro Air Voids Curve for Assumed Specific
Gravity 2.70
\
" \
/. ~ I\
J ~ \ • "' .... -\
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a samp le of treated su bgrade at the project site and return it to the laboratory . Prepare and test the samp le for
pH, Moisture Density Relationship and Atterberg limits .
Terracon Rep.: OeBord , Quade
Reported To :
Con tractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX, Israel Kail e
(I) Terracon Consultants , Inc ., Emailed
(I ) 3 -D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engin eering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D698, ASTM 01140, ASTM D4318
Reviewed By: ~-
Alton Rogers
Office Manager Ill
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DO T test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of
the c li ent indica ted above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the wr itte n consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein
are only applicab le to the actua l samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicati ve of the properties of other apparently
~imi l"1r nr irlP.nli r."I materials .
LIME DEPTH CHECKS REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Al 111051.0044
07/28/11
07 /29/11
Attn: Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On July 28, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above-referenced project to perfonn lime-depth checks on
Hadleigh Street and Toddington Street. Results of the tests performed are shown below.
TEST LOCATION
Hadleigh Street
(I) Station 7+00, left of centerlin e
(2) Station 8+80, right of centerline
Toddington Street
(3) Station 7+50, right of ce nterlin e
( 4) Station 9+50, left of centerline
THICKNESS (INCHES)
Measurement to the Nearest V."
8
7
Services: Traveled to the project site to provide testing/observation services as reque sted.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Develo pment, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX, Israel
Kaile
(I) Terracon Consultants, In c., Emailed
(I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineeri ng, Kent Laza
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
1000
1115
Office Manager lll
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the lo cation(s) referenced and are not ne cessarily indica tive of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
~---"'· -~ ·-... .. P o l'"l'P 1 A f 1
CONCRETE SAMPLE PICK-UP REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0043A
07 /29/11
08 /01/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
(
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivi sion -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On July 29 , 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain I set of 5 concrete
cylinders cast on July 28 , 2011 . The samples were returned to the laboratory for processing and curing.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Develo pme nt , Dusty Phill ips (I ) 3-D Develo p me nt , Wa llace Phillips
(I ) C ity o f College St a ti on TX. Is rae l
Ko ite
(I ) T crraco n Cons ultants , Inc .. Emailed
(I) Phillips Eng in eering. Kent Laza
Started: 090 0
Finished: 100 0
Reviewed By:
Office Manager Ill
The tests were performed in general acc ordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the locat ion(s) referen ced and are not necessarily indi cative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
Rr noo1 10-><-IO R ov Q Pae:e I of I
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STP,r"".~GTH TEST REPORT lrerracon \
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Al 111051.0043
07/28 /11
08 /26/J I Revision 2 -28-day results
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn: Dusty Phi llip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3,000 psi @ 28 days
Samp le Information
Sample Date: 07 /28 /11 Sample Time: 1200
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Mix ID: 171 9 Weather Conditions: Partly cloudy, light wind
Supplier: Transit Mix Accumulative Yards: 40/60 Batch Size (cy): 10
Batch Time: I 046
Truck No.: 3005
Field Test Data
Test
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
A mbient Tem p. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pct):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Laboratory Test Data
Plant: 312/1364
Ticket No.: 2362156
Result
1/2
1.6
94
89
145 .3
Speci fication
Placement Method:
Water Added Before (gal):
Water Added After (gal):
Sampl e Location:
Placement Location:
Curb Machine
Station 1 +50, left of centerline
Odell Lane
Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs) (psi) Type
l A 4 .00 12 .57 07/29/11 08 /04/11 7 34,670 2 ,760 5
1 B 4 .00 12 .57 07/29/11 08 /25 /11 28 49,990 3,980 3
l c 4 .00 12 .57 07/29/11 08 /25 /11 28 54,550 4 ,340 3
l D 4 .00 12 .57 07 /29/11 08/25 /11 28 47,950 3,820 3
Average (28 days) 4,050
E 07 /29/11 Hold
Comments: Average compressive strength of 28 day cylinders complies with the specified strength.
* Vehicle charge shown on Report No . A 111105 1. 0044 .
Samples Made By: Terracon
Services: Obtain samples of fresh concrete at the placement locations (ASTM C 172), perform required fi e ld tests and cast , cure, and
test compressive strength samp les (ASTM C 3 1, C 39, C 1231).
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen Started: 1115
Reported To: Finis hed: 1245
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Develo pment, Dusty Ph ill ips
(I) C ity of Co ll e ge Stati on TX, Israe l Ka ile
(I ) Terr acon Consultants, In c., Emai led
(I) T exco n G eneral C ontractors, Bruce Schoen
(I ) 3-D Deve lopment, Wa llace Phillips
(I ) Phillips Engineering, Ke nt Laza
(I ) T errac on Co nsult ant s, Inc., Em ailed
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C23 l, ASTM C l 064
Reviewed By:
I n G . Rogers , P .E.
Oflice Mana ger 111
The tests were performed in ge neral accordance with applicab le ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test met ho ds . This report is exclusive ly for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written conse nt of our compa ny . Test results transmitted herein are only appl icable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) refe renced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
CROOO I, 4-28 -10, Rcv.4
Pa ge 1of1
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRr"'~GTH TEST REPORT lrerracan Report Number:
Service Date:
A 1111051.0043
07/28 /11
I
Report Date: 08 /04/l l Revision I -7-day results
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Cast legate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
Material Information
Specified Strength: 3 ,000 psi @ 28 days
Sample Information
Sample Date: 07 /28/J l Sample Time: 1200
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Mix ID: 1719 Weather Conditions: Partly cloudy, light wind
Supplier: Transit Mix Accumulative Yards: 40160 Batch Size (cy): 10
Batch Time: l 046 Plant: 312 /1364 Placement Method: Curb Machine
Truck No.: 3005 Ticket No.: 2362 l 56 Water Added Before (gal):
Field Test Data
Test
Slump (in):
Air Content(%):
Concrete Temp. (F):
Ambient Temp. (F):
Plastic Unit Wt. (pcf):
Yield (Cu. Yds.):
Result
1/2
1.6
94
89
145.3
Specification
Water Added After (gal):
Sa mple Location:
Placement Location:
Station I +50, left of centerline
Odell Lane
Laboratory Test Data Age at Maximum Compressive
Set Specimen Diameter Area Date Date Test Load Strength Fracture
No. ID (in) (sq in) Received Tested (days) (lbs} (psi) Type
1 A 4.00 12 .57 07 /29 /1 l 08 /04/11 7 34,670 2,760 5
B 4 .00 12 .57 07 /29 /11 08/25 /11 28
c 4 .00 12.57 07 /29 /11 08/25/11 28
D 4.00 12 .57 07/29/l I 08 /25/11 28
E 07/29 /11 Hold
Comments:
*Vehicle charge shown on Report No. A 1111051.0044.
Samples Made By: Terracon
Services: Obtain sam pl es of fresh concrete at the placement locations (ASTM C 172), perform required fi e ld test s and cas t, cure, and
test compressive strength samples (ASTM C 31, C 3 9, C 123 1 ).
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen Started: 1115
Reported To: Finished: 1245
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3 -D Development, Du sty Ph illips (I) 3-D Develo pment, Wall ace Phillips
(I) Phillips Enginee ring, Kent La za
Reviewed By:
{I) City of Coll ege Station TX , Israel Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, In c ., Emnile d
Test Methods: ASTM C 31, ASTM Cl43, ASTM C231, ASTM Cl064
Offi ce Manager Ill
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. Th is report is exclusively for the use of the client
ind icated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
CROOOI . 4-28-10. Rev.4
Pag e I of I
GRADATION REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0042
07/27/11
07/29/11 Revision I -Add pH & PI
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On July 27, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain one sample of lime-
treated material and returned to the laboratory. The sample was prepared for Plasticity Index , pH, and Optimum Moisture and Density
Relationship . Results of the tests performed are shown on Report No. Al 111051.0045.
A Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative a lso secured 0 0 0 3 samples of pulver-mixed, lime-treated soi l for testin g to determine the
gradation . The tests were performed on site in accordance with applicable ASTM procedures and the results are shown b elow .
Test#
1
2
3
Station 25 +50
Station 23 +50
Station 20+50
Specification Requirements:
Location
I %" Sieve : Minimum I 00 % Passing
%" Sieve: Minimum 85% Passing
# 4 Sieve: Minimum 60% Passing
Services:
Terracon Rep.: DeBord, Quade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
% Passing 1-3/4"
100
100
100
Started:
% Passing 3/4"
90.9
97.3
96 .8
Finished:
1500
1600
(I) 3-D Development , Dusty Phillips (I ) 3-D Deve lopment, Wallace Phillips
(I) City o f College Stati o n TX, Israel
Koite
(I) Terraco n Consultants, In c ., Emailed
(I) Phillips En gineering, Kent Laza Reviewed By:
% Passing #4
72.8
75.8
72 .3
pH PI
12 .5 14
~-lt_o_n_R_o_~_e_r_s~~~~~
Office Manager III
The tests were performed in general accordance with appl icable ASTM , AASHTO. or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our co mpany. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referen ced and are not necessari ly indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
rvrn nno c c '" n -··.., P ~op 1 nf I
GRADATION REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0042
07/27/11
07/28/11
Attn: Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 11 11051
On July 27, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above reference d project to obtain one sample oflime-
treated material and returned to the laboratory. The sample was prepared for Plasticity Index , pH, and Optimum Moisture and Density
Relationship. Results of the tests performed are shown on Report No . A 1111051.0045 .
A Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative also secured 0 0 0 3 samples of pulver-mixed, lime-treated soil for testing to determine the
gradation. The tests were performed on site in accordance with applicable ASTM procedures and the results are shown below.
Test#
I Station 25+50
Station 23+50
Station 20+50
Location % Passing 1-3/4"
100
% Passing 3 /4"
90.9
% Passing#4
72.8
pH PI
2
3
TIP = Test in Progres s
Specification Requirements :
I %" Sieve: Minimum I 00% Passing
%" Sieve: Minimum 85% Passing
# 4 Sieve: Minimum 60% Passing
Services:
Terracon Rep.: DeBord, Quade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phil li ps (I) 3-D Development , Wallace Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX , Israel (I) Phillip s Engineering. Kent Laza
Koite
(I) Terracon Consu lt ants , Inc ., Emai led
100 97.3 75.8 TIP TIP
100 96.8 72.3
Started: 150 0
Finished: 160 0
Reviewed By:
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted . herein are on.ly applicable to
the actual samples tested at the lo cation(s) referenced and are not n ecessa rily indicative of the properties of other apparently s1m1lar or 1dent1cal materials.
CTOOOI. 5-5-10 . Re v.7 Paee I of I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0041
07/27/11
07/2 8/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
(
Mat.
No.
I
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al 111051.0038
Classification and Description
Tan lime-treated subgrade
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
3
4
Test Location
Toddington Street
RECHECK Test #4 of Report
.0036
RECHECK Test #5 of Report
.0036
RECHECK Test #5 of Report
.0036
Station 7+50 , right of centerli ne
Lift I Mat.
Elev. No.
Sub grade
Sub grade
Sub grade
Sub grade
lrerracon
6198 Imp erial Loop
Co lle ge Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Test Method
ASTM D698
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pcf)
124.4
122.4
122 .6
121.2
(%)
24 .1
Water
Content
(pcf)
25 .3
24 .7
23 .9
25 .3
(pcf)
93 .3
Water
Content
(%)
25 .5
25.3
24.2
26.4
(%)
Opt.+4
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
99 .1
97 .7
98.7
95 .9
(%)
9 8%
Percent
Compaction
(%)
100+
100+
100+
100+
Datum: Gauge ID: 341 IB Std. Cnt. M: 608 Std. Cnt. D: 1686
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in-place density and moisture content tests with a Troxler type gauge to dete rm ine degree of
compaction and material moisture condition.
Terracon Rep.: DeBord, Quade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development . Dusty Phillips
(I ) City of Coll ege Stat ion TX, Israel Koite
(I) Terra co n Consultant s, Inc., Emai led
(I) 3-D Devel opment. Wallac e Ph illips
(I) Phillips Engineerin g, Kent La za
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started:
Finished:
0700
0800
Reviewed By:
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT tesrmethods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results trans mitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples test ed at the locati on(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
CR0007, 4-28 -1 O. Rev.3
Pag e 1 of 1
FLEXIBLE BASE REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
All l 1051.0040B
08/01/1 1
08/01/I I
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Cast legate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On July 25, 20 11 , a Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative was present at the above-referenced project to obtain a sample of crushed
stone and returned to the laboratory. The sample was prepared for Sieve Analysis and Plasticity Index. Results of the tests performed are
shown below.
Location: Stockpile at Texcon Pit Type of Material : Crushed stone
Origin of Sample: Texcon Pit
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FLEXIBLE BASE MATERIAL
B/CS Unified Specifications
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT RETAINED BY WEIGHT
SAMPLE SPECS
1 3/4" 0 0
7/8" 24 10-35
3/8" 40 30-50
No. 4 52 45 -65
No . 40 *69 70-85
*Does not meet requirement but was accepted by College Station
inspector, Isarel Koite, on July 28, 20 11.
**Time and mileage shown on Report No. Al 111051.0035.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Deve lop ment . Wallace Phi lli ps
(I) City of College Station TX , Israel
Koitc
(I) Terraco n Consultants , In c .. Emai led
(I) Phillip s Engineering, Kent Laza
PROPERTY SAMPLE
Liqu id Limit (Max) 24
Plasticity Index (Max) 8
Wet Ball Mill (Max) --
Max. Increase Passing #40 --
TRIAXIAL CLASS
Minimum Compressive Strength (PSI)
at 0 psi lateral pressure -
at 15 psi lateral pressure -
Started: **
Finished: **
Reviewed By:
Office Manager 111
SPECS
35
4 -10
40
20
45
175
The tests were performed in ge nera l accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transm itted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or ident ical materials.
~~"""" , , '" n _ .. , P aP-e I of I
_ABORATORY COMPACTION CHARI' ... TERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT
( lre!rracon Re port Number: Al I I I051.0040
'ervice Date:
Report Date:
07 /26/11
08/01/11
Client
3-D Deve lop ment
Attn: Dus ty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material:
Proposed Use:
Texcon Pit
Flexibl e base
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM Dl 557
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Oversized Particles(%):
Moisture(%):
26 .1
0.5
Sieve for Oversize Fraction: 4
Bulk Specific Gravity of
Oversized Particles: 2.45
Corrected for Oversized Particles (ASTM D4718)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pct): 139 .0
Optimum Water Content(%): 5.5
Uncorrected Values
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pct): 135.0
Optimum Water Content(%): 7.0
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979 -846 -3767 Re g No: F-3272
Project
Cast legate II Subd ivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Stati on, TX 77845
Project Numb e r A 1111051
Sample Information
Sample Date: 07 /2 5/11
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Sample Location: Stockpile at Texcon Pit
Sample Description: Crushed stone
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
24
16
8
In-Place Moisture(%):
uses:
'5'
~
:l:
Cl .iii
~ ....
c:
:l
~
0
Zero A ir Voids Curve for As s umed Specific
Gravity 2.70
14 1
140
139
\
-\
/' -"'-I\ 138
137
136
13 5
134
I/ '\. \
j " \
I \ i\
1 • \
13 3
132
\
2 4 8 9 10
Water Content (%)
Comments: Obtained a sa mple of crushed stone from the Texcon Pit and return ed to the laboratory . Prepare and test the samp le for
Optimum Dens ity Relationship, Sieve Analysis, and Atterberg Limits.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Dusty Phillips
(I) C ity of College Station TX, Israel Koitc
(I) Terracon Consulta nts, In c., Ema iled
(I) 3-D Deve lo pment, Wallace Phillips
(I ) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D698, ASTM Dl 14 0, ASTM D431 8
Reviewed By: ?:f--;:.
Alto n Roge rs
Office Manager III
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. Th is report is exclusively for the use of
the cl ie nt indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein
are onl y applicable to the actual samples tested at th e location(s) referenced and are not ne cessa rily indicative of the properties of other apparently
similar or identical mat eria ls . o .. ,.. .. I .-.f I
LIME DEPTH CHECKS REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date :
Report Date:
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Al 111051.0039
07/28/1 1
07/29/1 1
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Cas tl egate Dr
College Stat ion, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imp erial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenu e
Castlegate Subdi v ision
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Num b er: A 11110 5 1
On July 26, 20 11 , a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was pre se nt at the above-referenced project to perform lime-depth checks on
Odell Lane. Results of the tests performed are shown below .
TEST LOCATION
Odell Lane
(I) Station l +00 , centerline
(2) Station 3+00, left of centerline
(3) Station 5+00, right of centerline
THICKNESS (INCHES)
Me asuremen t to th e Nearest V."
8 .5
8 .5
8 .5
On Jul y 28, 20 11 , a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative returned to the above-referenced project to perform additional lime-depth
checks on Hadleigh Street and Toddington Street. There is no add iti onal c harge for the test results shown below.
Hadleigh Street
( 1) Station I +00, right of centerline
(2) Station 3+00, left of ce nterline
(3) Station 5+00, right of centerline
Toddington Street
(I) Station I +5 0, left of centerline
(2) Station 3+50, right of ce nt erline
(3) Station 5+50, left of centerline
**Time and mileage show n on Report No. Al 111051.0036 .
Services: Traveled to the project site to provide testing/observation services as requested.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopment , Du sty Phillips (I) 3-D Deve lopm en t, Wallac e Phillips
(I) City of Co ll ege Station TX. Israel
Koite
(I) Terracon Co nsu lta nts , In c., Emailed
(I) Phillip s Engineering. Kent Laza
Started: **
Finished: * *
Rev iewed By:
6%
6
8 .5
Office Manager Ill
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHT O , or DOT test methods. This report is exclus ively for the use of the c lient
ind icated abo ve and shall not be reproduced except in fu ll withou t the written co nsent of our comp any . Test resu lts transm1tted .here1n are only applicab le to
th t I S amples tested at th e location(s) referenced and are not neces sarily indicative of the pro perties of other apparently s1m1lar or identical materials .
e ac ua Pa ge I of I
rTnnn1 "i -'ii -111 R,.v 7
ABORA T ORY COMPACTION C H.4°A CTERISTIC S OF SOIL R E P ORT lrerracon Re port N umb e r: Al 111051.0 038 l (
'.ie r v ic e Da te: 07 /26/1 I
Re port D ate: 07/28 /11
Client
3-D Develop m e n t
Att n : Dusty Phill ips
4490 Castlegat e Dr
Co ll ege Stat ion , TX 77845
Material Information
S our ce of Materi a l : On s it e
P roposed Use: Trea ted subgrade
Laboratory Test Data
T e st Pro c edure: A STM D698
T e st M ethod: Me th od A
S ampl e Prepar a ti o n : We t
Ramm e r T y p e : Mec h a n ical
Maximum Dry Un it W e ight (p c f):93 .3
Optimum W a t e r Co nte nt(%) 24.1
C omm e nts: pH = 12 .3
6 198 Im perial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Sub d iv ision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Cas tl ega t e Subd iv is ion
Co ll ege Statio n , T X 77845
Projec t Nu mbe r A 1111 05 1
Sample Information
S a mpl e Date :
S a mpled B y :
S ample Location:
07 /22/J I
Mo h a mm e d Mo b een
Tod din gt on Stree t , Station 2+0 0
Sa mpl e De sc r i ption: Tan li me-treated subgrade
Result Specifications
Liquid Limi t:
Plastic Limi t :
Pl as ticity Ind ex:
39
33
6
In -Place M oi s ture(%):
us e s :
95
'ii' 94
E:: 93
:E
Cl 92
~ 9 1
.... 90
c: 89 ::>
~ 88
0 87
Zero Air Voids C urve fo r A s sumed
Spe c ifi c Gravi ty 2.7 0
I\
' , ...... I\
/ ~ \
~ ' ,
/ \
~v \ -.
\
\
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Water Content(%)
Se r v ice s : O btain a sam pl e of treate d su bgrade at th e project site and r e turn it to t he labora t ory. Prepare and test t h e sample fo r
pH, Moistu r e D e n sity Re la ti ons h ip a nd Atterb er g li mits .
Te rracon R e p.: Mohammed Mobeen
R e port ed T o :
Co n tra ctor:
R e port Di s tributi on:
(I) 3-D Development , Dusty Phillips (I } 3-D Develop ment, Wallace Phillips
(I) City of Col lege Stati on TX, Israe l Koite (I } Phillips Engineering, Kent La za R ev i e w e d B y:
(I} Terracon Con sultants, Inc., Emai led Peter E. Fall e tta, P .E.
Project Manager
T e st M e t h ods: ASTM 0698, ASTM DI 140, ASTM 04318
T he t es ts were pe rformed in ge ner al accorda n ce wit h ap plicable ASTM, AASHT O, o r DOT tes t methods. Th is report is exc lusive ly fo r the use of
t he c lie nt indicated above and shall not be rep ro duced except i n ful l wi thout the w ritten conse nt of our com p any . Test res ul ts transmitted he rein
are only applica ble to the actua l sampl es tes ted at the loca ti on(s) refe renced a nd a re not neces saril y indicative of the p rope rties of other apparen tl y
similar or identical mater ia ls . Pan• 1 n f' I
_ABORATORY COMPACTION CH~RACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT lrerracon Report Number: A 1111051.0037
( I
~erv ice Date: 07/26/1 1
Report Date: 07/28/11
Client
3-D Development
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material: On site
Proposed Use: Treated subgrade
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pc0:90.l
Optimum Water Content(%) 24.8
Comments: pH = 12 .3
6 198 Imperial Loop
Col le ge Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Cast legate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 11 11 05 1
Sample Information
Sample Date: 07 /22/I I
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Sample Location: Toddington Street, Station 5+5 0
Sample Description: Gray lime-treated subgrade
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
43
36
7
In-Place Moisture(%):
uses:
92
'ii' 91
Q.
..... 90
..r::
Cl 89
~ 88 .....
c: 87
:::>
~ 86
0 85
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific Gravity 2.70
I\
-I\
Y' " / I\
I \
I\
\
I\
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Water Content(%)
Services: Obtain a samp le of treated subgrade at th e project site and return it to the lab oratory. Prep a re and t est the sample for
pH, Moisture Density Relationship and Atterberg limits .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Deve lopment, Wallace Phillips
(I) City of Co ll ege Stat io n TX , Israel Koitc (I ) Phillips Engineering , Kent La za Reviewed By: __ _
(I) Terra con Co nsullants, Inc ., E mailed Peter E. Falletta, P .E .
Project Manager
Test Methods: ASTM D698, ASTM DI 140, ASTM D4318
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of
the client indicated above and shall not be reprod uced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein
are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily ind ic ative of the properties of other apparently
similar or i~~.r:iti~alrrrnteria ls . P an"" I nf I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT I lrerracon Report Number: Al 111051.0036
Se rvice Date: 07/26/11 6198 Imp eria l Loop
Report Date : 07/28 /11 Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Task: 979-846-3 767 Reg No : F-3272
Client Project
3-D Development Castl e gat e II Subdi v is ion -Sec 200
Att n : Dusty Phillips Victoria Avenu e
4490 Castlegate Dr Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station , TX 77 845 Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Number : A 1111051
Material Information Lab Test Data Project Requir ements
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit Water Minimum
Mat. Proctor La boratory Content Weight Content Compaction
No. Ref. No. Classification and De sc ription Test Method (%) (pcf) (%) (%) --1 Al 111051.0030 Gray lime-treated subgrade ASTM D 698 19 .1 99.5 19 .1 -23 .1 98%
2 A 1111051.0032 Tan and gray lim e-treated subgrade AS TMD698 22.4 97 .0 22.4-26.4 98%
3 Al 111051.0031 Brown lime-treated s ub grade ASTM D698 21.9 94 .9 21.9 -25 .9 98 %
4 Al 111051.0015 Gray sandy lean clay ASTM D 698 20 .9 98 .1 20 .9 -24.9 98 %
5 Al 111051.001 5 Gray sandy lean clay ASTM D698 20 .9 98 .1 20 .9 -24.9 90%
Field Test Data Probe Wet Water Water Dry Unit Percent
Test Lift I Mat. Depth Density Conte nt Content We ight Compaction
No. Test Location Elev. No. (in) (pcf) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%)
Hadleigh Street
RECHECK Test# 1 of Report Sub grade 2 6 119.3 24 .0 25 .2 95.3 98 .2
.0034
2 RECHECK Test #2 of Report Sub grade 2 6 12 5.0 2 5.4 25 .5 99 .6 100 +
.0034
3 RECHECK Test #4 of Report Sub grade 6 119 .2 20.3 20 .5 98 .9 99.4
.0034
Toddington Street
4 Station I +00 , left of centerline Sub grade 6 111.8 26.4 30 .9 * 85.4 85.8 *
5 Station 3+00 , right of centerlin e Sub grade 6 1 14 .5 26 .8 30 .6 * 87.7 88.1 *
6 Station 5+00, center lin e Sub grade 6 111 .5 25 .0 28.9 * 86 .5 86 .9 *
6" Sewer Line, Toddington Street
7 RECHECK Test # 11 of Report Sub gra d e 4 6 117.2 20.4 21.1 96 .8 98.7
.0034
8 RECHECK Test #13 of Report Sub grade 4 6 115 .6 19 .3 20 .0 * 96.3 98 .2
.0034
9 Station 8+40 Sub grade 4 6 118 .6 20 .8 21.3 97 .8 99.7
12" Water Line, Toddington Street
10 Station 7+40 Sub grade 5 6 115 .2 21 .2 22 .5 94 .0 95 .8
11 Station 9+ 15 Sub grade 5 6 114 .3 19 .8 20 .9 94 .5 96.3
8" Water Line, Toddington Street
12 Station 2+60 Sub grade 5 6 113 .0 19 .9 21.4 93.1 94.9
13 Station 4+80 Sub grade 5 6 112.7 20 .5 22 .2 92 .2 94 .0
14 Station 7+ 10 Subgrad e 5 6 113 .2 19 .6 20 .9 93.6 95.4
Datum: Gauge ID: 341 lB Std. Cnt. M:687 Std. Cnt. D: 2032
Comments: An asterisk(*) appears nex t to the test results which do not meet the project requirements as noted above.
Th e tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test me thod s . This report is exc lusi vely for the use of the clie nt
ind icated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written conse nt of our comp an y . Test results trans mitted herein are only applicab le to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) refe renced and are not necessarily indi cat ive of tile properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.
C R0007, 4-2 8-10. Rcv .3
Page I o f 2
FIEL D DENSITY TEST REPORT (
Report Number: A 111 l 051.0036
Service Date: 07 /26/11
Report Date: 07 /2811 1
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co lle ge Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Cast legate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Cast legate Subdivi s ion
College Station , TX 77845
Project Number: A 111105 1
Servic es: Perform in-p lace density and moisture content test s with a Troxler ty pe gauge to determine degree of
compaction and material moi sture condition .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(1) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of College Station TX, Israe l Koite
(I) Terracon Consu ltants , Inc ., Emai led
(I) 3-D Development. Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillip s Engineering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started: 0830
Finished: 1600
Lunch/NC: 3.50
Reviewed By:
Projec t Manager
The tests were performed in general accorda nce with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusive ly for the use of the clie nt
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our compa ny. Test results transm itte d herein are only applicab le to the
actual samples tested at the location (s) referenced and are not necessarily indi ca tive of the propert ies of othe r apparently similar or identical materials .
~"'°"' • ,, '" "-··, Page 2 of2
(
SOIL SAMPLE PICK-UP REP01,1 ·
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0035
07 /25/11
07/26/11
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co llege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Proj ect Num ber : A 1111051
On July 25, 2011 , a Terracon Consultants, In c., representative was present at a stockpile at the Texcon Pit to obtain one samp le of
crushed rock and returned to th e laboratory. The sa mple was prepared for Optimum Moisture and Density Relationship (D 1557), Wet
Ball Mill, Sieve Analysis, and Atterberg Limits . Results of the tests perfonned are shown on Report No. A 1111051.0040.
Services:
Terracon Rep .: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) City of College S1a1ion TX, Israel
Koi1e
(I) Terracon Consuliants. Inc., Emailed
(I) Phillips Engineering , Kenl Laza
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
133 0
15 30
_/llx!L_:Jqltfdk
Peter E . Falletta, P.E.
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DO T test methods . This report is exc\usi\Je\y for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduce d except in full without the written conse nt of our compa ny .. rest results transmitted .herein are only appllca~le to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referen ced and are not necessarily in di ca tiv e of the properties of ot her appare ntly s1m1lar or 1dent1cal materials.
CTOOOI, 5-5-10, Rcv .7 Pagel o f l
(
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT lrerracon Report Number: Al 111051.0034
Service Date: 07125111 6198 Imperial Loop
Report Date: 07/26111 Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Task: 979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Client Project
3-D Development Castlegate IT Su bdi vision -Sec 200
Attn: Dusty Phillips Victoria Avenu e
4490 Castlegate Dr Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845 Coll ege Statio n , TX 77845
Project Num ber : A 111105 l
Material Information Lab Test Data Project Requirements
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit Water Minimum
Mat. Proctor Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
No. Ref. No. Classification and Description Test Method (%) (pct) (%) (%)
I A 1111 051.0030 Gray lime-treated subgrade ASTMD698 19 .1 99 .5 19 .1 -23 .1 98 %
2 A 1111 051.0032 Tan and gray lim e-treated subgrade ASTM D 698 22.4 97.0 22.4-26.4 98 %
3 A l 111 051.0031 Brown lime-treated subgrade ASTM D698 2 1.9 94.9 21.9 -25 .9 98 %
4 A l 1110 51.0015 Gray sandy lean c lay ASTM D698 20 .9 98.J 20 .9 -24.9 98 %
5 Al 111051.0015 Gray sandy lean c lay ASTM D 698 20 .9 98 .J 20 .9 -24 .9 90 %
6 Al 111051.0016 Light brownish-gray clayey sand ASTM D 698 17 .1 10 2 .8 17 .1 -21.1 98 %
7 Al 111051.0016 Light brownish-gray clayey sand ASTM D 698 17 .1 10 2 .8 17 .1 -21.1 90%
8 Al 111051.0017 Tan clayey sand ASTM D 698 18 .3 10 3.8 18 .3 -22.3 98 %
Field Test Data Probe Wet Water Water Dry Unit Percent
Test Lift I Mat. Depth Density Content Content Weight Compaction
No. Test Location Elev. No. (in) (pct) (pct) (%) (pct) (%)
Hadleigh Street
Station I +00, left of c enterline Sub grade 2 6 11 6 .5 24.0 25.9 92.5 95.4 *
2 Station 3+00, right o f centerline Subgrade 2 6 112.4 22 .9 25.6 89 .5 92 .3 *
3 Station 5+00, centerline Sub grade 3 6 117 .8 22 .9 24 .1 94.9 100 .0
4 Station 7+00, left of centerline Sub grade 6 11 6 .3 20.6 2 1.5 95.7 96 .2 *
Odell Lane
5 Station 5+00, centerline Sub grad e 2 6 11 9 .3 22 .2 . 22.9 97.1 100+
6 Station 3+00, left of center I ine Sub grade 2 6 122 .9 22 .5 22.4 100.4 100+
7 Station I +00, right of centerline Subgrade 2 6 11 8 .3 22 .2 23.1 96.1 99.1
12" Water Line, Toddington St.
8 Station I +90 2'BG 5 6 114 .2 20.0 21.2 94 .2 96 .0
9 Station 3+80 2' BG 7 6 11 8.7 17 .9 17 .8 100 .8 98 .1
10 Station 5+70 2 'BG 5 6 117.4 21 .0 21.8 96.4 98.3
6" Sewer Line, Toddington St.
II Sta ti on 2+ I 0 2'BG 4 6 114 .0 20.5 21.9 93.5 95.3 *
12 Station 4+20 2'BG 6 6 124.0 18 .5 17 .5 105.5 100+
13 Station 6+30 2'BG 4 6 111.0 19 .0 20.6 92.0 93 .8 *
8" Sewer Line, Hadleigh St.
14 RECHECK Test #5 of Report 2' BG 8 6 121.2 19.5 19.2 101.7 98 .0
.0029
15 RECHECK Test #6 of Report 2' BG 8 6 122.6 19.4 18.8 103.2 99.4
.0029
16 Station 8+00 2'BG 8 6 122 .1 20 .2 19.8 101.9 98.2
The tests were performed in general a ccorda nce with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test met hod s. This report is exclusive ly for the use of the client
ind icated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written conse nt of our company . Test results tra ns mitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tes ted at the location(s) referenced and are not necessari ly indicative of the prope rt ies of other apparently similar or identical materials .
C R0007, 4-28-10, Rcv.l
Pa ge I of2
(
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
A 1111051.0034
07 /2 5/1 1
07 12611 1
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Field Test Data
Test
No. Test Location
6" Water Line, Hadleigh St.
17 Station 8+00
Lift I
Elev.
2'BG
Mat.
No.
7
Probe
Depth
(in)
1rerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 R eg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenu e
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
Wet
Density
(pct)
117.7
Water
Content
(pcf)
18.9
Water
Content
(%)
19 .1
Dry Unit
Weight
{pct)
98.8
Percent
Compaction
(%)
96 .1
Datum: Gauge ID: 3411 B Std. Cnt. M: 687 Std. Cnt. D: 2018
Comments: An asterisk(*) appears next to the test results w hich do not meet the project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in-pl ace density and moisture content tests with a Troxl er type gauge to determine degree of
compaction and materia l moisture condition.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopme nt, Dusty Phil lips
(I) City of Co ll ege St ation T X. Israel Koite
(I) Tcrracon Co nsultant s, Inc ., Ema il ed
(I) 3-D Developm ent, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engin ee ring, Kent La za
Test Methods: ASTM 06938-07 M e thod A
Started: 1030
Finished: 1800
Lunch/NC: 2.50
Reviewed By:
1 Peter E . Falletta, P.E .
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the cl ient
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location (s) referenced and are not necessarily in dicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identi ca l materials .
CR00 07 , 4-28-10 , Rev .l
Page 2 of2
GRADATION REPORT
Report Number: Al 111051.0033
07 /22 /11
07 /26/11
lrerracon
Service Date: 6198 Imperial Loop
Report Date: Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
979-846 -3767 Reg No : F -3272
Client
3 -D Development
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Cast legate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Proj ect
Castlegate II Subdiv is ion -Sec 2 00
Victoria Av enue
Castlegate Subdivisi o n
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On July 22, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain 4 s amples of lime-
treated material and returned to the laboratory . The samples were prepared for Optimum Moisture Density, Atterberg Limits and pH .
Results of the tests performed are shown below and on Report Nos . A 1111051 .0037 and .0038 .
A Terracon Consultants, Inc ., repres entative also secured 4 samples of pulver-mixed , lime-treated soil for testing to determine the
gradation . The test s were performed on site in accordance with applicable ASTM procedures and the results are shown below .
Test# Location % Passi ng 1-3/4" % Passi n g 3/4" % Passing #4 pH
Toddington Street
Station 8+00
2 Station 5+50
3 Station 2+00
Odell Lane
4 Station 2+00
*Does not meet project requirements
Spec ification Requirements:
I %" Sieve : Minimum I 00% Pass ing
Y." Sieve : Minimum 85% Passing
# 4 Sieve : Minimum 60% Passing
Services:
Terracon Rep .: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Dev e lopm ent , Dusty Phillip s {I) 3-D Develo pmen t, W•ll•cc Philli ps
(I ) City o f College St ation TX, Isra el
Koi te
(I) Terraco n Consult ant s, Inc ., Email ed
(I) Phillips Engin eeri ng, Ke nt Laza
100
JOO
100
100
Started:
F inis h ed:
Reviewed By:
95 .2
93.1
90 .5
96.2
1500
1700
66 .5 12 .4
63 .9 *12 .3
61.3 *1 2 .3
68 .5 12.4
_/-;it~1qilidt
Pet er E . Fa lle tta, P.E .
Proj e c t Manager
PI
10
7
6
8
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. Th is report is exc\us i'le\y for the use of the client
indi cated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the locat ion(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identi cal materials.
CTOO OI , 5-5-10, Rcv .7 Page I o f I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT
Report Number: A 1111051.0032 lrerracon
Service Date: 07 /25/1 1
Report Date: 0 7 /26/1 1
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Project
6198 Imp erial Loop
Col lege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate IJ Subd ivi s ion -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
C.o ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 1111051
Material Information
Source of Material: On site
Sample Information
Proposed Use: Treated subgrade
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D69 8
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf):97.0
Optimum Water Content(%) 22.4
Comments: pH= 12 .4
Sample Date: 07/21 /11
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Sample Location: Odell Lane, Station 5+00
Sample Description: Tan and gray lime-treated subgrade
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
44
29
15 Maximum 18
In-Place Moisture(%):
uses:
99
'fi' 98
.E: 97
..... 96 .i::
.~ 95
~ 94
..... 93 c: :::> 92
>-9 1 ~ 90
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific Gravity 2 .70
'\
-__ ,,. ...... \
~ I\ \
~"" '
I/ \ .... '\.:
\
\
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a sample of treated sub grade at the project site an d return it to the laboratory. Prep a re and test the sample for
pH, Moisture Density Relationship and Atterberg limits .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development , Dusty Phi llip s (I) 3-D Development, Walloce Phillips
(I) City of Co llege Station TX. Israel Koitc (I) Phi llips Engineering, Kent Laza Reviewed By: ___ !:_p,h_~_:j_d/J;;f;t __ _
(I) Terra co n Consultanls. In c .. Ema iled Peter E. Falletta, P .E.
Project Manager
Test Methods: ASTM D698 , ASTM Dl 140, ASTM D43 l 8
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use . of
the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consen t of our company. Test results .transmitted herein
are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently
similar or ~1~~J.ift!o~~~eria ls . Page I of I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT
Report Nu mb e r : A 1111051.0031 lre·rracon
Se rvice Date: 07/25/I 1
Report Date: 07 /26/I 1
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Philli ps
44 90 Cas tle gate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material: On site
Proposed Use: Treated subgrade
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Meth od A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry U nit Weight (pcf):94.9
Optimum Water Content(%) 21.9
Comments: pH= 12.4
6198 Imp eria l Loop
Col lege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F -3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victo ria Avenue
Cast lega te Subdivision
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Number A 111I 051
Sample Information
Samp l e Date:
Samp l ed By:
Samp l e Location:
07 /21/I I
Mohammed Mobee n
Hadleigh Street, Station 5+00
Samp l e Description: Brown lim e-treated subgrade
Result Specifications
Liqu id Limit: 36
Plastic Limit: 28
Plasticity Index: 8 Maxim um 18
In-Place Moisture(%):
uses:
97
96
95
94
93
92
9 1
90
89
88
Z ero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific Gravity 2 .70
\
\.
/ -,....,... I'\
I ' \
I\
I/
4
\
\.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 1 32
Water Content (%)
Serv ic es : Obtain a sa mpl e of treate d s ub gra de at the proje ct s it e an d return it to the laboratory. Prepare and test the sample for
pH, Mo i st ure D ensity Relati ons hip a nd Atterberg lim its.
Terracon Rep.: Mohamm ed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development , Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phill ips
(I) City of Co ll ege Stati on TX , Israel Ka ile (I) Ph illips Engine e ring, Kent La za Reviewed B y :
(I) Tcrracon Co nsultanlS, Inc., Emai led Peter E . Falle tt a, P.E.
Project Man ager
Test Methods: ASTM D69 8, ASTM DI 140, ASTM D43 l 8
The t ests were performed in general accordance wit h applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT t es t method s. Th is rep o rt is exc lusive ly for the use of
the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced excep t in full without the writte n consent of our comp any . Te st results transmitte d herein
are only appli cab le to the actual samples test ed at the loc ation(s) refere nced and are not necess ar ily indi cative of th e properties of othe r apparen tly
simi lar or identi cal materia ls .
CR0006. S-6· IO. Re d
Page I of I
(
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT 1rerracon Report Number: A 1111051.0030
Service Date: 07 /2511 1
Report Date: 07 /26/1 1
Client
3-D Development
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material: On site
Proposed Use: Treated subgrad e
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechani ca l
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf):99.5
Optimum Water Content(%) 19.1
Comments: pH= 12 .3
6 198 Imperial Loop
Col lege Station , TX 77845
979-8 46 -3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Vi c toria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 11110 51
Sample Information
Sample Date: 07 /2 1/11
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Sample Location: Hadleigh Street, Station 8+00
Sa mple Description: Gray lime-treated subgrade
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit: 38
Plastic Limit: 25
Plasticity Index: 13 M axi mum 18
In-Place Moisture(%):
uses:
102
't 101
~ 100 .... ..r::: 99 .~
Cl) 98
:!: 97 ....
c: 96 :J
>. 95 ~ 94
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific Gravity 2 .70
I\
r..
Ir ja.., \
v • I\. v "I
/ I'\ -.
I\
" \
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a sa mple of treated s ub grade at the project site and return it to the labo ratory . Prepare and test the samp le for
pH, Moisture Den si ty Relationship and Atterberg limits.
Terracon Rep .: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development. Dusty Phi llips
(I) Ci ly o f Co lle ge S1a1ion TX, Israel Koite
(I) Terra co n Co nsul!anls , Inc ., Ema il ed
(I ) 3-D Development, Walla ce Phillip s
(I ) Phillip s Engine ering, Ken! Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D698, ASTM DI 140 , ASTM D4318
Reviewed By:
Peter E. Falletta, P.E.
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of
the client in dicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted here in
are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the locat ion(s) referenced and are not necessari ly indicative of the properties of other apparently
simi lar or identical materials.
CR0006. S-6-10, Rcv.5 Page I of I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT 1rerracon Report Number : AJ JI I051.0029
Service Date: 07 /22/11 6198 Imperi al Loop
Report Date: 07 /22/1 I College Station, TX 77845
Task: 979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Client Project
3-D Development Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Attn : Dusty Phillips Victoria Aven ue
4490 Castlegate Dr Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77 845 Co ll ege Statio n , TX 77845
Project Number: A I 11 I 051
Material Information Lab Test Data Project R eq uirements
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit Water Minimum
Mat. Proctor Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
No. R ef. No. Classification and Description Test Method (%) (pct) (%) (%) --1 Al 111051.0006 Tan and gray fat clay with sand ASTM D698 20 .8 10 2 .1 20 .8 -24.8 98
2 AJ J J I0 51.0017 Tan clayey sa nd ASTM D698 18.3 10 3.8 18 .3 -22.3 98
3 Allll051.0017 Tan clayey sand ASTM D698 18.3 103.8 18 .3 -22 .3 90
4 A l J J 10 51.0006 Tan and gray fat clay with sand AS TMD 698 20.8 I 02.1 20 .8 -24 .8 90
Field Test Data Probe Wet Water Water Dry Unit Percent
Test Lift I Mat. Depth D ensity Content Content Weight Compaction
No. Test Location E lev. No. (in) (pct) (pct) (%) (pct) (%)
8" Sewer Line
RECHECK Test #3 of Report 2'BG 6 121.5 21.3 2 1.3 100 .2 98 .1
.0028
12" Water Line
2 RECHECK Test #6 of Report 2'BG 6 122 .2 21.1 20 .9 I 01.1 99 .0
.0028
8" Water Line, Odell Lane
3 Station 12 +50 2'BG 4 6 11 7 .7 20.4 2 1.0 97 .3 95 .3
6" Sewer Line, Odell Lane
4 Station 11 +00 2'BG 6 12 5.8 22 .2 2 1.4 103 .6 JOO +
8" Sewer Line, Hadleigh St.
5 Station 2+00 2'BG 2 6 11 7 .6 19 .5 19 .9 98 .1 94 .5
6 Station 4+00 2' BG 2 6 112 .0 17.4 18.4 94 .6 91.1
7 Station 6+00 2'BG 2 6 122 .2 19 .9 19 .5 102 .3 98 .6
6" Water Line, Hadleigh St.
8 Station 2+00 2'BG 3 6 117.4 21.2 22 .0 96 .2 92 .7
9 Station 4+00 2'BG 3 6 115.2 19.4 20 .3 95 .8 92 .3
JO Station 6+00 2' BG 3 6 118 .6 18.6 18 .6 100 .0 96 .3
Datum: Gauge ID: 341 IB Std. Cnt. M:690 Std. Cnt. D: 1983
Comments: An asterisk (*) appears next to the test results which do not meet the project requirements as noted above.
BG = Below Grade
The tests were performed in general accorda nce with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . T hi s report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consen t of our company . Test results trans mitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the lo cation (s) referenced and are not necessarily ind ic ative of the prope rties of other apparently similar or identical materials.
C R0007 , 4-28 · IO , Rcv.J
Page I of2
(
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
R eport Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 1I1051.0029
07 /22/1 1
07 /2 2/1 1
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Cast legate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Project
1rerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Vi ctoria Aven ue
Castlegate Su bdi vision
Co ll ege Sta ti o n, TX 77845
Proj ect Num ber: A I I 11 05 1
Services: Perform in-pla ce dens ity and moisture content tests with a Troxl er type ga uge to determin e deg re e of
compacti on and material moisture condit ion.
Terracon Rep.: Moham med Mobeen
R eported To:
Contractor:
R eport Distribution:
(I} 3-D Developm ent , Dusty Phillips
(I} City of Co lleg e St ation TX, Isra el Koi te
(I} Tcrraco n Co nsult ant s, Inc., Email ed
(I} 3-D Development , Walla ce Phillip s
(I} Phillip s Engin ee rin g, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started: 1200
Finished: 1400
R eviewed By:
1 Peter E . Falletta, P .E .
Pr oj ect Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance w ith applicable ASTM , AAS HTO , or DOT test me thod s . This repo rt is exclusive ly for the use of the client
indicated above and sha ll not be reproduce d except in full without th e written conse nt of our compa ny . Test results transm itted herein are onl y app li cable to th e
actual sam pl es tested at the location(s) re ferenced and are not necessarily indicati ve of the properties of other apparently similar or Identical ma terials .
C R0 007, 4-28-t O, Re v.J
Page 2 o f2
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Nu mber:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 11105 1.0028
07 /2 1/11
07 /2 2/J I
Attn : Dusty Phill ips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Material Information
Mat. Proctor
No. Ref. No. Classification and Description
1 A l 111 051.0002 Tan and gray sandy lean clay
2 Al 111051.0006 Tan and gray fat clay with sand
3 Al 1110 51.0005 Tan and brown fat c lay
4 Allll051.0014 Brownish gray fat clay with sand
5 Al 111051.0006 Tan and gray fat clay with sand
6 A llll051.0014 Brownish gray fat clay with sand
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Datum:
Test Location
12" Sewer Line, Victoria Avenue
Station I +95
12" Water Line, Victoria Avenue
Station 0+25
8" Sewer Line, W.S. Phillips Pkwy
Station 2+ I 0
Station 4+ I 0
8" Sewer Line, Odell Lane
Station 6+ I 0
12" Water Line, W.S. Phillips Pkwy
Station 2+ I 0
12" Water Line, Odell Lane
Station 4 + I 0
8" Water Line, Odell Lane
Station 6+ 10
Lift I Mat.
Elev. No.
2'BG
2'BG
2'BG 2
2'BG 3
2'BG 4
2'BG 4
2'BG 5
2'BG 6
1rerracon
6198 Imperi al Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdi visio n -Sec 200
Victoria Avenu e
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Proj ect Number : A 1111051
Lab Test Data Project Requirements
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Test Method (%) (pct) (%) (%)
ASTMD698 19 .9 10 2 .3 19.9-23.9 98
ASTM D6 98 20.8 102 .1 20 .8 -24.8 98
ASTM D698 25.6 91.9 25 .6 -29 .6 98
ASTM D69 8 20.4 98.7 20.4 -24.4 98
ASTM D6 98 20 .8 10 2 .1 20 .8 -24.8 90
ASTM D6 98 20.4 98.7 20.4 -24.4 90
Probe Wet Water Water Dry Unit Percent
Depth Density Content Content Weight Compaction
(in) (pct) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%)
6 121.5 20.6 20.4 100 .9 98.6
6 125.1 21.3 2 0.5 103.8 JOO +
6 11 1.7 17.9 19 .1 * 93 .8 91.9
6 11 9.2 24.6 26.0 94 .6 JOO +
6 120 .9 20 .9 20.9 100.0 100+
6 122 .7 16 .5 15 .5 106 .2 100+
6 121.1 2 1.2 21.2 99 .9 97.8
6 11 5.8 20.3 2 1.3 95.5 96 .8
Gauge ID: 3411 B Std. Cnt. M:690 Std. Cnt. D: 2011
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
BG = Below Grade
The tests were performed in general accordance w ith applicable ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusive ly for th e use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written co nsent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) refere nced and are not ne cessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or id entica l materials .
CR0007, 4-28-10, Rev.l Page I of2
I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0028
07 /21/11
07/22/11
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
1rerracon
6198 Imp erial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivisi o n -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivisio n
Co ll ege Station, TX 77 845
Project Number: A 1111051
Services: Perform in-place density and moisture content tests with a Troxler type gauge to determine degree o f
compaction and material moisture co nditi on .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Develo pment , Dusty Phill ips
(I) C ity o f College Station T X. Is ra el Koi te
(I) T erracon C onsu lt an ts , In c., Email ed
(I ) 3-D Devel opment , W alla ce Phillips
(I) Phillips En gin eering, Kent La za
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started :
Finish ed :
1300
1530
Reviewed By:
Peter E. Falletta, P .E.
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general acco rdan ce with applicable AST M . AASHTO, or DOT test met hod s . This report is exc lusi vely for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results tran smitted herein are on ly applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) refe renced and are not necessarily ind icat ive of the properties of other apparently sim il ar or identica l materials .
CR0007, 4-28 -10, Rev .J
Pa ge 2 of 2
GRADATION REPORT
Report Number: Al 111051.0027
07/2 111 1
lrerracon
Service Date: 6198 Imperial Loop
Report Date: 07/26/11 Revision I -Add pH & PI Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Client
3-D Development
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Cas tle gate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Coll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
On Jul y 2 1, 20 11, a Terracon Consu lt a nts , Inc ., representative was present a t the above referenced project to obtain 4 samp less of lime -
treated material and returned to the laboratory. The samples were prepared for Plasticity Ind ex, pH, and Optimum M oistu re and Density
Relationship. Results of the tests perfom1ed are shown on Report Nos . A 1111051 .0030 , .0031, and .0032.
A Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative also secured 4 samples ofpulver-mixed, lime-treated soi l for testing to determine the
gradation. The tests were performed on site in accordance w ith applicable ASTM procedures and the results are shown below .
Test# Location % Passing 1-3/4" % Passing 3/4" % Passing #4 pH
Hadleigh Street
1 Station 8+00
2 Station 5+00
3 Station 2+00
Odell Lane
4 Statio n 5+00
*Does not meet project requirements
Specification Requirements:
I 31." Sieve: Minimum I 00% Pas s ing
31." Sieve: Minimum 85% Passing
# 4 Sieve: Minimum 60% Passing
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Dust y Phi ll ips
(I) City of Co ll ege Station TX , Israel
Koitc
(I) Terracon Co nsu ltants, Inc ., Emailed
(I) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineeri ng , Kent Laza
100
100
100
100
Started:
Finished:
Reviewed By:
93 .0
95.2
89.7
92.7
16 30
1800
67.4 *12 .3
65.7 12.4
60 .8 12.4
6 1.8 12.4
--1-">-?Jy_Llqfliit=
Peter E . Falletta, P .E.
Project Manager
PI
13
8
14
15
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exc\usi'le ly for the use of the client
indicated abo'le and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written conse nt of our compa ny .. Test results trans mitted. herein are on.ly applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicati 'le of the properties of other apparently s1m1lar or 1dent1cal materials .
CTOOOI, 5-5 -10, Rc v.7 Pa ge I of I
GRADATION REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al I I I 051.00 27
07/21/11
07/22/11
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
P roject
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On July 21, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain 4 sarnpless of lirne-
treated material and returned to the laboratory . The samples were prepared for Pla stic ity Index , pH, and Optimum Moisture and Density
Relationship. Results of the tests perfonn ed are shown on Report Nos . A 111 1051.0030, .003 I, and .0032 .
A Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative also secured 4 samp les ofpu lver-mixed, lime-treated soil for testing to det ermine the
gradation. The tests were performed on site in accordance with applicable ASTM proced ures and the resu lts are shown below .
Test# Location % Passing 1-3/4" % Passin g 3/4" % Passing #4 pH
Hadleigh Street
l Station 8+00
2 Station 5+00
3 Station 2+00
Odell Lane
4 Station 5+00
TIP =Test in Progress
Specification Requirements :
1 %" Sieve: Minimum I 00% Passi ng
%" Sieve: Minimum 85% Passing
# 4 Sieve: M inimum 60% Passing
Services:
Terracon Rep .: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phi ll ips (I ) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(I) City o f Co ll ege Station TX, Israel
Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Emailed
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
100 93.0 67.4 TIP
100 95.2 65.7 TIP
100 89.7 60.8 TIP
100 92 .7 61.8 TIP
Started: 1630
F in ished: 1800
Reviewed By: __,....._.·?Jy£J?ILtf;/;t
Peter E. Falletta, P.E.
Project Manager
PI
TIP
TIP
TIP
TIP
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exc\usi'lely for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in fu ll without the written con sent of our com pa ny .. Test resu lts transm itted . herein are on.ly appli cable to
the actu al samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily in di cat ive of the properties of oth er apparently s1m1lar or 1dent1cal materials.
Page I of I CTOOOI, 5-5-10 , Rc v.7
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Deve lopment
A l 111051.002 6
07/20/11
07 /22/1 1
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
1
2
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al 1110 51.0016
Al 111051.0002
Classification and Description
Li ght brownish-gray clayey sand
Tan and gray sandy le an c lay
Field Test Data
Test Lift I Mat.
No. Test Location Elev. No.
W.S. Phillip Parkway
1 Station 23 +00, centerl ine 2
2 Station 24+75, centerlin e 2
8" Waterline, Victoria Avenue
3 Station 1 +00 !'BG 2
1rerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Re g No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate TI Subdi vision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 778 45
Project Number: A 111105 1
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Laboratory Content Weight
Test Method
ASTM D69 8
ASTM D698
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pcf)
12 2.1
122.2
12 2.4
(%)
17 .1
19 .9
Water
Content
(pcf)
20.0
21.2
20 .5
(pcf)
102 .8
102 .3
Water
Content
(%)
19.6
2 1.0
20 .1
Project Requirements
Water
Content
(%)
17 .1-2 1.1
19 .9-23 .9
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
10 2 .1
101.0
101 .9
Minimum
Compaction
(%)
98%
98%
Percent
Compaction
(%)
99 .3
98 .2
99.6
Datum : Gauge ID: 3411-8 Std. Cnt. M:688 Std. Cnt. D : 2009
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet pro,ject requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in -place density and moisture content tests with a Troxler type gauge to dete1111ine degree of
compaction and material moi sture condition.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed M obeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution :
(1) 3-D Develop ment, Dusty Phillips
( 1) City o f Co llege Stati o n TX, Israel Kaile
( 1) Terracon Consultants, Inc ., Ema il ed
( 1) 3-D Development , Wallace Phillips
(1) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D6938 -0 7 Method A
Started: 10 30
Finis hed: 12 00
Reviewed By:
Peter E. Falletta, P .E.
Project Manager
The tests were performed in gen era l accordance with app li cable ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for th e use of the client
indicated above and sha ll not be reprodu ce d except in full without the written conse nt of our compa ny . Tes t res ults transm itted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tes ted at th e location(s) re ferenced and are not ne ces sar ily in dicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identi ca l mate rials .
C R0007, 4-28-10, Rev .J
Page 1 of 1
(
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0025
07 /19/1 1
07 /20/1 1
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castle gate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
I
2
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al111051.0016
A 1 1110 5 1.0005
Classification and Description
Light brownish-gray clayey sand
Tan and brown fat clay
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
3
Test Location
Box Culvert Backfill
Lift I
Elev.
RECHECK Test #4 of Report 3
.0024
W.S. Phillips Parkway
Station 23+00, ri ght of
ce nt erline
Station 25+00, left of centerline
Mat.
No.
2
lrerracon
6198 Imp eria l Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845 .
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Vi c toria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Sta tion , TX 77845
Proj ect Number : A 1111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Wate r Dry Unit
Laboratory Content Weight
Test Method (%) (pcf)
ASTM 0698 17.1 10 2.8
ASTM 0698 25.6 91.9
Probe Wet Water Water
Depth Density Content Content
(in) (pcf) (pcf) (%)
6 12 2.7 21.2 20.9
6 122 .5 21.3 21.0
6 11 6.4 24.4 26.5
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Content Compaction
(%) (%)
17.1-21.1 ~8%S/90%NE
25.6 -29.6 ~8%S/90%NE
Dry Unit Percent
Weight Compaction
(pcf) (%)
101.5 98.7
101.2 98.4
92.0 100+
Datum: Gauge ID: 3411 B Std. Cnt. M: 688 Std. Cnt. D: 2010
Comments : Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in-place density and moisture con tent tests with a Troxler type gauge to de te1111ine degree of
compac tion and material moisture condition.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Dusty Phillips
(I) City of Co ll ege Stati on TX , Israe l Koite
(I) Terracon Consultants , In c., Ema il ed
(I) 3-D Devel opment, Wa ll ace Phillips
(I) Phillips Enginee ring , Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM 06938-07 Method A
Started:
Finished:
1230
1400
Reviewed By:
1 Peter E. Fa lletta, P.E.
Project Manager
The tests we re performed in general acco rdance with app licable ASTM. AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is excl usi ve ly for the use of the client
indicated above and sha ll not be reproduced except in full without the written conse nt of our company . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samp les tested at the Jocation(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently simi lar or identical mate rial s.
CR0007, 4-28 -10, Rcv .3
Pa ge I of I
(
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al I I 10 5 1.0 024
07 /18/11
07 /20/1 I
Attn : Dusty Phillip s
4490 Ca st legate Dr
College Station, TX 77 845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
I
Proctor
Ref. No.
A l 111 051.0016
Classification and Description
Light browni sh-gray c layey sand
Field Test Data
Test Lift I Mat.
No. Test Location Elev. No.
Box Culvert Backfill
l East side of cu lvert, center 2
2 W es t s id e of c ulv ert , cen ter 2
3 W es t s id e o f cu lvert, center 3
4 East side of cu lvert, center 3
lrerracon
619 8 Im perial Lo o p
College Station , TX 77 845
97 9-846-37 6 7 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victori a Aven ue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Number: A 1 1110 5 1
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Laboratory Content Weight Content Compaction
Test Method
ASTMD698
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pct)
119 .3
12 1.5
120 .7
11 7 .9
(%)
17 .1
Water
Content
(pct)
18.3
19.1
18 .1
22 .3
(pct)
10 2.8
Water
Content
(%)
18 . J
18.7
17 .6
23 .3 *
(%)
17.1 -21.1
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
101.0
102.4
102.6
95.6
(%)
~8 %S /90 %N~
Percent
Compaction
(%)
98 .2
99.6
99.8
93 .0
Datum: Gauge ID: 341 IB Std. Cnt. M:683 Std. Cnt. D: 1977
Comments: T est and/or retest results on thi s report meet proj ect requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in -place density and moisture content te sts with a Troxler type gauge to d ete rmin e degree of
compaction and material m oisture co nditi on .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution :
(I) 3-D Deve lopm ent , Du sty Ph ill ips
(I) Ci ty o f Coll ege St ation TX. Isra el Koit e
(I ) Tcrracon Co nsult ant s, Inc., Ema il ed
(I ) 3-D Deve lopme nt , Wa lla ce Phillips
(I) Phillips Engin ee ring, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM 06938-07 M ethod A
Started: 1015
Finished: J 730
Lunch/N C: 4 .50
Reviewed By:
r Pe ter E. Fa llet ta. P .E.
Pro ject Mana g e r
The tests were performed in general accord an ce w ith applicable ASTM , AAS HTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclu sive ly for the use of the client
indi cated above and shall not be re produce d except in full w ithout the written conse nt of our compa ny. Test resu lts transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the loca ti on(s) refe renced and are not nece ssarily indi cative of the properties of other apparently similar or id enti ca l materials .
CR0007, 4-28-tO, Rc v.J
Page I of I
(
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report N umber:
Service Date :
Report Date :
Task:
Client
3-D Deve lo pm ent
Al I l !05!.0023
07 11511 1
07/2 0/1 1
Att n : Dusty Philli ps
4490 Castle gate Dr
Co ll ege Stati on, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
I
2
Proctor
Ref. No.
Allll05!.0014
Al 1110 51.0016
Classification and Description
Brownish gray fat c lay w ith sa nd
Li ght browni sh-gray clayey sand
Field Test Data
Test
No. Test Location
Toddengton Ln, 4 " Sewe r Service
Station I + 3 7
2 Station 2+94
3 Station 4+ 30
4 Station 4+ 72
5 Station 6+08
6 Station 7+65
7 Stat ion 9+22
8 RECHECK Tes t #4 of Report
.00 23
9
Datum:
12" Water Line
Station 8+ I 0
Lift I Mat.
Elev. No.
!'BG
!'BG
!'BG
!'BG
!'BG
!'BG 2
!'BG I
!'BG
!'BG 2
1rerracon
6198 Imperi a l Loo p
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate TI S ubdi v isi on -Sec 200
Vi ctori a A venue
Castlegate Subdivi sion
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Proj ect Numb er : A 1111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Laboratory Conte nt Weight
Test Method (%) (pcf)
ASTM D 698 20.4 9 8.7
ASTM D698 17 .1 10 2.8
Probe Wet W a ter Water
Depth Density Content Content
(in) (pcf) (pcf) (%)
6 118 .1 20.8 2 1.4
6 117 .6 20.4 2 1.0
6 117 .9 20.4 20.9
6 11 7 .6 23.3 24 .7
6 11 8.0 20.7 21.3
6 120.3 18.5 18.2
6 11 8.5 20 .2 20 .6
6 11 8.1 20.0 20.4
6 122 .9 20.6 20 .1
Gauge ID: 341 lB Std. Cnt. M:687
Project R e quire ments
Wate r Minimum
Content Compaction
(%) (%)
20.4 -24.4 ~8%S /90%N5
17 .1 -21.1 ~8 %S/90%N5
Dry U nit Percent
Weight Compaction
(p cf) (%)
97 .3 98 .6
97 .2 98 .5
97.5 98 .8
94 .3 95.5
97 .3 98 .6
I 0 l.8 99.0
98.3 99.6
98 .1 99.4
102 .3 99 .5
Std. Cnt. D : 1975
Comments: Test and/or retest r e sults on this r e port mee t project requirements as noted above.
BG = Below Grade
Services: Perfo rm in -place density and moisture con tent tes ts wi th a Troxler type gauge to de termin e deg ree of
compacti o n and material mo istu re co nditi on.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopment, Dusty Phi llip s
(I) C ity of Co ll ege Stal ion TX. Israel Ko ite
(I) Tcrracon Consultants, Inc ., Email ed
(I) 3-D Development, Wal lace Phillip s
(I) Phi ll ips Enginee ring, Ken t Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 M eth od A
Started:
Finis hed:
1030
1300
R eviewed By:
1 Peter E. Falletta, P .E.
Project Manager
The tests were performed in gen eral acco rdan ce with appli cable ASTM. AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusive ly for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the writte n conse nt of our compa ny . Tes t results transm itted herein are only applicable to the
actual samp les teste d at the location(s) referenced and are not ne ce ssarily ind icative of the properties of other apparently similar or identica l ma te ria ls.
CR0007, 4-28 -10, Rcv .J
Page I of 1
I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D D evelopment
Al 111051.0022
07/14/J 1
07/20/J I
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castle gate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No .
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al 11105 1.0 0 17
A l 111 051.0014
Classification and Description
Tan c layey sand
2 Brownish gray fa t clay with sand
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Test Location
8" Water Line
RECHECK Test #I of Report
.0021
4" Sewer Service
RECHECK Test #2 of R e port
.0 021
RECHECK Test #3 of Report
.0021
Station 3+ 30
Station 4 +77
Station 6+24
Station 7+ 71
Station 8+96
Lift I
Elev.
!'BG
l 'BG
l'BG
l'BG
!'BG
!'BG
l'BG
!'BG
Mat.
No.
2
2
2
2
2
2
1rerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 R eg No: F-3272
Project
Cas tle gate II Subdi visio n -Sec 200
Vi ctoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdi visio n
College Statio n , TX 77845
Proj ec t Number: A 1111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Laboratory Content Weight
Test Method
ASTMD698
AS TM D69 8
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pct)
117 .9
11 7.5
123 .9
121.4
117 .9
11 8.7
11 7.1
119 .8
(%)
18.3
20.4
Water
Content
(pct)
20.4
20.6
20 .7
18.8
20.7
20.8
19.9
20 .8
(pct)
103 .8
98 .7
Water
Content
(%)
20.9
21.3
20 .1
18 .3
21.3
21.2
2 0 .5
2 1.0
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Content Compaction
(%) (%)
18.3 -22 .3 18%S/90%N5
20.4 -24.4 18%S/90%N5
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
97 .5
96 .9
103 .2
102.6
97 .2
97 .9
97 .2
99 .0
Percent
Compaction
(%)
98.8
98 .2
99.4
98.8
98 .5
99.2
98 .5
JOO+
Datum: Gauge ID: 341 1 Std. C nt. M:686 Std . Cnt. D: 2005
Comme nts: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services : Perform in -p lace dens ity and m o isture content tests with a Tro x ler type gauge to determine degree of
co mpaction and material moisture condition.
Terracon Rep .: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Develo pm ent , Dus ty Phillips
(I) City of Co ll ege Stati on TX , Isra el Ko ite
(I) Terracon Co nsult ants , In c., Emai led
{I) 3-D Devel opment, Wa ll ace Phillip s
(I) Phill ips Eng in eeri ng, Ken t La za
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started: 1000
Finished: 1230
Reviewed By:
Project Manager
The tests were performed in gene ral accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . T his report is exclusive ly for the use of the clien t
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full w ith out th e written conse nt of our compa ny . Test results transm itted herein are only applicable to th e
a ctual samp les tested at the location(s) re ferenced and are not ne ce ssarily indi ca tive of the properties of other apparently simi lar or identi ca l materia ls.
CR0007, 4-28-10, Rcv.l
Page I of I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Development
Al 111051.0021
07/13/1 1
07/20/11
Attn: Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castle ga te Dr
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
1
2
Proctor
Ref. No.
A ll l l051.0014
Al 1110 5 1.00 17
Al 1110 51.0008
Classification and Description
Brownish gray fat c lay with sand
Tan c la yey sand
3 Gray lea n c lay
Field Test Data
Test
No.
2
3
4
5
Test Location
8" Water Line
Station 11+25
4" Sewer Service
Station O+ 71.86
Station I +83
Lift I
Elev.
!'BG
!'BG
!'BG
Box Culverts On W.S. Phillips Parkway
R ECHECK Test #I of Report
.0 012
RECHECK Test #2 of Report
.0012
Mat.
No.
2
3
3
-1rerracon
6 19 8 Imperi a l Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 R eg No: F-3272
Project
Castle gate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Vi c toria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Proj ect Nu mber: A I I 11051
Laboratory
Test Method
AS TM D 698
ASTM D 698
ASTM D 698
Probe
Depth
(in)
6
6
6
6
6
Wet
Density
(pct)
11 6.3
11 3.4
11 6 .5
126 .6
126 .3
Lab Test Data
Optimum
Water
Content
(%)
20.4
18 .3
19 .0
Water
Content
(pct)
20 .9
17.7
18.3
2 1.2
21.8
Max. Lab
Dry Unit
Weight
(pcf)
98.7
10 3 .8
105 .8
Water
Content
(%)
21.9
18 .5
18.6
2 0 .1
20 .9
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Content C ompaction
(%) (%)
20.4 -24.4 ~8%S/90%N5
18.3 -22.3 ~8 %S /90 %N5
19 .0 -23 .0 ~8 %S /90 %N5
Dry Unit
Weight
(pct)
95.4
95 .7
98 .2
I 05.4
104 .5
Perce nt
Compaction
(%)
96 .7 *
97.0
94 .6 *
99.6
98 .8
Datum: Gauge ID: 341 IB Std. Cnt. M:686 S td. C nt. D: 2016
Comments: Test and/or retest results on this report meet project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in -place density and moisture con tent tests with a Troxler type ga u ge to detem1ine d eg re e o f
com p ac tion and materia l moisture condition.
Terracon Rep.: Mohamm ed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D De velop ment, Du sty Phi llip s
(I ) City o f Co ll ege St ation TX, Isra el Koi te
(I ) Tcrra co n Consultants , In c., Emai led
(I) 3-D Devel opment, Walla ce Phill ips
(I) Phi ll ip s En gineering , Kent La za
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started:
Finished:
1400
1600
Reviewed By :
Peter E . Fa lletta , P .E .
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with app lica bl e ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclus ively for the use of the cl ient
indicated above and shall not be reproduce d except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results tr ansmitted herein are on ly app li cable to the
actual samples tested at the lo cation(s) referenced and are not necessarily ind ica tive of th e properties of other apparently similar or ide nti ca l materials .
CR0007, 4-28-tO . Rcv.3
Page 1 of I
'
LI ME SERI ES TESTI N G REPORT
Report Number:
Ser vi c e Date :
Report Date :
Task:
Clie nt
3-D Development
Attn: Dusty Ph i llips
Al 111051.0020
07 /14/11
07 /20/11
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
P roject
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project No. Allll051
l re rracan
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
On July 7 , 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative was present at the a bove referenced project to obtain 4 samples of general fill materi al and returned to the
laboratory. The samples were prepared for Lime Series testing. Results of the tests performed are shown below.
MOISTURE DRY ATTERBERG
SAMPLE TYPE OF CONTENT DENSITY LIMITS pH Location NO . MATERIAL (%) (pcf) LL PL Pl
Hadleigh 1 Gray lean clay --47 19 28 -
Station 2+00
Hadleigh Reddish brown fat
Station 4+50 2 clay
2
2
2
2
Services:
Terracon Rep: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Con tra c tor:
Rep o rt D istributio n
( l) 3-D Development, Dusty Phillips
(l) City of College Station TX, Israel Koite
{l) Terracon Consultants, Inc., Emailed
--
--
--
--
--
( l) 3 -D Development, Wallace Phi llips
( l) Phill ips Engineering, Kent Laza
64 25 39 -
- --12.27
- --12.39
55 37 18 12.43
---12.43
Started:
Finished:
Lunch/NC:
Reviewed By:
% PASSING % PASSING % PASSING % PASSING
THE 1 3/4" THE 3/4" THE NO . 4 THE NO. COMMENTS
SIEVE SIEVE SIEVE 200 SIEVE
- ---Raw
----Raw
----With 3% L ime added in lab
----With 4% Lime added in lab
----With 5% Lime added in lab
----With 6% Lime added in lab
Peter E. Falletta, P .E.
Project Manager
The tests were perfo rmed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be
reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not
necessari ly indicative of the properties of other apparently similar o r identical materials.
CTDOOl . S-6-09. Rev .5 Page 1of 2
LIM E SERIES TESTING REPORT
Rep ort N u mber:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Devel o pment
Attn : Dusty Phillips
Alll l 0 5 1.002 0
07 /1 4/1 1
07 /20/1 1
44 9 0 Castlegate Dr
C oll ege Stat io n , TX 778 4 5
Project
C as tl egate lI Subdivision -S ec 200
Victo ria Av enue
Cas tle gate Sub d i vi sion
Co ll ege Statio n , TX 77 845
Project N o. Al 1 110 51
lrerracon
6 198 Imperi al Lo op
College Station, TX 77845
979 -846-3767 Reg N o: F-3272
On July 7 , 2011 , a Terracon C onsultants , Inc ., representati ve was present at the above referenced project to obtain 4 s ampl es of general fill m at eri al and ret urn ed to the
lab orato ry . Th e sampl es were prepared for L ime S erie s te stin g. R e sults of the tests performed are shown below .
SAMPLE TYPE OF
Location NO . MATERIAL
Toddengton 3 Gray fat clay
Sta t ion 3 +00
3
3
3
3
Toddengto n 4
Tan and gray l e an
Station 4 +5 0 clay
Serv ices:
Terracon Rep: Moh a mm ed M o be en
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution
MOISTURE D R Y
CONTENT DENS ITY
(%) (pcf)
--
--
--
--
--
--
(1) 3-D Develo pm e nt, Du sty Phi ll ips
(1) City of Coll ege Stati on T X, Israel Ko ite
(1) Terraco n Con s ult ants , In c ., Emai led
(1) 3-D D evelo pm ent, Wallace Ph il li ps
( 1) Phill ip s Eng in eer in g, Kent Laza
ATTERBERG % PASSING % PASSING % PASSING % PASSI NG
LIMITS pH THE 1 3/4 " THE 3 /4 " THE NO . 4 T HE NO . C OMMENTS
LL PL Pl SIEVE SIEVE S I EVE 200 SIEV E
66 25 4 1 -----Raw
- --12.33 ----With 3 % Lime a dded in l ab
12.3 7 ----With 4% Lim e add e d i n lab
57 39 18 12.40 ----With 5 % L i me added in l ab
- - -12 .41 ----With 6 % L i me added in la b
4 3 21 22 -----Raw
Started:
Finished:
Lunch/NC:
Reviewed By: _?@. CC . ;;d}tfls-
Pctcr E. Fal lctta, P.E.
Proj ect Man ag er
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM , AASHTO , or DOT t e st methods . Th is report is exclus iv e ly for t he u se of the client indicat ed above and s ha ll n ot be
reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested a t t he loc ati on (s) referenced and are not
necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently sim i lar or identical materials.
CTOOOl , s-6-09 , Rcv.5 Page 2 of 2
SOIL SAMPLE PICK-UP RE Pd~,
Report Number:
Service Date:
R eport Date:
Client
3-D Development
Al 1110 51.0019
07/12/1 1
0711311 I
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
C o llege Station , T X 77845
Project
lrerracon
6 198 Im per ial Loop
College Station , TX 77 845
979 -846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivi s ion -Sec 200
Victoria Avenu e
Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
Project Number : A 1111051
On Jul y 12 , 2011 , a Terracon Consultants'. Inc ., repres entative was p resent at the above referenced project to obtain 2 samp les of soil at
Toddmgton Street, and two samp les of so il at Had leigh Street . The samp les were returned to the laboratory and prepared for Lime Series
Testing . Results of the tests performed are shown on Report No . A 1111051 .0020 .
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mo hammed Mobeen
R epo rted To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) 3-D Devel o pment , Dusty Phillips (I) 3-D Development , Wa ll ace Phill ips
(I) Ci ty of Co llege Statio n TX, Isr ae l
Koi te
(I ) Terraco n Consult an ts, In c., Email ed
(I) Phi ll ip s Enginee ring, Kent Laza
S tarted : 134 5
Finished: 1500
Revi ewed By:
Peter E. Falletta, P.E .
Project M anager
The tests were performed in general acco rd ance wi th app li cable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test me th ods. This report is exc\usi11e\y for the use ol \he cl ient
indicated above and shall no\ be reproduced except in fu ll without \he written conse nt of our compa ny . Test resul ts tran smitted herein are on ly applicable to
the actual sampl es tes ted at the location(s) referen ced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.
CTOOO I, S-S-10, Rcv .7 Page I o f I
(
LABORATORY COMPACTION CH"'rtACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT ·1rerracon R e port N umb er: A I I 110 5 1.0018
Service Date: 07/11/1 1
Report Date: 07 /13/1 1
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Attn : Dusty Phillips
4490 Cas tl egate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Material Information
So urce of M aterial: On site
Proposed Use: General fi ll
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM 0698
Test Method: Meth od A
Samp le Pre p aration: Wet
Rammer Type: Me chanical
Maxi mum Dry U nit Wei g ht (pcf):106.5
Optimum Water Co ntent (%) 15 .9
Co mm ents:
6 19 8 Imp e rial Loop
College Stati on, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Cas tl egate II Subd iv is i on -Sec 200
Victor ia Avenue
Castlegate Subdivisi on
College Station, TX 77845
Project N u mber A 11 11051
Sample Information
Sa mple Date: 07 /08 /11
Sa mpled By: Matcek, James
Sa mple Loca tion : Hadleigh Street, Station 8+00
Sa mpl e D escr iption : Gray sandy lean clay
Result Specifications
L iquid Limit: 44
P lastic Limit: 17
Plasticity Index: 27
In-Place Moisture (%):
Passing #200 (%): 56.2
us es:
Zero A ir Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific G ravity 2.70
109
'ii' 108
107 ..:: 106
:E 105
.2' 104
4> 103
3: 102
~ 101 c: 100 ~
>. 99
\
I\ --' I/' ~ I\
I' '
I/ I\.
' J l'I.
I ' • 1•
t5 98
97
I\.
'
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26
Water Content (%)
Se r vices : Obtain a sam ple of Ge nera l Fill a t the project site and r etu rn it to the laboratory . Prepare and test the samp l e for Moisture
Density Relationship, Percent Passing #200 Sieve, and Atterberg Limits.
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, James
Repor ted To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development , Dusty Phillips
(I) Ci ty o f Col le ge S tation TX, Israel Koi te
{I) Terra co n Co nsultants, Inc., Ema il ed
(I) 3-D Develo pment . Walla ce Phillips
(I) Phillip s Engineering, Kent La za
Test Methods: ASTM 0698, ASTM DI 140, ASTM D43 I 8
Reviewed B y: ___ :f;;b_<L2J/Jif£ __ _
Pete r E . Falletta , P.E.
Project Man ager
The tes ts were performed in general accordance wit h app l icab le ASTM, AASHTO , o r DOT test methods. This report is exclusive ly for the use of
the client indica ted above and shall not be rep roduced excep t in full without the written consent o f o ur company. Tes t results transm itted herein
are on ly applicabl e to the ac t ua l samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessari ly in dicative of th e properties of othe r apparently
similar or ide ntical materials .
CROOOO. S-6-10, Re d Page I of I
I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CH'"'r{ACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT lrerracon Report Number: A 1111051.001 7
Service Date: 07/1111 1
Report Date: 07 /13/1 1
Client
3-D Deve l opment
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Cas tle gate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Materi a l: On s ite
Proposed Use: General fi l l
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf):103.8
Optimum Water Content(%) 18.3
Comments:
6 198 Imp erial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Sub divisi on -Sec 200
Victori a Avenue
Castl ega t e Subdivision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 1111 051
Sample Information
Sam pl e Date: 07/08111
Sam pl ed By : Matcek, James
Samp l e Location: Hadleigh Street, Sta tion 4+00
Samp l e Description: Tan c layey sand
Result Specificat ions
L iquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
P l asticity Index:
40
22
18
In-P la ce Moisture (%):
Passing #200 (%):
uses :
106
'U 105
104
~ 103
.E 102
.!2' 101
Cl) 100
3: 99 ... 98 c: 97 :::>
;., 96
~ 95
94
47.0
Zero Air Vo id s Curve for Assumed
Specifi c Gravity 2.70
I\
\ -~ ...... I \ ,, !'-
' I \ ,. ~
\
\
1
I\.
"\
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a sam ple of General F ill a t th e proj ect si te and return i t to the labora tory. Prepare and te s t the sa mp le for Moisture
Density Relationship, Percent Passing #200 Sieve, and Atterberg Limits .
Terracon Rep.: Matcek , Jam es
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phi lli ps
(I) City of Co llege Station TX, Israe l Koite
(I) Tcrracon Co nsu ltants , lnc ., E m a il ed
(I ) 3-D Development, Wallace Phillips
(!)Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D698, ASTM D 11 40, ASTM D4318
Reviewed By:
Peter E. Fa lletta, P.E.
Project Manager
The t ests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, o r DOT t est methods. This report is exclusively for the use of
the client in dicated above and shall not be reprodu ced except in ful l wi thou t the written consent of o ur company. Test resul ts transmitted herein
are only applicable to the ac tual samples tested at the loca ti on(s) referenced and are not ne ces sa rily indi c ative of th e properties of other apparently
simi lar o r identica l mat e rials .
CROuu r •. 5-fi-IO, Red Page I of I
I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CH"'i{ACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT 1rerracon Report Number: A 1111051.0016
Service Date: 0711 Ill I
Report Date: 07113/1 1
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Castl egate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material: On site
Proposed Use: General fill
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf):l02.8
Optimum Water Content(%) 17.l
Comments:
6198 Imperial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F -3272
Project
Cas tlegate II Subd ivisi on -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castleg ate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 11 11051
Sample Information
Sa mple Date: 07 /08/I 1
Samp l ed By: Matcek, James
Samp l e Location: Todd in gton, Station 9+00
Sa mple Description: Light brownish-gray c layey sand
Resu lt Specifications
Liquid Limit: 38
Plastic Limit: 18
Plasticity Index: 20
In-Pl ace Moisture(%):
Passing #200 (%): 44.0
uses:
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assum ed
Specific Gravity 2 .70
105
'ti" 104
~ 103
:E 102 .21
Cl> 101 =:: 100 -c: 99 ::>
\
\ ,,,,,.-~, \
/' ~
v •
' >o 98 0 97
\
r\
\
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a samp le of Genera l Fill at the project site a nd return it to the la boratory . Prep a re and test the samp le for Moisture
Density Re lati onship, Percent Passing #200 Sieve, and Atterberg Limits.
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, Jam es
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Deve lopmen1 , Du siy Ph illips
(I) Cil y of Col lege St ati o n TX . Israel Ko il e
(I) T crraco n Consulla nt s , Inc., Emailed
(I ) 3-D De vel o pm en1, Wu I lace Phillip s
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kenl La za
Test Methods: ASTM D698, ASTM D 11 40, ASTM D43 l 8
Reviewed B y:
Peter E . Falletta, P.E .
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general acco rd a nce with app l icable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test met hods . This report is exclusively for the use of
the cl ient indica ted above and shall not be reproduced except in fu ll wi t hout the written consent of our compa ny. Test results trans mitted herein
are on ly applicab le to the actual samples tes ted at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently
simi lar or ide ntical materials .
CR0006 . S-6-10, Rcv.S Pa ge I of l
(
LABORATORY COMPACTION CH,...r{ACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT 1rerracon Report Number: A 1111051 .0015
Service Date: 07111 /1 1
Report Date: 07 /13 11 1
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Attn: Dusty Phillips
4490 Cas tlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material: On site
Proposed Use: General fill
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM 0698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Me c hani ca l
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf):98.I
Optimum Water Content(%) 20.9
Comments:
6198 Imperi a l Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Re g No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Cast legate Subdiv i sion
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Project Number Al 111051
Sample Information
Samp l e Date: 07 /08/11
Sampled By: Matcek, James
Sample Location: Toddington, Station 4+50
Samp le Description: Gray sa nd y lea n clay
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit: 41
Plastic Limit: 20
Plasticity Index : 21
In-Place Moisture(%):
Passing #200 (%): 60 .0
uses:
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific Gravity 2.70
100
'fi' 99
~ 98 .... .r:
Cl 97 ~ 96 ....
c: 95
\
\
iJlf,.. ~
J v \
I\
:J
>. 94 ~ 93
\
\
\
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a sample of Gen era l Fill at the project site and return it to the la borat ory. Prepare and test the samp le for Moisture
Density Relationship, Pe rcent Passing #2 00 Sieve, and Atterberg Limits.
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, Jame s
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Developmen\, Dusly Phi lli ps
(I) Ci ty of Co ll ege S1a1ion TX. Israel Koi1e
(I) Tcrracon Consul!anls, In c., Emai led
(I) 3-D Developmen l, Wallace Phillips
(I ) Phillips Engineering, Ken I Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D698 , ASTM D 1140, ASTM 043 I 8
Reviewed By :
Peter E. Falletta , P.E.
Proje c t Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exc lusi ve ly for the use o·f
the client indica ted above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein
are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the locati on(s) referenced and are not necess arily indicative of th e properties of other apparently
simi lar or identical materials .
CR0006. S-6-10, Rcv .S Page I of I
I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CH""rtACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT lre:rracon Report Number:Al 111051.0014
Service Date: 071111 11
Report Date: 07113/1 1
Client
3-D Deve lopment
Attn : Dusty Phillip s
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material: On site
Proposed Use: General fill
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mech an ica l
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf):98 .7
Optimum Water Content(%) 20.4
Comments :
6198 Imp eria l Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Ca stlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victori a Avenue
Cast legate Subdiv isi on
Co lle ge Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 1111 051
Sample Information
Samp le Date: 07 /08/1 1
Sam pled By: Matcek, Jam es
Sample Location: Toddington, Station 1+00
Samp l e Description: Brownish gray fat c l ay with sand
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
Result
50
21
29
Specifications
In-Place Moisture (%):
Passing #200 (%):
uses:
101
'fi' 100
c. 99 .... .c
.2> 98
~ 97
.... 96
c: 95 ::>
>-94 ~ 93
85.0
Zero Air Voids Curve fo r Assumed
Spec ific Gravity 2.70
I\
\
~V" 19' i-...... I\
,V" I'\
/ ]'\
J
I\
\
I\
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a sample of Genera l Fi II at the project s it e and return it to the la boratory. Prepare and test the sam ple for Mois ture
Den sity Relationship, Percent P ass ing #2 00 Sieve, and Atterberg Limits.
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, Jam es
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D Development, Dusty Phi ll ips
(I) City of Co llege Stati on TX, Isra el Koite
(I ) Terraco n Cons ultants, In c., Emailed
(I ) 3-D Development , Walla ce Phi ll ips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Ken t Laza
Test Methods: ASTM D698, ASTM D 1140 , ASTM D43 l 8
Reviewed By:
Peter E. Fa lletta , P.E.
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with app li cab le ASTM , AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of
the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test resu lt s transmitted he rein
are only applicable to th e actua l sampl es tested at the location(s) referenced and are not nece ssarily indi cative of th e pro perti es of othe r apparently
simi lar o r iden ti cal materials .
C:ROOo6. 5-6-JO , Rc v.S Page I of I
'
SOIL SAMPLE PICK-UP REPO. -.
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
3-D Development
A l 111051.0013
07 /08/1 1
07 /11 /1 1
Attn: Wallace Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
C o llege Station , TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station , TX 77 845
9 79-84 6-3767 Reg No : F-3 272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On July 8, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain 5 samples of
proposed general fill and returned to the laboratory . The samples were prepared for Optimum Moisture and Density Relationship,
Atterberg Limits , and Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve. Results of the tests perfonned are shown on Report Nos. A 1111051.0014, .0015,
.0016, .0017, and .0018.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Matcek, James
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) 3-D De ve lopment, Emai led
(I) Philli p s Engin eering, Kent Laza
(I) C ity of Co ll ege Station TX, Isra e l
K oite
(I ) Terraco n Consultants, In c ., Emailed
Started: 1500
Finished: 1800
Reviewed By: _r-f-'-'ai1 ~ :kl lid!r
I
Peter E . Fall ett a, P.E .
Project Man ager
The tests were performed in general acco rdance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test meth ods. This report is exc\usi11e\y for the use of the c\ient
ind ic ated above and shall not be reproduced exce pt in full without the written consent of our company . Test results transmitted herein are on ly applicable to
the actual samples tested at the locati on(s) referen ced and are not necessarily ind ica ti ve of th e properties of other app arently similar or identi cal materials .
CTOOO I, 5-5-10, Rcv.7 Page I of I
(
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
R e port Date:
Task:
Client
3-D Deve lopm ent
Al 111051.0012
07 /08 /11
07/11 /11
Attn : Wa llace Phillips
44 90 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
1rerracon
6198 Imp erial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3 272
Project
Castlegate II Subdi v isio n -Sec 200
V ictoria A venue
Castlegate Subdi visio n
College Station, TX 77845
Proj ectNumb er : Al11105 1
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Mat.
No.
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
Laboratory Content Weight Co ntent Compaction
Al 111 051.0008
Classification a nd Description
Gray lean c lay
Field Test Data
Test
No. Test Location
Lift I
Elev .
Box Culverts on W.S. Phillips Parkway
Station 23 +50, east side
2 Station 23+5 0, west side
Mat.
No.
Test Method
ASTM D698
Probe Wet
Depth Den sity
(in) (pct)
6 123.2
6 118.7
Datum: G auge ID:
(%) (pct) (%)
19.0 10 5.8 19 .0-23.0
Water Water Dry Unit
Content Content Weight
(pct) (%) (pct)
20.6 20.1 102.6
17 .7 17.5 * 101.0
Comments: A n asterisk(*) appears ne xt to th e test res ults which do not m eet the project requirements as noted above.
Services: Perform in -place density and moi sture cont ent tests with a Troxler type gauge to dete1111ine degree of
compaction and mate ri a l moisture cond ition .
Terracon Rep.: Rando lph E. Rohrbach
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
( 1) 3-D Develo pm en t, Emailed
Started:
Finished:
14 15
1530
Reviewed By:
(%)
M in 98.0
Percent
Co mp action
(%)
97.0 *
95.5 *
( 1) Phill ips Eng in eering, Kent Laza
( 1) C ity of College S tation TX , Israe l Koite
( 1) Terracon Consult ants , Inc ., Emailed Peter E. Falletta, P.E .
Project Manager
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
The tests were performed in general acco rda nce with app li cab le ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test metho ds . Th is report is exclusive ly for the use of the client
indi cated above a nd shall not be repro duce d except in full wi thout the written conse nt of our comp any . Te st resu lts transm itted herei n are on ly appli cab le to the
actual samples tested at the lo ca t1 on(s) referen ce d and are not necessarily ind icative of the properties of other appare ntly simila r o r id enti ca l materials.
CR0007, 4-28 -10, Re v.J Page I of I
Terracon Report Nos. A 1111051 .001 O and A 1111051 .0011 were voided due to duplication
errors in dispatching . ...:;(57
( . I
LABORATORY COMPACTION C1. .. RACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT 1re:rracan R e port N umber: Al 1110 5 1.0009
S ervic e Date : 07/0 1111
Report Date: 07 /0611 1
Client
Greens Pra irie Inves tor s Ltd
Attn: Wa ll ace Ph ill ip s
4490 Cast legate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Source of M a te rial: On site borrow
Propos ed U se: General fill
Project
6 198 Imperia l Loop
Co ll ege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Cas tl ega te II Subdiv ision -Sec 2 00
V ic to ri a A ve nue
Castlega te Subdivis ion
Co ll ege Statio n, TX 77845
Project Num be r A l 1 11051
Sample Information
Sample Date: 06/2811 1
S ampled By : DeBo rd , Qu ade
S ample Location: Rete ntion Po nd , Station 26 +00
S ample Des cription: Light bro wn sand y clay
Laboratory Test Data Result Specifications
T est Procedure: ASTM D698
Test M ethod: M ethod A
S ample Pre p ara tion: W et
R a mmer T y pe: M echanical
M aximum Dry U nit Weigh t (pcf):l03 .0
Optimum W ate r Content (%) 20 .3
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit :
Plasticity Index :
54
21
33
In-Place M oisture (%):
Passing #200 (%):
uses:
105
C' 104
u 10 3 c.
102 .... ..r:: 101
.El 100
<II 99 s:: .... 98
c: 97 ::> 96 >.
~ 95
9 4
77.0
Zero Air Voids Cu rve for A ss umed
Specific Grav ity 2.70
' -' r ' ' ~ "' ' , " ' '\
I ..
I
'\.
" '\
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Water Content (%)
Comments:
S ervic es: Obtain a sampl e of pro p ose d fill materia l from a site bo rro w source and return it to the laboratory . Prepare and test th e
samp le fo r P er cent Passi n g th e No. 2 00 S ie v e , Mo isture D e ns i ty Rel ation ship an d Atterberg L imits.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mo b een
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(1) Greens Prairie Investors Ltd , Wallace
Phillios
(I) Phillips Engineering, Ken t Laza
( 1) City of Co ll ege Sta t io n TX , Israel Koite
( 1) Terracon Co nsultants, Inc., Emailed
Test M ethods: ASTM D6 98, A STM D l 140, AS TM D43 18
Proj ec t Manager
T he tes ts were performe d in gen eral accord ance with appl icab le AS T M, AAS HTO, o r DOT test meth ods. Thi s report is exc lusive ly fo r t he use of
t he cl ient indi ca te d abo v e and s hall not be reproduced exce pt in full with out the written co ns e nt of ou r co mp any . T es t re sults transmitted herein
are on ly ap plic abl e to t h e actual sampl es te sted at the locati on(s ) refere nced and are not ne cessaril y indica ti ve of the pro perti es of oth er app aren tl y
simila r or ide nt ica l mate ria ls.
CR0006. 5-6-10. Rev.5 Page 1 of 1
I I LABORATORY COMPACTION Ca.dRACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT lrerracarn Report Number: Al 111051.0008
Service Date: 07 /01 /11
Report Date: 07 /06111
Client
Greens Prairie Investors Ltd
Attn : Wallace Phillips
4490 Cas tlegate Dr
College Station, TX 778 4 5
Material Information
Source of Material: On site borrow
Proposed Use: General fill
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry Unit Weight.(pcf):IOS.8
Optimum Water Content(%) 19.0
Comments:
6198 Impe rial Loop
Co llege Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivi sion -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Su bdivision
Co lle ge Station, TX 77845
Project Number Al 111051
Samp l e Information
Sample Date: 06/2 811 1
Sampled B y : DeBo rd , Quade
Sample Location: Retention Pond , S tati on 20 +00
Sample Description: Gray lea n clay
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit: 48
Plastic Limit: 18
Plasticity Index: 30
In-Place Moisture(%):
Passing #200 (%): 77.0
uses:
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Spec ific Gravity 2 . 70
108
't 107
106
I\
' ·~ E; 105 .... 104
..c: 103
Cl 102 ~ 101
100 -99
c: 98
'' II
" .. , ... "
" ~
::> 97
>. 96
,,.
~ 95
94
' "
'
9 10 111213 1415 161718 192021 2223 242526 2728
Water Content {%)
Services: Obtain a sample of proposed fi ll ma terial from a s ite borrow source and return it to the laboratory. Prepare and test th e
sample fo r Percent Passing th e No . 200 Si eve, Moisture Density Relationship an d Atterb erg Limits.
Terracon Rep.: DeBord, Quade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(1) Greens Pra iri e Investors Ltd, Wallace
Phi ll ios
(1) Phillips Engin eering, Ken t Laza
( 1) City of Co ll ege Station TX, Israel Koite
(1) Terracon Consulta nts , In c., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM D698 , ASTM DI 140, AS TM D4318
/
Proj ect Manager
The tests we re performed in gen e ral accordance w ith applicable ASTM, AA SH TO, or DOT test methods . This report is excl usive ly for the use of
the clie nt indicated above a nd shall not be reprod uced except in full without the w r itten conse nt of our company. Test results transmitted herein
a r e only applicable to the actua l samp les te sted at t he loc ation (s) refe re nced and are not necessaril y indica tive of the properties of other apparently
similar or ident ica l materials .
CR0006. 5-6-10, Rcv .5 Pa ge 1 of 1
I
SOIL SAMPLE PICK-UP REPOk (
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
Al 111051.0007
06/28/11
06 130 11 1
Greens Prairi e Investors Ltd
Attn : Wallace Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
Co lle ge Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
ProjectNumber: Allll051
On June 28, 2011 , a Terracon Consu ltants , Inc ., re presen tative was prese nt at the above reference d project to obtain 2 samples of
General Fill and returned to the laboratory . The samples were prepared for Optimum Moisture and D ensi ty Relationship , Atterberg
Limits, and Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve . Re sults of the tests performed are shown on Report Nos . A 1111051 .0008 and
Al 111051.0009 .
Services:
Terracon Rep.: DeBord, Qu ade
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution :
(I) Greens Prairie Inv estors Lid, Wal lace
Phillip s
(I) Phillips Engine ering, Ken! Laza
(I) Ci1 y of College S1a 1ion TX, Israel
Kaile
(I) Terracon Cons ullants, In c., Ema iled
Started:
Finished:
Lunch/NC :
Reviewed By:
1400
1530
_,_,_,?Jyl1-rt1Mk
Peter E. Fall etta, P.E.
Project Manager
Th e tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO , or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written conse nt of our compa ny. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) refe ren ced and are not necessarily indica tive of the prope rties of other apparently similar or identica l materials .
CTOOO I, 5-5-10 , Rev .7 Page l of I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Repoi:-t Date:
Client
A 11110 51.0006
06 /06/11
06/12111
Greens Prairie Investors Ltd
Attn: Wallace Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material:
Proposed Use:
On site
General fill
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: M echanical
Maximum Dry U nit Weight (pcf): 102.1
Optimum Water Content(%): 20 .8
Comments:
6 198 Imperia l Loop
Co llege Station , TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castlegate IT Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number A I I 11051
Sample Information
Sample Date: 06/03 /11
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Sample Location: W .S . Phillips Parkway, 8" Sewer Line, Station
4+50
Sample Description: Tan and gray fat c lay with sand
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:.
In-Place Moisture(%):
Passing #200 (%):
uses:
60
2 1
39
73.0
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific Gravity 2.70
104 \
'fi" 103
c. 102
~ 101
.!2l 100
-, ' \
' I\
/ \ \ ;: 99
98
~ 97
96
'T ~
17
.~
>. 95 '5 94
I'\.
I\
'\
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a sample of fill mate1ial from the project site and return it to the laboratory . Prepare and test the sample for Percen t
Passing the No. 200 Sieve, Moisture Density Relationship and Atterberg Limits.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I) Greens ~rairie Investors Ltd. Wallace Phillips (I) City of College Station TX, Israe l Kai le
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza (I) Terracon Consultants, In c ., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM D698 , ASTM D 1140, ASTM D4318
Reviewed By:
,,1;/ /} ),}1
---7!LL£1~
l :;;>'"
Peter E. Fa ll ett a, P.E.
-Proje ct Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indica ted
above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitt ed herein are on ly applicable to the actual
samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily ind icative of the properties of other apparently similar or identica l materials .
CROOOti , S-6-10, Rcv .S Page I of I
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT lrerracon Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
Al 111051.0005
06 106 111
06/12/11
Greens Prairie Investo rs Ltd
Attn: Wa llace Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material:
Proposed Use:
On site
General fill
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Method A
Sample Preparation: Wet
Rammer Type: Mechanical
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 91.9
Optimum Water Content(%): 25.6
Comments:
6 198 Imperia l Loop
College Station , TX 778 4 5
979-846-3767 Re g No: F-3272
Project
Cas tlegat e II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria Avenue
Cas tle gate Subdivision
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 1111 051
Sample Information
Sample Date: 06/03 /11
Sampled By: Mohammed Mobeen
Sample Location: Odel l Lane, Station 7+50
Sample Description: Tan and brown fat c lay
Result Specifications
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
82
25
57
In-Place Moisture(%):
Passing #200 (%):
uses:
94
93
92
9 1
90
89
88
87
86
86.5
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed
Specific Gravity 2.70
' ~
"' / -........ i'\.
7 ' .. I\. • ' '\ " " I\.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a sample of fill material from the project site and return it to the laboratory. Prepare and test the sample for Percen t
Passing the No . 200 Sieve, Moisture Dens ity Relationship and Atterberg Limits .
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution :
(I ) Greens Prai rie lnvesiors Lid, Walla ce Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kenl Laza
(I) City of College S1a1ion TX, Israel Kaile
(I) Terracon Consuha nlS, In c., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM D69 8, ASTM D 114 0, ASTM D43 I 8
Reviewed By :
,~,1/ 1 ;/": 1 1 :~[~ 12:L .
Peter ;Fall ett a, P .E.
-Proje c t Manager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for !he use of the client indicated
above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written co nsent of our co mpany . Test res ults transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual
samples tested at the locat ion(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials .
CROOOfi . 5-ti·IO, Rcv .S Page I or I
---------------~------
SOIL SAMPLE PICK-UP REP (_
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
Al 111 051.0004
06/03/11
06 /06/11
Greens Prairie Investors Ltd
Attn: Wallace Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Reg No: F-3272
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number : Al 111051
On June 3, 2011 , a Terracon Consu ltants, Inc ., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain 2 samp les of proposed
General Fill and returned to the laboratory. The samples were prepared for Optimum Moisture and Density Relationship, Atterberg
Limits, and Percent Passing the No . 200 Sieve. Results of the tests performed are shown on Report Nos. A 1111051 .0005 and
Al 111051.0006 .
(Vehicle charge shown on R eport No . Al 111051.0003)
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(1) Greens Prairie Inv estors Ltd, Wall ace
Phillips
(1) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
(1rc icy of Co ll ege Station TX , Israel
Koite
( 1) Terracon Consultan ts, Inc ., Emai led
Started:
Finished:
Lunch/NC:
Reviewed By:
1145
1245
Project Manager
The tests were performed in general acco rdan ce with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the clie nt
ind icated above and sha ll not be reproduced except in full without the written co ns ent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actua l samples tested at the locat ion(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materia ls.
CTOOO I, 5-5-10, Rev .7 Page I of I
FIELD DENSITY TEST REPORT
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Task:
Client
A 1111051.0003
06 /03/11
06 /06/11
Greens Prairie In vesto rs Ltd
Attn: Wallace Phillips
4490 Castlega te Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Material Information
Mat.
No.
1
Proctor
Ref. No.
Al 1110 51.0 00 2
Classification and Description
Tan and gray sandy lean clay
Field Test Data
Test
No.
Datum:
Test Location
12" Sewer Line
Victori a Ave, Station 1+00
Lift I Mat.
Elev. No.
4'BG
lrerracon
6198 Imperial Loop
College Station, TX 77845
979-846-3767 Re g No : F-3272
Project
Castlegate II Subdivision -Sec 200
Victoria A venue
Castlegate Subdivision
Co llege Station , TX 77845
Project Number: Al 111051
Lab Test Data
Optimum Max. Lab
Water Dry Unit
Laboratory Content Weight
Test Method (%) (pct)
ASTMD698 19.9 102 .3
Probe Wet Water Water
Depth Density Content Content
(in) (pct) (pct) (%)
6 120 .3 20 .0 19 .9
Gauge ID: 341 IB Std. Cnt. M: 687
Project Requirements
Water Minimum
Content Compaction
(%) (%)
19 .9 -23.9 98%
Dry Unit Percent
Weight Compaction
(pct) (%)
100.3 98.0
Std. Cnt. D: 1987
Comm en ts: T est and/or retest results on this report meet project r equirements as noted above.
Services : Perform in-place density and moisture co ntent tes ts with a Troxler ty pe gauge to determine degree of
compaction and material moisture condition.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution :
(I) Greens Prairie In vestors Ltd, Wall ace Phillips
(I) Phillips Engineering, Kent Laza
(I) City of Coll ege Stati on TX, Israe l Koite
(I) Terracon Consultant s, Inc ., Emailed
Test Methods: ASTM D6938-07 Method A
Started:
Finished:
Lunch/NC:
1045
1145
Reviewed By: I
The tests were performed in general accordance with app licable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods . This report is exclusively for the use of the client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our compa ny . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the
actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identica l materials .
CR0007, 4.zs-10. Rev .3 Page I of I
(
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT
Report Number: A 1111051.0002 lrerracon
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
06/01 /ll
06/02/11
Greens Prairie Investors Ltd
Attn : Wallace Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station , TX 77845
Material Information
Source of Material:
Proposed Use:
On site
General fill
Laboratory Test Data
Test Procedure: ASTM D698
Test Method: Meth od A
Sample Preparation : Dry
Rammer Type: Mechanica l
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pct): 102.3
Optimum Water Co ntent(%}: 19.9
Comments:
6 198 Imp erial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979-8 46-3 767 Reg No: F-3272
Project
Castle Gate II Sec 20 0
Victoria A venue
. Cas tlegate Subdivision
Co llege Station, TX 77845
Project Number A 1111051
Sample Information
Sam ple Date: 05 /27 /11
Samp led By: Mohammed Mobeen
Sample Location: 12" Sewer Line, Station 1+00
Sample Description: Tan and gray sandy lean clay
Result Specifications
Liq uid Limit:
Plastic Limit:
Plasticity Index:
44
18
26
In-Place Moisture(%):
Passing #200 (%):
uses:
104
'fi" 103
~ 102 .... 101 .s::
.!2' 100
GI ~ 99 .... 98 r:: :J 97
;., 96 ~ 95
58.2
Zero Air Voids Curve for Ass umed
Specific Gravity 2.70
I\.
_.. ... '\
/ I'.. "' { 'lk_ I\.
'\.
I\.
"\,
" ~
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Water Content (%)
Services: Obtain a samp le of fill materi a l at project site and return sa mpl e to laboratory, Prepare samp le percent passing #200 sieve and
moi sture-density relations testing.
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) Greens Prairie In vest ors Ltd, Wallace Phillip s (I) City of Co llege Stati on TX . Isra el Koit e
(I) Phillips Engineering , Kent La za (I) Terracon Consultan ts, In c ., Emailed
Reviewed By:
Peter E. Falletta , P.E.
Project Manager
Test Methods: ASTM D69 8, ASTM DI 140 , ASTM D431 8
Th e tests were performed in general accordance with applicab le ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated
above and shall not be reproduced except in full without th e written consen t of our co mpany . Test results transm itted herein are on ly applicable to the actual
samp les tested at the lo catlo n(s ) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the propert ies of other apparently si milar or Ide ntica l materia ls .
C.:RUOU6. 5.6.10. Re,•.5 Pa ge I of I
(
SOIL SAMPLE PICK-UP REPO~,,
Report Number:
Service Date:
Report Date:
Client
Al 111051.0001
05 /27/11
06 /02/11
Greens Prairie Investors Ltd
Attn: Wallace Phillips
4490 Castlegate Dr
College Station, TX 77845
Project
lrerracon
6 198 Imperial Loop
Co ll ege Station, TX 77845
979 -846-3767 Reg No : F-3272
Castle Gate II Sec 200
Victoria Avenu e
Castlegate Subdivision
College Station, TX 77845
Project Number: A 1111051
On May 27, 2011, a Terracon Consultants, Inc., representative was present at the above referenced project to obtain a sample of
proposed General Fill and returned to the laboratory. The sample was prepared for Optimum Moisture and Density Relationship ,
Atterberg Limits, and Percent Passing the No . 200 S ieve . Results of the tests performed are shown on Report No . A 1111051.0002.
Services:
Terracon Rep.: Mohammed Mobeen
Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(I ) Gree ns Prairie In vestors Ltd, Walla ce
Ph ill ips
(I) Phill ip s Engin ee ring, Ken t Laza
(I) Cit y o f Co ll eg e Stati on TX , Israe l
K oitc
(I) Terrn co n Con sultant s, Inc ., Email ed
Started:
Finished:
Lunch/NC:
R eviewed By:
1430
1530
_:fdJ£i LIJ;i;t
Peter E . Falletta, P.E .
Project Man ager
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test meth ods . This report is exc\usi'le\y for the use of \h e client
indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the writt en consent of our compa ny . Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to
the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently sim ilar or identical materials .
CTO OO I, 5-5-10, Rev .7 Page I of]
• c
s
c
:; .. • Engin~~ring & Environmental . '_,
· __ ·_ _ Consultants, Jnc. _ . . .
February 28 , 2011
Mr. Kent M. Laza, P .E., Manager
Phillips Engineering
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, TX 77845
Re: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Study for
Proposed W S Phillips Parkway in the Castlegate II Subdivision
From Greens Prairie Road to Past Intersection with Victoria A venue
College Station, Texas
CSC Project Number 11008-34
Dear Mr. Laza:
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc . (CSC) is pleased to submit to Phillips Engineering
(PE), two (2) copies (one (1) original unbound document and one (1) bound photocopy) of the
accompanying report describing the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study performed by CSC
along the alignment of the proposed W S Phillips Parkway in College Station, Texas.
The work associated with the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study associated with this project
was performed in accordance with CSC's proposal to PE dated January 13 , 2011. The proposal was
accepted by Mr. Wallace Phillips on behalf of PE and the developer of the subdivision, 3D Development,
LLC, on January 20, 2011.
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, 150 feet to past a planned intersection with the extension of
Victoria Drive . We understand that the proposed roadway will be functionally classified as a major
collector.
The roadway will be constructed within a 100 foot wide right-of-way (ROW). The paved roadway cross-
section will be approximately 70 feet wide as measured from back-to-back of curb and will include four
(4) drive-through or travel lanes, one turning lane, as well as bike lanes . We anticipate that the pavement
for the roadway will consist of either a rigid pavement section or a flexible pavement section. Both types
of pavement sections will be constructed over a chemically stabilized layer of subgrade soils . Sidewalks
will be constructed on the both sides of the completed roadway section.
The final grading plans associated with the proposed roadway improvements are not available at the
present time, but some preliminary site grade plans have be formulated . We believe that grade
adjustments by filling or excavation are not expected to vary by more than 1 to 2 feet from the present
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, Texas 77808
Phone (979) 778-2810
Fax (979) 778-0820
Mr. Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager, Phillips Engineering
Transmittal of Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Study for
Proposed W S Phillip Parkway From Greens Prairie Road to Past Intersection with Victoria Avenue
College Station, TX
Page2
surface grades, except at the proposed drainage way crossing. Some addition of fill soils will be required
at the drainage way crossing in order to elevate the roadway grades above the flood plain elevation at the
crossing location. The thickness of theses fill soils is anticipated to be approximately 5 feet.
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 Bryan/College Station Unifi ed Design Guidelin es
for Stree ts and A lleys. We believe that the traffic utilizing the proposed roadway will predominantly
consist of light passenger vehicles with a small percentage of heavy truck traffic.
Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Study. The field exploration program was initiated and
completed on January 28, 2011. 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 February 8, 2011. The transmitted report documents
the results of the field exploration and the related laboratory testing programs.
Subsurface Stratigraphy. The subsurface stratigraphy was somewhat variable along the approximately
4 ,150 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 was composed of silty, clayey sands and clayey sands that extended
to depths ranging from 0.5 to 4 feet at the various boring locations and which exhibited a relative density
that could generally be described as loose. The surficial zone was underlain by thick deposits of clay s
and sandy clays of moderate to generally high plasticity that exhibited consistencies, i.e ., strength
categorizations, in the stiff to very stiff range.
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 both rigid and flexible pavement
sections that are being considered for the proposed roadway. The recommended pavement sections were
determined from the previously stated assumed traffic characterization and the anticipated natural and
embankment 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
flexible pavement section has a hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC) surface course, a crushed rock base
course that is also known as flex-base, and a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil lay er.
The transmitted report presents recommendations related to construction of the proposed project including
embankment fill placement and preparation of the embankment subgrade soils , stabilization of th e
pavement subgrade soil layer, and material characteristics and placement requirements for roadway
project materials .
CSC ENG IN EERI N G & E N VIRONMENTAL CO N SU L TANTS , I N C.
Mr. Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager, Phillips Engineering
Transmittal of Report of Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Study for
Proposed W S Phillip Parkway From Greens Prairie Road to Past Intersection with Victoria A venue
College Station, TX
Page 3
Closing. CSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to Phillips Engineering and the
City of College Station on this project and looks forward to continuing our working relationship in the
future . If you have any question s or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (979) 778-2810 .
Kindest regards ,
M . Frederick Conlin, Jr., P .E .
Senior Engineer
MFC:rc
Enclosures
Via e-mail [klaza@ phillipsengineeringbcs.com] and Hand Delivery
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
PROPOSED WS PIDLLIPS PARKWAY
FROM GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST
INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA A VENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Prepared for
Phillips Engineering
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, TX 77845
Prepared by
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, Texas77808
Texas Board of Professional Engineers Finn Registration Number: F-1078
CSC Project Number: 11008-34
M . Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
February 28, 2011
W .R. Cullen, P.E.
QA/QC Reviewer -Senior Engineer
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; 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 ............................................. 3
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY ................................................... 4
1.3 LIMIT A TIO NS 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 ...................................................................................... 9
3.1 CLASSIFICATION TESTS AND MOISTURE CONTENT TESTS .................................. 9
3.2 STRENGTH TESTS............................................................................................................. 9
4.0 SITE OBSERVATIONS OF SURF ACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF
ROADWAY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SUB SURF ACE STRATIGRAPHY............................ 11
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURF ACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF
ROADWAY ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUB SURF ACE OR STRATI GRAPHICAL CONDITIONS.............. 11
4 .2 .1 Soil Classification System Used in Subsurface Descriptions.................................. 12
4.2.2 General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy..................................................... 13
4.2.3 Limitations of General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy.............................. 14
4.2.4 Water Level Observations ....................................................................................... 15
5.0 GENERAL PAVEMENT SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 17
5.1 GENERAL ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN OF PAVEMENT
SECTION FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY ......................................................................... 17
5.2 SUBGRADE CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................... 17
5 .2 .1 General Discussion of Anticipated Pavement Sub grade Soils ......... ..... .................. 17
5.2.2 Potential Problem Areas Of Existing Soils Within the Planned Subgrade
Zone of the Pavement and Embankment . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 18
5 .2.3 Chemical Stabilization of Roadway Pavement Subgrade Soils............................... 19
5.3 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CHARACTERISTICS.................................... 20
5.4 PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 20
5.5 PAVEMENT SYSTEM DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE.......................................... 23
5.5 .1 Pavement Drainage .................................................................................................. 23
5 .5 .2 Pavement Maintenance ............................................................................................ 23
6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.................................... 24
6.1 CLEARING OF EXISTING SURFACE VEGETATION AND STRIPPING OF
SURFICIAL ORGANIC MATERIALS ............................................................................... 24
11
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
6.2 PROOF ROLLING OF ROADWAY EMBANKMENT SUBGRADE SOILS ................... 24
6.3 COMP ACTION OF SUB GRADE SOILS IN PAVEMENT AREAS ................................. 25
6 .4 SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE................................................................................... 25
6 .5 SELECT ROADWAY EMBANKMENT FILL SOILS MATERIAL
CHARACTERISTICS AND PLACEMENT PROCEDURES ............................................ 26
6 .5.1 General. .................................................................................................................... 26
6 .6 PAVEMENT SUBGRADE STABILIZATION REQUIREMENTS................................... 27
6.7 FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENT SECTION MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS ...... 28
6. 7 .1 Flexible Pavement Base Course and Surface Course.............................................. 28
6.7 .2 PCC Pavement, Curb and Gutter, and Drainage Structures ..................................... 28
7.0 BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 30
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Additional Pavement Design Values For Proposed WS Phillips Parkway ........................... 4
Pavement Thickness Schedule for Conventionally Reinforced and Jointed PCC . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . 21
Pavement Thickness Schedule for Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC) ............................. 22
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 -Plan of Borings
Boring Logs
B-1 through B-8
Key Sheet to Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
Appendix B-Summary of Laboratory Test Results
111
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) for
Phillips Engineering (PE) and documents the results of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study
of geologic conditions along the route of the proposed roadway known as W S Phillips Parkway. The
proposed project will involve the construction of a new roadway as part of development of the Castlegate
II Subdivision and is located to the southwest of the existing Castlegate Subdivision as illustrated on
Figure 1 -Projec t Vicinity Map in Appendix A of this report. The area of the proposed roadway
extension 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 associated with this
project was performed in accordance with CSC's proposal to PE dated January 13, 2011. The proposal
was accepted by Mr. Wallace Phillips on behalf of PE and the developer of the subdivision, 3D
Development, LLC , on January 20 , 2011.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1.1 Sources of Project Information
Initial project information was provided in an e-mail communication of January 10 , 2011 from
Mr. Kent Laza, P.E., Manager of Phillips Engineering (PE), the design engineering firm for the project.
The e-mail also included a plat of the proposed development illustrating 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 PE 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 ,150
feet to past a planned intersection with the extension of Victoria Drive as illustrated on Figure 2 -Site
Plan and Plan of Borings in Appendix A. The location of the proposed roadway intersection along
Greens Prairie Road will be between two existing major roadways; Castlegate Drive and Sweetwater
Drive .
We understand that the proposed roadway will be functionally classified as a major collector. A
major collector is defined under the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelin es for Streets and
Alley s , which is hereinafter referred to as the Guideline . Table VI -Street Classification Definitions of the
referenced Guidelin es defines a major collector street as ...
1
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRO NMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
A stre et which primarily serves vehicular traffic (i n 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 100 foot wide right-of-way (ROW).
We anticipate that the paved roadway cross-section will be approximately 70 feet wide as measured from
back-to-back of curb. The paved roadway section will include four (4) drive-through or travel lanes, one
turning lane, as well as bike lanes . We anticipate that the pavement for the roadway will consist of either
a rigid pavement section or a flexible pavement section. Both types of pavement sections will be
constructed over a chemically stabilized layer of subgrade soils. 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 some preliminary site grading concepts have been formulated. We believe that
approximately 5 feet of fill will be needed to cross the drainage way area in the central portion of the
alignment in order to elevate the roadway grades at the crossing location. We anticipate that most of the
remaining length of the roadway will only require less than 1 to 2 feet of excavation or fill placement in
order to achieve final 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 Guidelin es.
As indicated in the previously stated definition, 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 .
By definition, the ADT represents two-way traffic per day. There are two southeast directional
lanes and two northwest directional lanes . Therefore, the design traffic volume for the two drive lanes in
the northwest direction will be one-half of the referenced ADT, or approximately 3,750 VPD, and the
2
C:::SC::: ENGINEERING & ENVIRO N ME N TAL CONSULTANTS , INC::.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
design traffic volume for two southeast bound lanes would be the same number. We have assumed that
approximately 80 percent of the traffic in each of the two (i.e., northwest and southeast) directional drive
lanes will use the outside drive lane. The outside drive lane is sometimes referred to as the truck lane and
will be considered to be the design lane for the project. Therefore, the volume of traffic in the design lane
was assumed to be approximately 80 percent of the directional ADT or approximately 3,000 VPD (-80
percent of3,750 VPD).
In addition, we anticipate that a small percentage of the traffic on the proposed roadways will of
medium-to heavy-weight trucks. We believe that the percentage of heavy-weight trucks that will be part
of the daily vehicle count for the proposed roadways will be in the order of 2 percent of the ADT. We
believe that the percentage of trucks using the proposed roadway will be limited by the restricted
connectivity of the proposed roadway with any connecting streets to the south of Greens Prairie Road.
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 wei ght (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 the following Table 1 -Other Pavement Design
Valu es .
1.1.5 Pavement Sections
As previously discussed , we believe that both rigid pavement sections and flexible pavement 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. The flexible pavement section is expected to consist of a surface course
of hot mix asphalt concrete (HMAC), a base course of crushed limestone rock referred to as flex-base ,
and a chemically stabilized and compacted subgrade soil layer.
1.1.6 Utilities Associated With Proposed Roadway Project
We do not anticipate that any public utility line construction will be associated with the proposed
project. However, some underground storm sewer construction will be included with the proposed
3
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College S tation, TX
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.
Table 1. Additional Pavement Design Values For Proposed WS Phillips Parkway
PAVEMENT
DESIGN PARAMETER
RIGID PAVEMENT
SECTION
FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT SEC TION
Reliabili 90 ercent 90 ercent
Standard Deviation 0.35 0.45
28-da Flexural Stren h 650 si
Load Transfer, J 2.7
Draina e Coefficient 0.9
Initial Serviceability Index 4 .5 4 .2
Terminal Serviceabili Index 2.25 2.25
ted traffic The referenced traffic information was utilized to develop projections of anticipa
volumes, patterns, and vehicle characteristics that could be expected for the proposed roadway e xtension.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXPLORATION AND STUDY
We understand that the current geotechnical study was performed to identify
conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway.
The specific objectives of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical study were to:
subsurface
• Secure information on the general surface and subsurface conditions at the wide ly
spaced boring locations along the length of the proposed roadway.
• Evaluate the subsurface soils information developed from the field exploration an d
laboratory testing program.
he • Perform an engineering analysis of the subsurface information developed from t
field exploration and laboratory testing program in order to develo
recommendations for pavement design and drainage way crossing structure design
associated with the proposed roadway.
• Present recommendations for pavement system design and drainage crossin
structure design in a written engineering report along with discussions of constructio
considerations.
4
p
g
n
~
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; 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 and the drainage way crossing 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 and flexible pavement systems.
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
C::SC:: ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL C::ONSULTANTS, INC::.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; 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.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
2.1 BORING LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS
Subsurface conditions along the alignment of the proposed roadway extension project were
explored by drilling a total of eight (8) sample borings . The boring locations were selected by CSC in
consultation with PE. The boring locations are illustrated on the Figure 2 -Site Plan and Plan of Borings
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 northeastern 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 proposed roadway.
Most of the borings drilled along the major portion of the length of the planned roadway
alignment were advanced to depths of 6 feet, except for the single crossing (boring B-4) drilled near the
single drainage way of the proposed roadway route which was drilled 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 foundation support systems, some
adjustment in the subsequent discussions and recommendations with respect to foundation depths 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 so lid 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 a depth of 6 feet in
the shallower borings to 10 feet in the deeper borings. Soil samples were obtained below the 10 feet
depth in the deeper borings at 5-foot intervals to the maximum 15 to 20 feet depths of exploration.
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
7
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes . Purely granular soils are typically sampled during the
perform and of the standard penetration test (SPT), which 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 pedestrian and
animal 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 laboratory for further analysis. 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.
8
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Samples of subsurface materials recovered from the borings were examined and classified b y the
geotechnical engineer and vario us laboratory tests were assigned for selected samples . The laboratory
tests were performed to aid in soil classification and to determine the engineering characteristics of the
foundation materials. The laboratory testing study was completed on February 8, 2011.
The laboratory test results are presented in a summary tabular form in Appendix B. The results of
the laboratory testing programs are also presented symbolically and numerically on the individual boring
logs. As previously stated, the symbols and terms used on the logs 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
Tests were performed in order to classify the foundation soils in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D 2487-06 -Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), which is hereinafter referred to as the USCS ,
and to determine the soil-moisture profile at the boring locations. The classification tests performed
consisted of Atterberg limits 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 D 4318-05 -Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils. The grain-size distribution tests were also performed to determine the percent of soil
particles passing the U.S. Standard sieve size No. 200 (ASTM D 1140-00 -Standard Test Method for
Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than No. 200 (75-µm) Sieve). The soil fractions passing the No. 200
sieve size are the silt-and clay-size particles and are generally referred to as "fines," as subsequently
discussed in greater detail in Section 4 .
The natural moisture content of individual samples was determined in accordance with the
procedures outlined in ASTM D 2216-05 -Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.
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-
9
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway ; College Station, TX
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 D 2166-06 -Standard Test Method for Unconfi ned 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 soil samples . The hand or pocket penetrometer tests provide only an
approximate indication of the unconfined compression strength of the soils . Experience with similar soil
conditions in the vicinity of the proposed project site has indicated that the hand penetrometer tests tend
to overestimate the unconfmed compression strength of the soil samp les.
10
CSC ENG I NEERING & ENVIRON M ENTAL CONSULT A NTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
4.0 SITE OBSERVATIONS OF SURFACE CONDITIONS ALONG
ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY AND DESCRIPTIONS OF SUBSURFACE
STRATIGRAPHY
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF SURF ACE CONDITIONS ALONG ALIGNMENT OF ROADWAY
The ground surface along the alignment of the proposed roadway is predominantly covered with
woodlands. The woodlands contain numerous types of trees of varying sizes, and there is a thick
underbrush beneath the tree canopy. A cleared pipeline easement that is covered with short native grasses
parallels the proposed roadway alignment and is situated immediately to the northeast. The developed
urban residential lots of Castlegate Subdivision lie further to the northeast. Undeveloped, heavily
vegetated woodlands lie to the southwest of the proposed roadway alignment.
As can be seen from a review of the topographic information on Figure 2, the ground surface
elevation along the alignment of the proposed roadway are strongly influenced by the presence of the
previously referenced drainage way that appears to be an un-named tributary of Spring Creek . The
drainage way crosses the north-central portion of the proposed roadway alignment. The side slopes of the
drainage way are flat and there was little to no water in the drainage channel at the time of the field
investigation. The elevations within the drainage channel appear to slope downward in a northerly
direction towards the main channel of Spring Creek which is several thousand feet north of the project
site .
The ground surface slopes upward from approximately EL 326 Mean Sea Level (MSL) near the
proposed intersection with Greens Prairie Road to approximately EL 334 MSL at the top of a knoll of
high ground near the position of boring B-7 before sloping downward in a northwesterly direction
towards the drainage way and an elevation of EL 308 MSL near the location of boring B-4. The existing
ground surface then slopes upward in a northwesterly direction towards EL 336 MSL at the top of a
second knoll of high ground near the northwestern boundary of the project in the vicinity of boring B-1 .
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE OR STRATIGRAPIDCAL 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 uses as discussed in more
11
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway ; 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-µm (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 are given the designators Wand 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
boundarie s 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).
12
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
Although the soil classifications utilized in the subsequently presented descriptions and
discussions generally follow the criteria established by the current uses, 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 sti ll 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 ,150 feet length of
the roadway as might be expected. In general, the subsurface stratigraphy at the boring locations
consisted of a surficial layer of silty, clayey sands and clayey sands that was 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.
The subsurface stratigraphy can generally be divided into two (2) distinct zones : (1) a surficial
zone that extended to depths ranging from 0.5 to 4 feet at the various boring locations and which
contained granular soils that consisted of silty, clayey sands and clayey sands that typically exhibited a
loose relative density; and (2) a near-surface or intermediate zone 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 . Each of these zones is described in more detail in the following sub-sections of this report.
Surficial Zone. The surficial zone extended from the ground surface to depths range from 0.5
feet to 4 feet at the various boring locations and consisted of both silty sand and clayey sands . The sands
were present in greatest thickness in the northwestern portion of the project (borings B-5 , B-6, and B-7).
The sands were generally dark brown, to brown, to tan, to light in color.
Laboratory classification tests were performed on samples of soil recovered from the surficial
zone. The laboratory classification tests indicated that the percent fines within the soils was high and
ranged from 19 .5 to 49 .2 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
13
CSC: ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC:.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway ; College Station, TX
the surficial zone soils that were tested in the laboratory exhibited a wide variation in sand content that
ranged from 50.8 percent (100 percent total soil sample -49.2 percent fines= 50.8 percent sands) to 80.5
percent (100 percent total soil sample -19.5 percent fines= 80.5 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 ranged from 19 to 43, and the
corresponding PI values ranged from 5 to 26. The sands therefore classified as either SC type soils, i.e.,
as clayey 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 dense, but to generally be in a loose
condition.
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
present within th e near-surface or intermediate zone ranged in color from tan, to brown, to grayish-brown ,
to dark tan, to dark brown, to dark grayish-brown, to dark reddish-brown. The soils within the near-
surface or intermediate zone typically consisted of clays or sandy clays of moderate to high plasticity.
The results of the laboratory classification tests performed on samp les of the clayey soils of the
near-surface or intermediate zone indicated that the clays exhibited LL val ues that varied widely from 20
to 72 , although most of the LL values were above 50 . The corresponding PI values ranged from 6 to 50
with most of the PI values being above 25. The measured percentage of fines in the clays also generally
varied widely from 66.0 to 87.9 percent. Therefore, the clay samp les exhibited a wide variation in sand
content that ranged from 12.1 to 34.0 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 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 uses. 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 generally was very stiff.
4.2.3 Limitations of General Description of Subsurface Stratigraphy
The previously described generalized stratigraphy was utilized in the analysis as described in
sub sequent 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 variabl e 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.
14
C:::SC::: ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC::.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station , TX
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.
All of the boreholes were subsequently filled following completion of the ground water
observations as a safety measure for animals and/or pedestrians crossing the drill site. The borings were
filled with soils cuttings. Therefore, longer term ground water readings could not be obtained for the
project.
It is also worth noting that there were some granular soils, i.e., silty sands or clayey sands,
encountered 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
tributary of Spring Creek; (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.
15
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
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
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 .
16
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; 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 and flexible pavement
sections being considered for the proposed roadway. We have assumed that both pavement sections
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 both the rigid pavement section and the flexible pavement section as discussed in the
following sub-sections of this report.
5.2 SUBGRADE CLASSIFICATION
5.2.1 General Discussion of Anticipated Pavement Subgrade Soils
As previously indicated in Section 1 of this report, the final grading plans for the proposed
roadway improvements are not known at the present time. However, the preliminary site grading plans
indicate that most of the length of the roadway will only require less than 1 to 2 feet of excavation or fill
placement in order to achieve final subgrade elevations, except at the proposed drainage way crossing.
Approximately 5 feet of fill will be needed to cross the un-named tributary of Spring Creek in the north-
central portion of the roadway alignment. The fill will be placed as an earthen "embankment" that will
permit the elevation of the roadway pavement surface above the flood plain at the crossing location. We
believe that "embankment" fill soils will be placed over the existing soils in the drainage channel, unless
the existing soils are not sufficiently strong to be able to support the proposed "embankment."
Consequently, we anticipate that the proposed roadway will be constructed on both natural soils
and on an "embankment" of fill soils in the area of the proposed drainage way crossing.
As previously indicated, based upon the borings drilled along the route of the proposed roadway,
silty, clayey sands and clayey sands will be present in the surficial zone of the stratigraphy that extends to
depths ranging from 0 .5 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface at the vario us boring locations. These
fine sandy and silty soils can develop very poor load support characteristics and can be very difficult to
17
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
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 consisted of clays that are generally of moderate to high
plasticity. The natural clays are expected to have relatively high PI values of 25 or higher, although the
PI of some soils may be as low as 6 (boring B-6 location).
We also anticipate that the embankment at the drainage way crossing will be constructed of
imported clay soils of moderate to high plasticity. Recommended properties of the clay fill soils are
presented in Section 6 of this report. The embankment itself will be constructed over existing soils that
will represent the subgrade for the earthen embankment (but not the pavement section sub grade).
Potential problems with both the roadway subgrade soils and the embankment subgrade soils that
could adversely impact the construction of the proposed embankment are discussed in the following sub-
section of this report.
In the case of both the natural soils and the imported fill soils, we anticipate that the subgrade soil
layer will be improved when 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 Embankment
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 the earthen embankment being constructed 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 all of the
boring locations consisted of either granular soils or clayey soils with a high percentage of silts and/or
fine sands. The surficial zone soils generally extended from the existing ground surface to depths ranging
from approximately 0.5 to 4 feet.
Sur:ficial silty and fine sandy soils of low cohesion that were present can be difficult to process
and compact if the soils are in a very moist to wet condition at the time of construction. Sur:ficial silts and
fine sands that are underlain by clay formations have a tendency to trap rainwater and to "pump " when
compacted . Pumping refers to the condition when the energy ap plied 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
18
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway ; College Station, TX
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 embankment.
Furthermore, although the clay soils along the bank of the drainage channel at the boring B-4
location were relatively strong and exhibited consistencies in the range of stiff to very stiff, it is possible
that weaker clays with a soft to firm consistency could be encountered across the bottom of the drainage
channel in some areas of the proposed earthen embankment location. 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 embankment fill soils as
subsequently specified .
Consequently, we strongly recommend that the existing weak surficial soils present either along
the planned roadway alignment or in the area of the embankment at the drainage way 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 embankment 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 embankment that are supported on such
soils could experience appreciable movements due to the weak and compressible character of the
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 sub grade
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
19
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRON M ENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
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 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
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 and for 20-year design period
for the flexible pavement system based upon the estimated average daily traffic volume and other traffic
characteristics listed in Section 1.
5.4 PAVEMENT SECTION TIDCKNESS 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
20
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Su b surface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
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 thicknesses were computed for both rigid and flexible
pavement systems and are presented separately in the following tables.
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
T hic kness (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 const ru cte d pavement thickness
Notes :
J. 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 (2009) 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 (2009) 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 mmumze
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 18 inches
on-center, each way as specified in the Bryan/College Station Unified Construction Details for Streets
(2009), which is hereinafter cited as BICS 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
21
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Sub surface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS P hillips Parkway; College Station, TX
contraction joints placed a recommended spacing of 12 feet center to center an d a maximum spacing of
15 feet. Keyed and doweled longitudinal joints should b e 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 p laced through the middle of area inlet
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
Sonobom Sonolastic SLl (or equivalent) to minimize infiltration of surface water to the underlying
subgrade soils . Please note th at th e B/CS Unified Details may require a closer spacing of joints than
recommended in this report.
If the proposed roadway will have to carry a significant percentage of truck traffic, we
recommend that strong consideration be given to the u se of a rigid pavement section for the heavy traffic
lanes since the PCC section tends to require less maintenance under moderate to heavy truck loading than
flexible pavement systems. If it is anticipated that the truck traffic will exceed the previously indicated
volumes and vehicle weights, then the wearing surfaces of the rigi d pavement section should be increased
to 8 inches.
If it is determined that a flexible pavement system would provide the more economical section for
the proposed roadway, we recommend the pavement section outlined in Table 3 be employed for the
roadway.
Table 3 . Pavement Thickness Schedule for Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete (HMAC)
Notes:
Thickness (in) 1
4 .0
8.0
8 .0
20.0
Materia l D escription
HMAC (Item 340), To consist of 2" of Type D and 2" of Type C Note 2
Compacted crushed limestone base (Item 24 7), Type A, Grade 1 Notes 2•3
Compacted chemicall y-stabilized sub grade soils Note 4
Total constructed pavement thickness
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 this table and should be established based on applicable req uirements . Tie-in sections may be required to be constructed of rigid
pavement.
2 . Item number refers to sections of the Texas Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of
Highways, Streets, and Bridges, June I , 2004.
3 . The base co urse should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum density achievable in the Modified Proctor Moisture-Density
(Compaction) test (ASTM D 1557) at moisture contents in the range of the optimum mo isture content to +4% of the optimum moi sture
content.
4. The requirements for compaction and chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils are presented in Section 9.
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
22
CSC ENGINEERI N G & ENVIRONME N TAL CONSULTANTS , INC.
Report of Sub surface Expl oration & Geotechnical Study WS Ph illips Parkway; Co ll ege Station, TX
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 sub grade support .
5.5 PAVEMENT SYSTEM DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE
5.5.1 Pavement Drai nage
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 steepl y
graded pavement surface to quickly transport storm water to co ll ection 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 shoul d 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 w ithstand exterior exposures,
such as Sono bom SL-1 for rigid pavements sections or rubberized asphalt sealants for flexible pavement
sections, shou ld 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 patching and overlaying of the pavement system
should be ant icipated over the expected life of the pavement.
23
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC.
Report of Sub surface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
6.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND C O NSTRU C TIO N CONSIDERATIO NS
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 the proposed roadway embankment
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
on the site or which may have been previously present on the site. 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 area and
embankment, 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 systems
and embankment.
6.2 PROOF ROLLING O F ROADWAY EMBANKMENT SUBGRADE SOILS
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
identify soft or weak areas of soils, especially in the areas of the existing drainage way. Any soft or weak
24
CS C ENGINEERING & ENVIRON M E N TAL CONSULTANTS , INC .
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
soils identified during the proof rolling process should be excavated down to "firm" ground, removed
from the project site, and replaced with compacted select embankment 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 embankment 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 COMP ACTION OF SUBGRADE SOILS IN PAVEMENT AREAS
The subgrade soils in areas planned for fill placement, which includes the roadway embankment,
should be compacted following proof-roll testing to at least 95 percent of the maximum density
determined by the previously referenced Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D 698-07el -
Standard Test M ethods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400
ft-lbjljt3 (600 kN-m/m3
)) at moisture contents in the range of the OMC to 4 percent abov e the OMC,
inclusive. Compaction characteristics of the subgrade layer in the general fill areas or in the embankment
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 sq ft in the planned embankment base 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 are 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 embankment and
paved areas during construction. Inadequate site preparation and protection of roadway pavement and
embankment subgrade soils has been associated w ith numerous distressed paving systems in this area
since the structural layers of the pavement and the roadway embankment are supported on the sub grade
soils. In no event should water be allowed to pond next to the paved areas or the area of the embankment.
Also, consideration should be given to the stabilization of the exposed soils within ground-supported
25
C::SC:: ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC:.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
pavement areas or in embankment fill areas as soon as possible. Weak or unsuitable surficial soils in these
areas should be removed and replaced with select roadway embankment fill soils as previously
recommended and as subsequently detailed. The replacement scenario should be consistent with
compaction requirements outlined in Section 6.5 .
As 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.
6 .5 SELECT ROADWAY EMBANKMENT FILL SOILS MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
AND PLACEMENT PRO CEDURES
6 .5 .1 General
Any fill used to adjust grades in the paved areas, to construct roadway the embankment, to fill
existing depression , or to fill over-excavated areas should conform to the requirements of select roadway
embankment fill . Select roadway embankment fill is defined as materials that meet the following criteria
with respect to material and placement requirements for the fill:
• Selected fill material used for roadway embankment construction should consist of a
moderate plasticity material with a PI between 20 and 40, inclusive, and a LL value
of between 35 and 60, inclusive. The se lect fill soi ls 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 USCS .
The minimum PI value of 20 should help to discourage storm water from infiltrating
into the soils of the embankment or into the pavement sub grade.
• 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 Soi l Classification System (ASTM D 2487)
shall not be used as fill .
• The fill soils placed in embankments and exposed to impounded water 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 D 4647).
• 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 not to exceed 6
inches in compacted thickness. Density should be at least 95 percent of the maximum
26
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
dry density as determined by the previous ly referenced Standard Proctor compaction
test, ASTM D 698.
• Compaction characteristics of the roadway embankment 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 ft 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
percentages are 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 18 lb/yd2 of hydrated lime and 18 lb/yd2 of fly
ash should be used in the mixture.
• Similarly, in the unlikely event that nearly "pure" granular soils of low plasticity (i.e.,
PI < 7) are present in some of the areas to be paved, these soils should 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 Constr uction and Maintenan ce of
Highways, Streets, and Bridges (June 20 04) Item 26 0, 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
27
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS , INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
this specification should include a minimum of 48 hours of tempering time before
final 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 fill soils meeting the requirements presented herein
should be at moisture contents within the range of the OMC to 4 percent above the
OMC , inclusive. 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 should be confirmed by specific laboratory tests performed at the time
of construction.
6. 7 FLEXIBLE AND 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 (2009). More specifically, the following pavement material types, properties, and
placement procedures are recommended for the various pavement section materials.
6.7.1 Flexible Pavement Base Course and Surface Course
Base Course
• The base course in a flexible pavement section should consist of crushed limestone aggregate
base that meets or exceeds the requirements of SDHPT Item 24 7 -Flexible Base, Grade I.
Compaction of the base material should be at a moisture content that is at the optimum
moisture content to 4 percent above the OMC, and to 95 percent of the maximum dry density
as determined by ASTM D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor density).
Surface Course (HMAC)
• The HMAC surface course should comply with SDHPT Item 340, Type D. Hveem stability,
as determined by ASTM D 1560, should be between 35 and 55.
6.7.2 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.
• 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.
28
C:::S C::: ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMEN T AL CONSULTANT S , INC::.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; College Station, TX
• 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 Flex ural 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 .
29
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Report of Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Study WS Phillips Parkway; 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 generalized 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 foundation 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 engineer.
30
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC .
APPENDIX A
Figures
Figure 1 -Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Plan of Borings
Boring Logs
B-1 through B-8
Key Sheets to
Terms and Symbols Used on the Boring Logs
LOCATION OF PROPOSED
ROADWAY ALIGNMENT
\JELLBDRN
-Source Map: Texas Department of Transportation
Urban Files -Brazos County
Map Modifications: Project Location (CSC 2011)
I c
s
c
L11g111ccn11g & Dn11011111enral
C 011s11/1ams. Inc.
R~gi81ration N11mbu F-Jf178
Prepared For:
PHILLIPS
ENGINEERING
!
I
2000 0
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
PROJECT
LOCATION : COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS
APPR : MFC REV . DATE : --
DRAWN BY : AEA SCALE : AS SHOWN
DATE : 03/01/11 FIGURE NO .: 1
2000 FEET
I
LOG OF BORING NO. 8-1
PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY
GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 3-1/2" Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER: TAYLOR/CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
'--
'--
'--
'--
,_____
,_____
,_____
,_____
,_____
'--
'-10-
'--
'--
'--
'--
'--
'--,_____
'-20-
'--
1-25-
L--
L--
L--
L--
L--
L--
L--
'--
'--
'"-30-
'--
'--
'--
DESCRIPTION OF lLATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION : Not Known
Loose, dark brown, silty, clayey SAND, dry to
slightly m oist
._ -with occasional small roots to 1'
!Very dense, tan, very clayey SANU, with
occasional gi:avel, and with orange ferrous
._ stains slio litlv moist
Very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY1 with sand and
with occasional thin seams 01 tan, weakly
cemented sandstone and with orange ferrous
~ stains sliohUv moist
COMPLETION DEPTH: 6'
DATE: 01/28/11
.....
.i::
:: ~~ ii= s.. >.::)b ~ p.. s.. t.l
~'-.. =~ .. 0 i::: s :i
18! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
!::. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION , TON/SQ. F"I'.
0 .25 0 .50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 :
Plastic Water Liquid
Limit Content, 7. Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 +o 50 60 10
• +--i-
3 1 ~ Jrines
DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and
DATE: immediately ofter drilling on 01/28/11.
I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ---
LOG OF BORING NO. 8-2
PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY
GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE ST A Tl ON, TEXAS
TYPE : 3-1/2" Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER : TAYLOR/CCI LOCATION: See Pi on of Borings
.. ., -a
DESCRIPTION OF lLATERIAL
~ rn SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known
.-~-····. Loose to meelium dense, 1>rowmsh-tan,
:: .. .,
p.. .. ..
.2
al
... ..c
~f.:: )I:
>. :i p
... CJ
i::l'-..
::: ~ = :::>
-
18! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
!::. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION , TON/SQ . FT .
0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 '
Plastic Water Liquid
Limit Content, ~ Limit
~-------·--------+ 10 20 30 ~o 5o 60 70
*--+ .as ~ Fines --t\.~ clayey SAND, slightly moist to moist
'----~·*"'-!· jH~~IV~ery-~stif~-~f.-g-r_a_yis~;n~-~-b~r-o-wn-.-san-1-.--dy~f~a~t~C,,....,...LAY~.--~1--H---1
. · · with seams of tan sand, and occasional
gravel, slightly moist
'Very stiff, dark tan, fat CLAY , with orange -t---+--+---+---+--+--,.i,1~........,.---1---o
.....___ ~ f t . Ji htl . t Lt..----------1.5 + LL ~ 5 ~ errous s ams, s g y mo1s rT'W""-rr
_ l 5.6 ~ Fines
,___ ,___ ,___
.....___ ,___
'-15-
'--
'--
'--
,___
,___
t-20-,___ ,____ ,____ ,____ ,____ ,____ ,____
'--
'--
-25-
,___ ,___
,_ 30-
,____ ,____ ,____
COMPLETION DEPTH: 6 '
DATE: 01/28/11
I CSC Engineering &
DEPTH TO WATER IN BOR ING : Borehole dry during and
DATE : immediately ofter drilling on 01/28/11 .
Environmental Consultants, Inc. ---
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY
GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE: 3-1/2" Sol i d Flight Dry Auger DRILLER : TAYLOR/CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known
~ ,...; -r,. · ----1t ta.n ~i1 ·_v ~ANTI t1rv
181 --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
A --TRIA IXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION , TON/SQ . FT.
0 .25 0.50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 ~
Plastic Water Llquid
Limit Content, ~ Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
~ ,__ 1---+---+---+----+'oo"°---+----f--l----1 • +-1 ,__ ~ .~ Loose to meaium aense, dark brown, silty
,__ i; .}. cl5,~ SAND, sli htly moist 1.B ~ Fines l;;l!:il.b.~~aru·~~~.,,.;,all....a11..I;Q1~nnlt;,t~~tn,.L..1',.,..,....----.-___j~ 1--l---+--+--+--+--+---.l.--,----+----1 :=:= ,. ~ '-IVery stiff, grayish-tan, fat CLAY, with sand, '"1-5+
,__ ~ and with numerous very small white t~-------->--+
-calcareous nodules, slightly moist 11.0 ~ Fines == !Very stiff, tan to dark tan, fat CLAY, with 1--1--t--+---t--+--+--t--io:l,~ic1=_5=++---1
- 5 -~ ~ yellow ferrous, stains, slightly moist
-~ 1-----------~i-->-l---I--!-__.--+----+--+-+-~ .....____
.....____
.....____
.....____
,__
,__
,__
1-10-,__
,__
,__
,__
,__
,__
,__
,__
,__
'-15---------,__ ------------'---
,__
1-20-
,__
,__
,__
,__
,__
,__ ._ ._
1-25-._ ._ ._ ....____
.....____
.....____
'---
'---
'---
1-30-
,__
,__
,__
COMPLETION DEPTH : 6'
DATE: 01/28/11
DEPTH TO WATER IN BOR ING : Borehole dry during and
DATE : immediately ofter drilling on 01/28/11 .
I CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ---
LOG OF BORING NO . B-4
PROPOSED ws PH ILIPS PARKWAY
GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 3-1/2" Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER : TAYLOR/CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
18! --POCKE T PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
..... .6. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST .<:
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL :::: .; f:: COHESION , TON/SQ. FT . ii: ....... k >-::iP 0.25 0 .5 0 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 :
~ "' ., '1. k C.J Plastic Water Liquid 0 "' Q ........
.<: ,.0 -a ., =~ Limit Content, 7. Limit ..... [ El .. p, 0 i:: +--------·--------+ "' Cl SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known s ::i Q Ul Ul 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 --n ................ or own ici•"-~ l~1 --~ M .__ ... 1---,___
.__ ·. Ve~ stiff, dark brown, sand!, Jean CLAY . with ·----~---+ .__ 1e?1°h e~n ~!. t~~?~-~f~~· ~;~Xex"s~~~.and lt02 .5 67.9 : Fine ,... .__ ., 1---,___ ... Very stiff , brown, sandy, lean CLAY, with ITh ~ ,. .__ , large pieces of gravel and with orange .__ ferrous stains, slightly m oist
~ .___ .___
~ Very stiff, tan, fat CLAY, with sand, and with ITh
~5-thin seams of light tan, clayey sand, slightly
moist
~ -becoming dark tan, with numerous very itr+
small pockets and thin seams of light tan
...____ ~ sand, and with yellow ferrous stains below 6'
-with sand seams becoming slightly more I ~1.S+ ...____ ~ numerous below B'
1---
1-10 -!Ve~ ~ aar~ orown to aarJc rea<llSn ·brown, 1---fa CLA • with seams of light tan sand, .__ \sometimes weakly ceme ntei:l, sli2htly moist 1 .__
.__
.__
.__
L-
L-
L-
L-
~i5--....__
----.__
.__
.__
1-20 -.__ .__ .__ .__ .__
L-
L-
L-
L-
~25-
~
~
L-
~ ....__ ....__ .______
.______
.______
1-30-
...____
...____
i---:--
COMPLETION DEPTH : 1 O' DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and
DATE: 01/28/11 DATE: immediately after drilling on 01/28/11.
I csc Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. I
LOG OF BORING NO . B-5
PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY
GREE NS PRAIR IE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TE XAS
TYPE : 3-1/2" Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER : TAYLOR/CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION: Not Known
ILoose ,ilght tan to light brown , clayey fine
SAND ,fni
!Very stiff, grayish-brown, fat CLAY, moist
-with occasional small roots to 2'
-becoming brown below 2'
-becoming tannish-brown, with occasional
thin seams of tan sand, and occasional
small white calcareous nodules below 4'
.... .c:
;::: ~!: !lo:
"' :.-.::iP .,
'1. "'C.J Cl'-. .. ~ :9 ~
0 r:: ii:i :::>
l8! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
t:,. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION , TON/SQ . FT .
0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 '
Plastic Water Liquid
Limit Content, 7. Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 40 50 60 ·70
I ~
------------.;._i_ +
i 7. 3 7. Fines
~~
1--------------------l>--l---4----+---1---+---1---4----1'----l
.._ .._ .._ .._
1-10-.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
-15-.._
'----
.._ .._
.... 20 -.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
.._
'"-25-
'---
'----
'----
'----
'------
--30-.._
COMPLETION DEPTH : 6'
DATE: 01/28/11
I CSC Engineering &
DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : Borehol e dry during and
DATE : immediately ofter drilling on 01/28/11.
Environmental Consultants, Inc. ---
LOG OF BORING NO. B-6
PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY
GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
TYPE : 3-1/2" Sol id Flight Dry Auger DRILLER : TAYLOR/CC I LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ::
g ..
II>
"' Clo 0 II>
..:: J:>, 'a .. ..., [ e ~ "' 0
II> ., SURFACE ELEVATION : Not Known Cii Q en en
...,
..::
~t
""' >. :i tJ
.. C.J
Q"-
:::: ~ c::
::i
l8! --POCKET PENETROMETER
0 --UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
.6. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION. TON/SQ . FT.
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 :
Plastic Water Liquid
Limit Content, 7. Limit
10+-20-30--~--so-60-+10
L!'O.: ISoft to urm, .':'llDL L.o.D to. lil!hl _brown, sandy very suty -lo._(_ _ l--lf:-.111..JI_~..,, lean CLAY, willi occasional small roots, morsl ,___ l-~l---f',.,..--'-'---+'"-"'5.:..:7·.:;-:::7.::.....:...:; Fi" fre"'-s--1--+--+---H
~ f.?~ !Stiff , dar1' Drown, very sandy, lean CLAY, • ~ 1---llLI.,."'-<·..,..~· ~~ with seams of lii>ht tan sana sJightJv moist ,___ 1-----t!---+--+--+--+--+---.i.=:::-t-----il 1---i i....~ !Very sun, <1ar1' Drown to brown, sandy, fat '"1-5+
..---. ... ~ CLAY, slightly moist
'-.· -becoming dark brown , with thin seams of
1-..___--;1~111.. ._._ tan, clayey sand below 4'
,_ 5 _ ~ -with numerous pockets of tan, sandy, fat
'----clay below 5' '----1-1-~..:......---------------~~-H-----<ll--+--+----l---+--4------<l---+---~I .___
.___
.___
.___
>----
>---
1---
1-10-.___ .___ .___ .___ .._____ .._____ .._____ .._____ .._____
~i5-..___ .._____
,____ ,____ ,____
>----.___
.___
1-20 -.___
.___ .___ .___ .___ .___ .___ .___ .___
'-25-..___ .._____ .._____ .._____
,____ ,____
1-30 -
.___
.___
.___
COMPLETION DEPTH: 6'
DATE : 01/28/1 1
I CSC Engineering &
DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : Borehole dry during and
DA TE: immediately ofter drilling on 01 /28/11.
Environmental Consultants, Inc. ---
LOG OF BORING NO. B-7
PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY
GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS
nPE: 3-1/2" Solid Flight Dry Auger DRILLER : TAYLOR/CCI LOCATION: See Pion of Borings
....___
....___ -....___ .....____
.....____
'-15-.___ ...__
----
~zo-
,_____ ,_____ ,_____ ,_____ ,____ ,____ ,____ ,____
>-25-
1----,____ ,____ ,____ ....__
....__
....__
....__
....__
'-30-
.. 0 ..
.0 ]:
[ Cl rn rn
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION : Not Known
... .. p.,
18! --POCKET PENETROt.AETER
0 --UNCONFINED COt.APRESSION TEST
:<: t. --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
11 ~ COHESION, TON/SQ . FT. !ii: >.;:ib 0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 :
... t.J ,___...._ _ _,_ _ _,__--'----'-----'--'-----l I
t::i '-Plastic Water Liquid = ~ Limit Content, 7. Limit
:5 10+-20-30--~--50-60-+70
1 ~1~no~se~h~r~own~~~~lvL..!.flO~l~ds~a¥1N~~S~"n~·"~w~m~o~1Sf~--l<--~t---+--+---+---+--+---.!i..---i!-----I
Very stiff, aark brown to brown, sandy, fat I ~1.5+
CLAY, slightly moist
~IV~e-ry-stif~·=f,-rbr_o_wn_,-san-1d~y-,'fa't-=cu,...,,..,Y~1fl~ith-.------i1---~ r--+---t---t---+--t---,.!,c:::=-i!-----i
numerous pockets and seams of light tan, 9f ___ ._ _ _ + 'U+
'iJi~r;(' sand, with occasional gravel, slightly : a3 7. Fines (Sand Seam
-with seams of clayey sand becoming more ! ~l.S+
numerous and thicker below 3'
1..--~~~--.-~-.--..-----.--.--~1--->--l---+--+---+----1---+--1----1----1 ~ery Sfilf, brown to aarK brown, sandy, lean 1--->--1---+--+---l----1---+--1----1----1
CLAY, slightly moist I
COt.APLETION DEPTH : 6'
DATE : 01/28/11
DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING : Borehole dry during end
DA TE : immed iately ofter drilling on 01 /28/11.
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. ---
t
LOG OF BORING NO. B-8
PROPOSED WS PHILIPS PARKWAY
GREENS PRAIRIE ROAD TO PAST INTERSECTION WITH VICTORIA AVENUE
COLLEGE STAT ION, TEXAS
TYPE : 3-1/2" Sol id Flight Dry Auger DRILLER : TAYLOR/CCI LOCATION : See Pion of Borings
._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._
1-10-
L.-
L.-
~
L.-
~
~
>----
>----.___
1-15-.....___
.....___
----
,__
L.-
-20-....__
,__
...___
...___
,._____
,._____
,._____
,._____
,._____
i-25-.....___ ->-
>-
>------30--,__
,__
,__
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
SURFACE ELEVATION : Not Known
Loose, brown, silty, clayey, fine SAND, with
occasional gravel. moist
~ .. .,
ll. .. .. 0
iii
..,
.a
~r;:
)I::
>.::iP
.. t.J
t:l'-..
:::: ~ = ::::>
18! --POCKET PENETROt.AETER
0 --UNCONFINED COt.APRESSION TEST
A --TRIAIXIAL SHEAR TEST
COHESION, TON/SQ. FT.
0.25 0 .50 0 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 :
Plastic Water Llquid
Limit Content, ~ Limit +--------·--------+ 10 20 30 ~o 50 so 70
• +-f-
19.5 ~ Fines
..... 6V~ery--stif~. ~f.-dar_k_g_r_a_yis_h~-~b~r-o-wn-.~fa~t~c=LA~Y=.---n-~ i---1----t---t---+---t---t---id.1 '1:""":":.--l=.5-+-+---I
with large pockets of light tan, weakly
cemented sandstone, dry ..... 1----------=---------~l---li---J----t---t---+---+---t----.i.,--.,,--1-__, ThinlY. interbedded, very stiff, dark tan, sandy, I '1:""":":
lean CLAY, and dense, light tan clayey SAND, •If---'---___ a!.5+
sometimes we~l.ncementedl with orange 1 6.0 ~ Fines ~f-saL-o~u~·~LAJSt.!!ll°'·"~S~~~~h~tl~vm~·~n;·~~-------H--li---1---1----+---+---+---+--+---1-__,
11 COt.APLETION DEPTH : 10'
DATE : 01/28/11
DEPTH TO WATER IN BORING: Borehole dry during and
DA TE : immediately ofter drilling on 01 /28/11.
I 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 ~
Th in -Woll Split-Barre l Rock Core Cone Disturi>e<l
Tube w/Testob le Penetrometer
Cuttings No Hand Torvone Unconfined Compression U-U
Recovery Penetrometer Recovery Trioxiol
Major Divisions
ci :z
~c .... 0 g i= u ., (f)-ffi.!:!
.. 0
-0 :z c 0 .... ~
(/) 0 ~
c., ..s
0:;: LI..
"'~ Ud
S..mple
Group Symbols
·.·.·.· ...
SW
SP
Typ ical Names
Well-Graded Grovels, Grovel-Sand
Mixtures, Little or No Fines
Poorly Graded Grovels, Grove l -Sand
t.Aixtures, Little or No Fines
Clayey Grove ls, Grovel-Sand-Cloy
t.Aixtures
Well-Graded Sends, Gravelly Sands,
Little or No Fines
Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly
Sands, Little or No Fines Ooj~ ........ . z ~ < ~l----+-----1+..-+..-+..-+---------------l
U5 ~ i3i ~ ~ .. :: : :I: ...
u
5
::i
0 :z
5 .!! ...,. c;: :g ~ SM
O~_§ ~]O ~~ j1] SC m
(/)
>-
4:
_J u
"O c
0
(/)
t-
_J
Vi
.. ..
"' -' 0 ~ U"')
~ c
-' 0
-0 i= :; er :::;
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
Silty Sends, Sand-Silt l.A ixtures
Clayey Sands , Sand-Cloy Mixtures
Inorganic Silts with Slight Plasticity
Inorganic Cloys of Low to Medium
Plasticity, Gravelly Cloys, Leon Cloys
Organic Sil ts and Organic Silty
Ooys of Low Plasticit y
Inorganic Silts, t.Aicoceous or
Oiotomoceous Fine Sand or Silty
Soils, Elastic Silts
Inorganic Cloys of High Plasticity,
Fat Cloys
Organic Cloys of Medium to High
Plasticity, Organic Silts
HARDNESS CLASSIFICATION OF INTACT ROCK
30% Finer -Percent Finer than No . 200 Seive
Relative Density of Coarse Strained Soils
Penetration Res istance
N Value
(Blows/Ft•)
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
Over 50
Descriptive
Term
Very Loose
Loose
l.Aedium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
• Based on driving a split-barrel
sampler with a 1~ lb weight
dropped 30 inches
Soil Modifiers
~ CLAYEY
SILTY
SANDY
Cons istency Terms of Fine-Groined
Compressive
Strength, qu Descriptive
(ton/sq ft) Term
0 to 0.25 Very Soft
0 .25 to 0.50 Soft
0 .50 to 1.00 Firm
1.00 to 2 .00 Stiff
2 .00 to 4.00 Very Stiff
Over 4.00 Herd
Groundwater Levels
'\7 -STATIC WATER LEVEL
..,. -HYDROSTATIC WATER LEVEL
Rock Classific ation
Soi ls
HARDNESS
APPROX. RANGE OF UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION STRENGTH
(P.S.I.) ~ SHALE SILTSTONE
EXTREl.AELY HARD
VERY HARO
HARD
SOFT
VERY SOFT
>13,900
6,940 -13,900
3,470 -6.9~
1,740 -3,470
70 -1,740 I LIMESTONE
SANDSTONE
--CSC Engineering -& Environmental Consultants, Inc.
CLAYSTONE
COAL
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
APPENDIX B
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
c s c ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C •
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed WS Phillips Parkway From Greens Prairie Road to Past Intersection With Victoria Avenue; College Station, Texas
Percent Plas-Comp-
Bor-Sample Depth Mo is-Fines Liquid Plastic Lateral Type Dry Pocket
tu re Limit Limit ti city ression Strain Press-of Den-Penetro-ing No. (ft) (-#200 Index Strength Comments
No. Content Sieve) ure Failure sity meter Note a
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (tsf) (%) (psi) (pct) (tsf)
B-1 S-1 0-2 8.9 31.1 % 20 14 6 ----------N.A. Noteb --
(6 ft)
S -2 2 -4 12.4 49.2 % 43 17 26 ------ ----4.5 + tsf --
S-3 4 -6 ------ --
---- -- ------4.5+ tsf --
B-2 S-1 0 -2 11.7 38.8% 27 15 12 ----------4.5+ tsf --
(6 ft)
S-2 2-4 ---- -- -- ------ ------4 .5+ tsf --
S-3 4-6 24.7 85 .6% 72 22 50 ----------4.5+ tsf --
Notes:
See Notes at end of tab le.
B-1
c s c ENG IN EER IN G & ENV I RONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C •
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Jones-Butler Road Extension Between Geo r ge Bush Drive and Luther Street; Coll ege Station, Texas
Percen t Plas-Co m p-
Bor-Sampl e Depth Mois-F in es Li quid P lastic Lat eral Ty pe Dry Pocket
t u re Limit Limit tici ty ressio n Str a in Press-o f De n-P enetro-in g No. (ft) (-#200 Ind ex S treng th Comm e nts
No. Content Siev e) ure F ailure sity DI Cle r Note a
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (tsf) (%) (psi) (pc t) (t sf)
B-3 S -1 0-2 7.3 4 1.8 % 19 14 5 ------ ----3.25 tsf --
(6 ft)
S -2 2 -4 18.6 8 1.0 % 57 20 37 ----------4 .5+ tsf --
S-3 4 -6 ------ ------ --------4 .5+ tsf --
B-4 S -1 0 -2 18 .0 67 .9 % 46 19 27 2.3 3.7 % 0-Bulge 102 .5 3.5 tsf --
(IO ft)
S -2 2 -4 --------------------4.5+ tsf --
S -3 4 -6 --------------------4.5 + ts f --
S-4 6 -8 --------------------4.5+ tsf --
S -5 8 -10 --------------------4.5+ tsf --
No t es:
See N otes at end of table .
B-2
c s c ENG INEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C •
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Jones-B utler Road Extension Between George B ush Drive and Luther Street; College Station, Texas
Percent Plas-Comp-
Bor-Sample Depth Mo is-Fines Liquid Plastic Lateral Type Dry Pocket
tu re Limit Limit ticity ression Strain Press-of Den -Penetro-ing No. (ft) (-#200 Index Strength Comments
No. Content Sieve) ure Failure sity meter Nole a
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (ts!) (%) (psi) (pct) (ts!)
B-5 S-1 0-2 --------------------3.5 tsf --
(6 ft)
S-2 2-4 21.5 87 .3 % 73 23 50 ----------4.5+ tsf --
S-3 4-6 --------------------4.5+ tsf --
B-6 S-1 0-2 10.9 57.2 % 20 ' 14 .6 ----------3.0 tsf --
(6 ft)
S -2 2-4 --------------------4.5+ tsf --
S-3 4-6 --------------------4.5+ tsf --
Notes :
See Notes at end of table.
B-3
c s c ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C •
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Proposed Jones-Butler Road Extension Between George B ush Drive and L u ther Street; College Station, Texas
Percent Plas-Comp-
Bor-Sample Depth Mo is-Fines Liquid Plastic Lateral Type Dry Pocket
ression Strain tu re Limit Limit ti city Press-of Den-Penetro-ing No. (ft) (-#200 Index Strength Comments
No. Content Sieve) ure Failure sity meter Note a
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (tst) (%) (psi) (pct) (tst)
B-7 S-1 0-2 -------- ------ ------4 .5+ tsf --
(6 ft)
S-2 2-4 15 .2 38 .3 % 43 18 25 -- --------4 .5+ tsf --
S-3 4-6 ------------ ------ --
4 .5+ tsf --
B-8 S-1 0-2 7.5 19 .5 % 21 14 7 ----------N.A. Noteb --
(6 ft)
S-2 2-4 ---- --
------ -- -- -- --
4.5+ tsf --
S-6 4-6 18.3 66.4 6 1 21 40 ----------4.5+ tsf --
Notes:
a. PP =Pocket penetrometer reading. Estimate of unconfined compress ion strength in tons per sq uare foot (tsf). Numbers divided by a I indicated readings at top and bottom of sample,
e.g., 0 .5 tsf/1.0 tsfindicate at reading of0.5 tsfat the top of the samp le and a reading of 1.0 tsfat the bottom of the sample .
b. NA= PP Not Applicable due to granular nature of samp le or sample disturbance.
c. NP= Non-plastic, i.e., the liquid limit value (LL) minus the plastic limit (PL) is 0 .
B -4
..
Item
No.
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION COSTS
March 1, 2011
Description Unit Unit Price
w s ater 1ystem w /12" lin es
12" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Structural Backfill 659 LF 33 .00
12 " Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,454 LF 2 9.00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 309 LF 24 .00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,038 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 862 LF 18 .00
20" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 70 LF 90 .00
14" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 110 LF 75.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 12"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 3,500.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) l EA 3,300.00
Connect to existing water line 2 EA 500.00
12" X 12" M .J . Cross l EA 750.00
12" X 8 " M .J . Cross 1 EA 600 .00
8" X 6" M .J . Cross 1 EA 500.00
12" X 12 " Tee l EA 600.00
8" X 8" Tee 1 EA 400.00
12" M .J . Gate Valve 3 EA 1,800.00
8" M.J. Gate Valve 6 EA 1,200.00
6" M .J . Gate Valve 3 EA 850.00
12" X 45 ° M .J. Bend 6 EA 400.00
8" X 45 ° M.J. Bend 7 EA 300.00
8 " X 22 .5° M .J . Bend 2 EA 300.00
12"x 8" M.J. Reducer 2 EA 300 .00
8"x 6" M.J. Reducer l EA 225 .00
4" BlowoffValve 3 EA 2,200 .00
2" BlowoffValve 3 EA 1,500.00
1" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length = 3 ft) 2 EA 600 .00
I" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 5 EA 1,100.00
1.5" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length = 3 ft) 11 EA 650.00
1.5'' Water Service,> 15 ft (avg iength = 47 ft) 9 EA 1,250.00
Water System w/ 12" lines
Water S stem w/8" lines
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 968 LF 24 .00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 2,492 LF 2 1.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 86 2 LF 18 .00
14 " Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 180 LF 75.00
Fire H ydrant Assembly (incl. 8"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 3,300.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) EA 3,300.00
Connect to existing water line 2 EA 500.00
8" X 8" M .J . Cross 2 EA 600.00
8 " X 6" M.J. Cross 1 EA 500.00
8" X 8" Tee 2 EA 400.00
8" M .J . Gate Valve 9 EA 1,200 .00
6" M.J. Gate Valve 3 EA 850.00
8 " X 45 ° M.J. Bend 13 EA 300.00
8" X 22 .5° M .J . Bend 2 EA 300.00
12 "x 8" M .J. Reducer 2 EA 300.00
8"x 6" M.J. Reducer I EA 225 .00
2" BlowoffValve 6 EA 1,500.00
l" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft) 2 EA 600.00
1" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 5 EA 1,100 .00
1.5 " Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length = 3 ft) 11 EA 650.00
1.5 " Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 9 EA 1,250 .00
Water System w/8" lines
Oversize Participation Estimate
Total
21 ,747
42 ,166
7,416
2 1,798
945
15,516
6,300
8,250
7,000
3,300
1,000
750
600
500
600
400
5,400
7,200
2,550
2 ,400
2,100
600
600
225
6,600
4,500
1,200
5,500
7,150
11 ,2 50
$195 ,563
23 ,232
52,332
945
15 ,516
13 ,500
6,6 00
3 ,300
1,000
1,200
500
800
10,800
2,550
3,900
600
600
225
9,000
1,200
5,500
7,150
11 ,250
$171 ,700
$23 ,863
Phillips Engineering
Pro viding Civil Engin eering Se rvices t o Coll eg e Sta ti on and Surrounding Communities
4490 Castlegate Drive, Coll e ge Station, Tex a s 77845 (979) 690-3141
March 1, 2011
Josh Norton
Development Services
City of College Station
P .O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: OVE R SIZE PARTIC IPATION RE QUEST
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTIO N 200
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Dear Josh:
With this letter I wish to initiate a request for Oversize Participation by the City of College
Station for the 12 " water line being installed with Section 200 of Castlegate II . This water line
was designed to comply with the City 's Water Masterplan which calls for a 12 " line to parallel
WS Phillips Parkway through the subdivision. The construction plans for the water system are
included with this submittal for your review . They show a total of approximately 2113 feet of
12 " line running along WS Phillips and Toddington.
In the accompanying Water System Report, you will see that we have modeled the water system
in the subdivision using 4", 6" and 8" lines . The model demonstrates that the system performs
above minimum standards using these line sizes . 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 systems using 12 " lines and
another using 8" lines instead. The difference in cost between the two line sizes and the related
fittings is $23 ,863 . I believe this is a conservative number and that actual construction costs
sho uld not exceed that figure . I also estimate a cost of 3% of that figure for the performance and
payment bonds which comes to $5 ,867 . The total Oversize Participation request is for $29 ,730 .
This figure is approximately 15% of the overall water system cost and is well below the threshold
limit of 30 % where competitive bidding becomes a requirement.
I ask that you review these accompanying documents and forward them to other staff members
invo lved in the Oversize Participation process. Please let me know what subsequent steps we ned
to take to move forward with this request. Thank you .
s/LJ-1
Kent Laza , P.E . r--
Manager
Phillips Engineering
attachments
Kent Laza
From :
Sen t:
Ken t La za [kla za@ phill ipsengin eer ingbcs .c om]
T uesday, April 26 , 2011 11 :40 AM
To:
Subject:
Celes te Waterwall ( celeste .wate rwall@ene rg ytransfe r.com )
Co nstructi on Plan s fo r Castleg ate II Sectio n 200
Attachments : to Energy Transfer 4-26 -11 .zi p
Celeste,
Attached is a zip file with sev eral drawings in it for your review . It is a large file , so p lease respond and let me know if
you did or didn't get it all. These are the files I spoke to you about this morning regarding our planned construction of a
subdiv ision adjacent to a pipeline owned by Energy Transfer. The line extends along the north property line of our site
from Greens Prairie Road in a northwestward direction. W e have worked with Mr. Gary Sawyer to get the line located,
but he was not able to give us specific depths on the line. At his suggestion, we have assumed a depth of 3 .5 to 4 feet.
The attached drawings are not a complete set , but they include all those around the pipeline so you can see what we are
proposing. As I indicated on the phone, these are not yet approved for construction but we are hoping to have the city 's
final review comments later this week.
We are referring to this as Section 200 , which is the first of about 15 phases in the subdivision. Of those , about 5 will be
constructed adjacent to the pipeline. In most cases , there will be a roadway separating the pipeline from the residentia l
area. This first phase includes crossings for water, sewer, drainage and street extensions. Once this phase is completed ,
there wi ll be one other futur e phase involving a street extension that cros ses the pipeline, but there are no other planned
crossings for drainage or utilities. There are some sidewalks p lanned within the pipeline easement in the future that are
similar to the one shown in this phase. If it will help , I can also send you a drawing of the overall subdivision to give a
larger perspectiv e of the dev elopment.
Please call or e-mail me with any comments . Thank you .
Kent M. Laza , P.E., Manager
Phillips Engineering
PRO VI DING CIVIL E N GINEERIN G SER VI CES TO COLLEGE STATION, BRYAN A ND S URROUN DIN G COMMUN ITIES
4490 Castlegate D rive
Co llege Station, Texas 77845
(9 79) 690-3141 office
(9 79) 220-195 7 cell
(9 79) 690-1041 fa x
kl aza @phi ll ip se ngin eeringb cs .co m
1
..... '
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman
Buddy Carcia, Commissioner
Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner
Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONM~NTAL QUALITY
Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution
April 27, 2011
Dear Applicant:
Re : TPDES General Permit for Construction Storm Water Runoff
Storm Water Notice oflntent Authorization
Your Notice of Intent application for authorization under the genera l permit for discharge of storm water associated with
construction activities has been received. Pursuant to authorization from the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, the Division Director of the Water Quality Division has issued the enclosed Certificate.
Please refer to the attached certificate for the identification number th at was assigned to your project/site and the effective
date. Please use this number to reference this project/site for future communications with the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
Authorization under the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program is required before construction can begin where the site is
located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, Contributing Zone , or Contributing Zone within the Transition Zone .
See http://www. tceq .state. tx .us /compliance/field _ ops/eapp/program.html for additional information.
A Notice of Termination must be submitted when permit coverage is no longer needed. You may submit the Notice of
Termination form electronically as well. It is the responsibility of the Operator to notify the TCEQ Storm Water
Processing center of any change in address supplied on the original Notice of Intent by submitting a Notice of
Change.
For questions related to processing of forms you may contact the Storm Water Processing Center by email at
SWPERMIT@tceq.state.tx.us or by telephone at (512) 239-3700 . If you have any questions regarding coverage under this
general permit or other technical issues, yo u may contact the storm water technical staff by email at SWGP@ tceq .state.tx.us
or by telephone at (512) 239-4671. Also, you may obtain information on the storm water web site at www.tceq .state.tx .us
Sincerely,
Charles W . Maguire, Director
Water Quality Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
P .O. Box 13087 • Austin , Texas 787 11-3087 • 512-239-10 00 • www.tceq .state.tx.us
How is our Customer Service? http ://www .tceq .state.tx .us /goto /customersurvey
TEXAS C OMMISSI ON ON ENVIRO NMENTAL Q UALITY
Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Storm Water Construction General Permit
The Notice of Intent (NOi) for the facility listed below was received on April 27, 2011. The intent to discharge storm water associated with construction activity
under the terms and conditions imposed by the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) storm water construction general permit TXR150000 is
acknowledged. Your facility's TPDES construction stonn water general permit number is:
TXR15RV34
Coverage Effective: April 27, 2011
TCEQ's storm water construction general permit requires certain storm water pollution prevention and control measures , possible monitoring and reporting, and
periodic inspections. Among the conditions and requirements of this permit, you must have prepared and implemented a storm water pollution prevention plan
(SWP3) that is tailored to your construction site. As a facility authorized to discharge under the storm water construction general permit, a ll terms and conditions
must be complied with to maintain coverage and avo id possible penalties.
ProjecUSite lnforriation:
RN106125800
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION SECTION 200
3330 GREENS PRAIRIE RD W
COLLEGE STATION , TX 77845
BRAZOS County
Operator:
CN603733148
DOS DORADO DEVELOPMENT LLC
4490 CASTLE GA TE DR
COLLEGE STATION , TX 77845
This permit expires on March 05 , 2013, unless otherwise amended . For additional information, see the TCEQ web site at www.tceq.state.tx.us or contact the Storm
Water Processing Team by tel ephone at (512) 239-3700 or e-mail at swpermit@tceq.state.tx.us. A copy of this document should be kept with your SWP3 .
ISSUED: April 27, 2011 FOR THE COMMISSION
-. ..
Kent Laza
From:
Sent:
To:
Waterwall , Celeste [Celeste .Waterwall@energytransfer .com]
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 4:16 PM
'klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs.com'
Subject: Re : Castlegate II Section 200
Yes I did. Thanks so much. I had to go out of town & will be back Friday . I will look at them then.
Celeste Waterwall
Energy Transfer/Houston Pi pe Line
Encroachment Supervisor
711 Louisiana Suite 900
Houston, Texas 77002
Office 832-668-1222
Cell 832-693 -6468
From: Kent Laza [mailto:klaza@phillipsenqineerinqbcs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 04:11 PM
To: Waterwall, Celeste
Subject: Castlegate II Section 200
Celeste,
Did you received the file I sent yesterday with its attached drawings of our subdivision?
Kent M. Laza, P .E., Manager
Phillips Engineering
PROVIDING CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO COLLEGE STATION, BRYA N AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
(9 79) 690-3141 office
(9 79) 220-195 7 cell
(9 79) 690-1041 fax
klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs .com
1
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PERMIT NO . 11-37
C ll'Y OF C OLLEGE S'!i \TION
Pfl11wi"f, & lhi~f''""' SnWn
FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
RE : CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE
SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
(Residential Subdivision Construction Documents)
DATE OF ISSUE: May 10, 2011
OWNER:
3-D Development , LLC
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station , TX 77845
SITE ADDRESS:
At terminus of Victoria in Castlegate I
DRAINAGE BASIN:
Spring Creek
VALID FOR 24 MONTHS
CONTRACTOR:
(see below)
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit
CONDITIONS:
1. No work of any kind may start until a Development Permit is issued .
2. No work beyond limits covered in permit is authorized .
3. The perm it may be revoked if any false statements are made herein. If revoked , all work must cease until permit is re-
issued .
4 . Development shall not be used or occupied until Certificate of Occupancy is issued .
5. The perm it will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance .
6. If required , Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour)
and post construction .
7. Other permits may have been required to fulfill local , state and federal requirements . Construction will be in
compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits .
8. Stormwater mitigation , including detention ponds will be constructed first in the construction sequence of the project.
9. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station , measures shall be taken to
insure that all debris from construction , erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or existing
drainage facilities . Construction Site Notice or Notice of Intent (NOi) along with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWP3) will be kept and maintained on -site during construction as per TPDES permitting requirements . If it is
determined that the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment on-site , it is the
Contractor 's responsibility to implement measures that will meet City , State , and Federal requirements .
10 . All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated prior to Letter of Complet ion or Certificate of Occupancy .
11 . All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with the
Landscaping and Tree Protection Section of the City's Unified Development Ordinance , prior to any operations of this
permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and
required to remain is strictly prohibited . The disposal of any waste material such as , but not limited to , paint, oil ,
solvents , asphalt, concrete , mortar , or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to
remain is also prohibited.
12 . All construction shall be in accordance with the stamped approved plans and specifications for the above-named
project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station , as well as State and Federal Regulations
that apply . Only those deviations from BCS Unified Design Guidelines , Specifications and Details specifically
requested and approved will be allowed .
13 . Special Conditions : Pending Correspondence from USAGE & Energy Transfer **TCEQ Phase II Rules In Effect**
1,6-() ()eJe..\c:p l'y\evt -4-Lll. //J;r Uue PL; f/,pft.the Contractor , hereby agree to comply with all conditions herein .
s--10 ! J
Date
I hereby grant this permit for development. Contact Woe..\ ~°' k.. 77 7 -.f::E7 /. the Public Works
lnspe sig t his projec ~ hours prior to beginning construction for sch dulin required Inspections .
Date
·------·---·-·-
I 11 J -~ ::> --J I C>I
c:=----·--------
, 1f J lj'
-------~-------___________
5 ~'//-'Yd ~ rVJ ·---'----------------~-
1 , 11 ,L~ f
.:Jf 13 .,.,._'f/(l -f-'~oJoJr/
Fl s
""' ."-.
1--
1 -1-C
~---
!
I
!
I I
I ! J -~L 1-
·-z-\ \ I'\
&. D
/rof 1J sr.>d t//-J-, ·M ffe
10'
------~
& c
(J,OfO~e'). Cvrreri f
y
·-----------·--·---
PHILLIPS ENGINEERING
4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
REVISED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
April 27, 2011
···------·-~-----..------······· ··················-__ I Qu::;ity ; Unit I Unit Price Descripti on Total
---------·--······-····----······-·--·------·--·-· Streets and Sitework
~aring & Grubbing ·----··-•¥···-··-· ·····-----
~ J ~~cavation/Grading Screets (estimated 2230 cut, 7900 fill)
3
1
.Mixing & Compaction of Subgrade -8" depth
4 jMixing & Compaction ofSubgrade-6" depth
_5_ Hy_d!..a.~ed Lime (6" @ 27 lb/sy;_~_" ®~3_6 _1b_is~y) _________ _
6 Base Material -8" depth
7 !Base Material -6" depth
8 1Base Material -6" depth for temp tum-arounds
--·--··+
I
i ; ;
i
i
5.4
I
3,201
9,437
AC i 1,500 .00 1 8,055
LS ! 5,000.00 5,000
SY I 3.50 1 11,204
' SY I 2.25 1 21,233
135 ! TON I 150.00 ! 20,250
2,838
6,195
860
9,033
SY I 12.50 ! 35 ,475
. SY 8.75 I 54,206
I SSYY .II 8.75 1 7,525
I J.OO f 99,363 9 !Asphalt Paving, Type D -2" depth
10 !Asphalt Paving, Type C -2" depth
11 !Concrete Curb and Gutter (all types)
12 I Co ncrete Apron-6" depth
2,526 SY 11.00 [ 27 ,786
--------,-~'---+---+-··---······-i-----'-
13 14" Concrete Sidewalk or Bike Path (width varies)
14 ·1
1Roadway signs
15 ;End of Road Signs
' ' !
'
1
5,808
6,577
21 ,712
7
6
1,675
1
8
26,447
1,934
'
i
i
I
I
LF 60 ,984 I 10.50 1
I
4.oo i SF 26 ,308
SF 70 ,564 3.2s j i EA 1,400
I
200.00 1
EA 1,200 I 200 .00 1
Subtotal -Streets ! $450,553
55 ,000
9,400
0
Subtotal -Storm Drainage !
---················--------· Water S>'.s._te_m _____ -r----,.---,-----.-··-----
37 112 " Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Structural Backfill 296 I LF 33.00 j 9,768
38 12" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,582 LF 29 .00 ! 45 ,878
39 !8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 431 LF 24.00 1 10,344
40 18" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,029 LF 21.00 1 21 ,609
41 6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Ba~~p \l __ ·--------'---4_5 __ j_g_.~ __ 2_L .. _oo L __ ~
I of2
-
I
PHILLIPS ENGINEERING
4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION , SECTION 200
REVISED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
April 27 , 2011
......... _______ ·-y·--·--!
Item Description
_liQ,_·~-----------------------~
Est. Unit I,; Unit Price Ii
Quant ity
872 LF
1
1 18.oo !
Total
42 i 6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill
43 !20" Steel Casing Pipe, w/ca si ng spacers and end caps
44 ! 16" Steel Ca sing Pipe, w/ca sing spacers and end caps
82 LF 90 .00 :
' 183 LF 75.oo i
15,69 6
7,380
45 'Fire Hydrant Assembly (inc l. I 2"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydr ant)
46 Fire Hydran t Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee , va lve, bend & hydrant)
4 7 I Connect to existing wa ter line
48 12" X 8" M.J . Cross
49 ig" X 6" M.J . Cross
50 l 12 " X 12" Tee
j 2 I EA 1 3,500.00 ! ----,-: 1 ~ !-'·:~1-rn
1 • EA 500.00 1
13,725
7,000
3)00
1,000
600
500
l ,200 I 2 EA 600.00 I
EA 400 .00 I
I
51 i8" X 8" Tee
52 ! 12" ~ii. c;;;t;y~j~;-.... "---·----·-· .. --_ .. ___ . _____ ... _________ ~------,;-------
400
9,000
8,400
3,400
53 :8" M.J. Gate Val ve
54 j6" M .. J. Gate Valve
55 J 12" X 45° M.J. Bend
56 '8" X 45° M.J. Bend
57 8" X 22.5 ° M.J . Ben d
58 8" X 11.25 ° M.J . Bend
59 12"x 8'' M.J. Reduc er
60 .8"x 6" M.J . Reducer
5 EA 1,800 .00 ,
7 EA
4 EA
9 EA
I 12 EA __ T .... -1--~-,---
j 2 ' EA
' 2 EA
EA
1,200.00 1
850 .00
400 .00 3,600
300 .00 3,600
300 .oo j 300
300 .00 J 600
300.00 , 600
225 .00 1 225
6 1 4" Blowoff Valve . ________________ 2_-+-_EA_i--_2~,? __ o_o_.0_01 ____ ~.4 00
62 !2" BlowoffValve
63 l" Water Service ,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft)
64 l" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft)
65 1.5" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg len gth= 3 ft)
66 1.5" Water Servi ce,> 15 ft (avo !en h = 47 ft
""67 " 112· s~;;;.-SDR Z6 "o -3'034 stt;ctural Ba~k.fi ll ...
68 I 12" Sewe r SDR 26 D-2241 Structural Backfi ll
69 is" Sewer SOR 26 D-3034 Structural Backfill
70 8" Sewer SDR 26 D-2241 Structural Backfill
71 ,8" Sewer SDR 26 D-3034 Non -structural Backfill
72 8" Sewer SDR 26 D-2241 Non-struc tural Backfill
73 6" Sewer SDR 26 D-3034 Structura l Ba ckfill ,., __ .. ,_ ... ___ .. ___ ... ___ ....... , .. _______ ---··----
74 ·6" Sewer SDR 26 D-22 41 Structural Backfill
75 120" Steel Casing Pipe, \\•/ca sing space rs and end caps
76 16" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps
77 '4' Manholes -O' .. 6.00 ' Depth
78
79
80
81
82
83 iConnect to existing manhole
84 J4" Sewer Servi ce,< 15 ft
85 J 4" Sewer Service, > 15 ft
86 i 4" Sewe r Service, > 15 ft
87 !TV Inspecti on
Wastewater System
2 of 2
I
I
I +
1
i
I
3 EA 1,500.00 j 4,500
2 EA 600.00 : 1,200
5 EA 1,100.00 ! 5,500
11 EA 650.00 j 7,15 0
9 I EA 1,250.00 i 11 ,250
Su btotal .. Water j S203,070
397
20
1,111
40
1,232
20
944
20
100
40
3
2
l
6
l
l
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF I I
LF I
LF I
LP I
LF i
'
EA
EA ~
EA '
EA
EA
EA
40.00
41.00
25 .00
26.00
2s.oo :
26 .00
22.00 ;
23.00 i
9o.oo l
!
90 .00 1
2,200 .00 i
2,400.00 !
2,600 .00 !
3,ooo .oo j
3,300 .00 '
3,600 .00
0 EA 600 .00
12 EA 450 .00
15888
2777
820
3
0
3
0
6
0
104
3079
52
2076
46
9
36
000
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
66
48
26
180
33
36
0
.................. -·--1-4--f _E_A_,...--1,-000-.0-0·1-
1
-
3,;84 I ~~ 6 ~:~~1
5400
14000
4200
11351
Subtotal· Sewer ! Sl84,5 10
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1 ,253,041
f'
LETTER OF COMPLETION
CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
DATE: //-$-//.
RE : COMP L ETION OF ______ _
Dear Sir:
The purpose of our letter is to request that the follow ing listed improvements be
approved and accepted as being constructed under City inspection and completed
according to plans and specifications as approved and required by the City of College
Station , Texas. This approval and acceptance by the City is requested in .order that we
may finalize any subcontracts and to affirm their warranty on the work . This approval
and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed below does hereby void the letter
of guarantee for the listed improvements on the above referenced project.
The one-year warranty is hereby affirmed and agreed to by 3-D Otve lopm evt + LL(..
and by their subcontractors as indicated by signatures below.
Wctl l etc.e~~w) P ~~ tt;ps ~
. Owner: 3-D Oevelo prnw -t LLC.
Phone Number: Cfl1 ~C(~1 -4B5""o
Address: l/L/C/() W5>tle~a le {J
Cot!e5e Sh b'oy,1 TX ?7 .8l/S
Signature: ~~11'"!)-
WARRANTY DATE
Contractor: 3-D Oe.1feJ0pm~ t L LC.
Phone Number: q 7Cf-a .?t Cf-l/, B 5?>
Address: l-/ l{ ~ D {1s f-l~J(A, fe fir .
Co tl f:&t2 S la f1'ovi 1 TX.1 ] 78 lf)
Signature: A~ 11111)-
J /-q-l(
Revised 1131107
.. lb ~Cj"l f 2.. to PLAT FILED v . .
OFPll IE 11111'8 FILED '
TW ILMICETElllT~ ~ teOWDllTS•-,/
v/u177-17, 2-76 k::.
letion / /
I Cj l I
10/07/10
Cl f7ft1
Inspectors shall acquire written (i.e. email) punchlist comments and subsequently written
confirmation from the following contacts before forwarding Letter of Completion to development
review engineer:
~on/Drainage: Donnie Willis (0: 764-6375, C: 229 -7632)
ater Services -General: Charles "Butch" Willis (0: 764-3435, C: 777 -12 02)
Water -coordinate fire flow analyses (or the design engineer for non -c ity utilities)
and confirm test results meets min requirements with the dev review engineer
(specific hydrants to test, if simultaneous, and min allowable flow)
_~Sanitary
~~ter Service -Liftstation: Doug Wallace (0: 764-6333)
~~ric and Streetlights: Gilbert Martinez (0: 764-6255)
~U Electric and Streetlights: Sonia Creda (0: 821-5770)
John Fontinoe or Randy Trimble (0: 821-5728) C~ development review engineer that service agreement is in place with BTU
~on-City Utility Service Providers: (Wellborn Water SUD, Brushy Creek SUD, Wickson
Creek SUD, etc) confirm with development review engineer that infrastructure is complete
r outstanding issues,
I Constrution Pictures: From contractor on CD-R, Inspector to confirm and file
d Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for all Public Infrastructure with the
following attestation:
"I, General Contractor for development, certify that the
improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are
shown substantially hereon. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, that the
materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any are stated correctly
hereon."
General Contractor
~rawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for Public Drainage Infrastructure including
Private Detention Facilities with the following attestations:
"I hereby attest that I am familiar with the approved drainage plan and associated
construction drawings and furthermore, attest that the drainage facilities have been
constructed within dimensional tolerances prescribed by the Bryan & College station
Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines and in accordance with the approved construction
plans or amendments thereto approved by the City of College Station."
(affix seal) Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Texas No. ___ _
"I certify that the subdivision improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and
that said improvements are substantially as shown hereon. I further certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any,
are stated correctly hereon."
General Contractor
;
ors to review Red -lined Record Drawings, upon acceptable confirmation of drawings,
· spector to:
o file one set of Record Drawings in Public Works files, and
o forward one set of Record Drawings to Jeffery Speed (CSU)
-~ should forward Letters of Completion to the development review engineer that
reviewed and stamped the construction plans after confirming:
o the date on the Letter of Completion Warranty should reflect the date when all associated
punchlist items are completed, and
o the Owner is shall be listed as the one affirming the one-year warranty
-~review engineer to:
o Add Dev Permit Number to Letter of Complet ion
o stamp the Letter of Completion to confirm by initialing that the final plat is fil ed (or myla r
is ready to be filed), all necessary easements (including offsite) have been filed, and
blanket easement issues are resolved, and
o in itial and route the Final Plat mylar for filing. (Note if the developer provided surety the
~may have been filed ahead of construction.)
~orah Grace-Rosier {Planning) to file the Final Plat utilizes a coversheet to con fi rm:
o infrastructure is accepted by Letter of Completion -or-Surety is provided and acceptable,
o signed and notarized mylar of final plat,
o pa r kland dedication has been paid ,
o digital file of final plat is provided,
o a current paid tax certificate has been submitted,
o sidewalk fee in lieu paid (if applicable), and
~revi~w engineer, upon the filing of Final Plat, stamp the Letter of Completion
with the new stamp and verify-initial-n/a the Final Plat was filed, offsite easements have been
filed, we have all necessary easements, etc -and then forward the Letter of Completion to Alan
Gibbs (City Engineer) for final signature.
Carol (Sr. Asst. City Engineer) to:
o enter the engineer's estimate and Letter of Completion date into Inspection List
o forward hard original of finalized Letter of Completion to Mandi Alford (P&DS).
Mandi to: verify
o signatures on the Letter of Completion,
o forward scanned copy of Letter of Completion and associated Engineers Estimate to the
owner, developer, contractor, Te r ry Boriskie (Bu ilding), Ben McCarty (Bu ilding), Christy
Jurney (Accounting), Jeffery Speed (CSU), Stephen Maldonado Sr. (CSU), Charles "Butch "
Willis (CSU), carol Cotter (Engineering), Alan Gibbs (Engineering) and Deborah Grace -
Rosier (Planning). Christy Jurney will forward to Diane Broadhurst (CSU) after her review .
o if don 't have email addresses, mail copies to the owner and contractor, and
o place the original in Development Permit file.
Deborah to place a hard copy of the Letter of Completion in the associated Planning Final Plat file .
-........... .,....._._...., _______ ~c~:rTY or C or.1r.c;E STATlON _______ ...,....------...-
Home of1i!xas A&M U11ivmity•
D ATE: 11 /9 /201 1
TO: Dusty Phillip s, Owner/D eveloper
FROM: I srael Koite, City Engineering Inspector
RE: Checklist for Final Inspection for : Cas tlegate II -Section 200
The follo wing items need to be repaired or replaced before a Letter of Completion on the ab ove-mentioned
projec t wo uld b e issued.
1. Re-bac-t test the waterline
2. Connect to existing waterline at Victoria and W.S. Phillips after the bac-t
test but before the fire flow test has been accomplished
3. Request initial inspection from CS Utilities
4 . Request fire flow test
5. Install striping according to plans on Victoria and W.S . Phillips
6. Repair temporary turnarounds and re-coat with seal coat
7. Complete sidewalk construction along north side of WS Phillips Pkwy
8. Clean out existing outlet dissipaters and swell to existing downstream
pond
9. Clean and reset all inlet erosion protection
10. Seed and establish 70% vegetation coverage or install rolled degradable
socks with seeds, which are acceptable in lieu of achieving 70%
vegetation coverage now, for general disturbed areas
11. Provide topographic survey to verify volume of detention pond
12 . Submit two sets of signed sealed as-built drawings, as well as any
applicable updated reports
13 . Submit executed blanket utility easement
I Contractor I I C ity I
A
J2{(
bl-u
~ ~
-*
Note: Pu nch list is be ing provided to aid in the acceptance process, however ultimate acceptance is based on compliance with all
BCS Guidelines, Details and Specifications. Punch list is subject to change if and when other issues arise that require correct ion.
Planning & D evelo pment Services
PO Box 9960, College Station, Texas 77 840 • 979 .764.3570 • www.cstx .gov
Sewer System Report
for
Castlegate II Subdivision
College Station, Texas
February 2011
Prepared By:
Phillips Engineering
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
(979) 690-3141
TPBE FIRM #13130
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Castlegate II Subdivision is a 202-acre residential subdivision being developed immediately
southwest of the existing Castlegate Subdivision in College Station. The recently approved
Preliminary Plat shows a total of 629 lots in the whole development. The first phase will be
Section 200 , which is located adjacent to Castlegate Section 7 at the terminus of Victoria Avenue
and will contain 47 lots.
The construction of Section 200 will include the extension of the ex1stmg 12 " sewer line in
Castlegate and the installation of some of the trunk lines that will carry wastewater flows from
many future phases. As a result, it is critical that these lines be designed to accommodate all
anticipated flows from the subdivision . The analysis that follows reviews all lines in the 202 acre
subdivision to determine their ability to function properly under fully developed conditions .
The tract of land that comprises this subdivision lies across a drainage divide that cannot be crossed
using gravity lines. As a result, a lift station is being planned in a later phase of the de velopment.
The force main from this development will empty into one of the trunk lines that serves much of
the rest of the development. On the spreadsheet shown in Exhibit B, the force main is shown as a
12 " gravity line for computational purposes.
Design Criteria:
Primary S ew er Ou tfall: 12 " sewer line at existing terminus of Victoria Avenue
Domestic Demand:
A vg . Pop D ensity:
A verage Flo w :
P eaking Fac tor:
Pipe:
Applic able Exhibits:
Conclusion:
2.67 people per lot
100 gpd/cap or 267 gpd per lot
4
PVC D3034 SDR 26
Exhibit A -Overall Sewer System Layout
Exhibit B -Sanitary Sewer Analysis Spreadsheet
The sewer system shown in Exhibit A has been laid out using the criteria in the Bryan/College
Station Design Guidelines . It is analyzed assuming peak flow conditions when the subdivision is
fully developed .. The spreadsheet in Exhibit B shows all lines depicted in Exhibit A to be capable
of carrying of the flows that come to them under these conditions . This analysis will be used as
the basis for all subsequent sewer line designs in the subdivision. The system will function as
intended as long as the line sizes and slopes are equal to or greater than those shown herein . It
should be noted that any significant additional flow from off-site sources will likely exceed the
capacity of several lines, so careful study is advised of any changes to the contributing area .
Sewer System Report
for
Castlegate II Subdivision
College Station, Texas
Original Report -Section 200 -February 2011
Section 201 -December 2011
Section 202 -June 2012
Prepared by Phillips Engineering
Section 100 -November 2012
Prepared Bv:
SCHULTZ ENGINEERING, LLC.
TBPE Firm Registration No. 12327
2730 Longmire, Suite A
College Station, Texas 77845
979.764.3900
SCHULTZ ENGINEERING, LLC.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Castlegate II Subdivision is a 202-acre residential subdivision being developed immediately
southwest of the existing Castlegate Subdivision in College Station. The approved Preliminary Plat
shows a total of 645 lots in the whole development. Sections 200, 201 and 202 have been
completed or are under construction. Section 100 is unchanged from the Preliminary Plat and will
add 41 new lots.
The tract of land that comprises this subdivision lies across a drainage divide that cannot be crossed
using gravity lines . As a result, a lift station is being planned in a later phase of the development.
The force main from this development will empty into one of the trunk lines that serve much of the
rest of the development. On the spreadsheet shown in Exhibit B, the force main is shown as a 12"
gravity line for computational purposes.
Design Criteria:
Primary Sewer Outfall: Section 100 -12" sewer line at existing terminus of Norwich Drive
Domestic Demand:
Avg. Pop Density:
Average Flow:
Peaking Factor:
Pipe:
Applicable Exhibits:
Conclusion:
2.67 people per lot
100 gpd/cap or 267 gpd per lot
4
PVC D3034 SDR 26
Exhibit A -Overall Sewer System Layout
Exhibit B -Section 100 Sewer System Layout
Exhibit C -Sanitary Sewer Analysis Spreadsheet
The sewer system shown in Exhibit A has been laid out using the criteria in the Bryan/College
Station Design Guidelines and TCEQ. It is analyzed assuming peak flow conditions when the
subdivision is fully developed. The spreadsheet in Exhibit B shows all lines depicted in Exhibit A
to be capable of carrying the flows that come to them under these conditions. This analysis will be
used as the basis for all subsequent sewer line designs in the subdivision. The system will
function as intended as long as the line sizes and slopes are equal to or greater than those shown
herein. It should be noted that any significant additional flow from off-site sources will likely
exceed the capacity of several lines, so careful study is advised of any changes to the contributing
area.
2
EXHIBIT A
OVERALL SEWER SYSTEM LAYOUT
RESPONSE TO
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
~se submit bonding documents related to the City Participation Agreement.
The bonding documents are included with this submittal.
~se pay outstanding development permit fee of $11,930.41 ~ outstanding fee will be paid when we pick up the approved plans and Development Permit.
se sign and return easement dedication documents as soon as you receive them, this must
be accomplished before CSU Electric can pull wire.
At the time of this submittal, the easement dedication documents are still being processed by the
COCS Legal Department. They will be signed and returned as soon as they are received.
~ase provide documentation and certification concerning permitting through the United States ~rp of Engineers.
A copy of the Pre-Construction Notification was included with the previous submittal. Since that
time, we have attempted to contact the USACE for their input but have been unsuccessful in
reaching them yet. A note has been added to the plans stating that no work shall be undertaken
in or around the existing channel or the small wetland area identified in the report. The
documentation and certification will be f01warded as soon as it is received.
A''\Please provide correspondence with the pipeline company.
V A copy of the e-mail correspondence is included with this submittal. It merely states that they
have received our plans and will review them soon. At the time of this submittal, no comments
have been received.
/c'sheet 4) Victoria mis-labeled as 48' B-B.
The labeled was changed to 38' 8-8.
~ease place a note on the plans that the developer's contractor will terminate water services
with a ball valve.
A label was added to the waterline plans stating, "The contractor shall terminate the water
services with a ball valve. "
~ase provide street signage detail and layout, as well as block numbers tables:
a. Please add W S Phillips Pkwy @ Victoria Ave 4200 blk
b. Please add Odell Ln @ W S Phillips Pkwy 4400 blk
The block number table was updated. The detail provided to us by the Oty is included in the
plans.
Aase provide most recent modifications based on the United States Postal Service comments.
The location and specs of the USPS mailbox pad has been added on Sheet 4.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Project: CASTLEGATE II SEC 200 (FP) -11 -00500037
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 (Final Plat and Construction Documents)
~ase pay outstand ing development permit fee of $11,434.07 . ~ed. The outstanding fee will be paid prior to the issuance of the Development Permit.
~he Oversized Participation Request is currently being processed , I hope to
have it to legal for review by April 12th and on the April 281
h Council Agenda for
approval.
Noted a the intent is to submit a blanket easement, please submit easement dedication
pplication .
'he easement documents have been submitted for consideration with the Final Plat.
P ease submit letter of acknowledgement.
The Letter of Acknowledgement is included with this sub mittal.
~se provide documentation and certification concerning perm itting through
~r~United States Corp of Engineers . If this project falls under a Nationwide
Permit please specify which perm it and how you are meeting its specific
thresholds. In addition please identify if th is project requires notification or
further United States Corp of Engineers involvement.
A Pre-Construction Notification has been forwarded to the USA CE indicating that the
project falls under NWP #29 (Residential Developments). This permit allows up to 0.5
acres of fill in Waters of the US. A study prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental
co ncluded that 0.25 acres are being filled under our current plan. The permit also
sta tes that a maximum of 300 If of stream can be impacted, but that requirement can be
wa ived by the Administrator for ephemeral or intermittent streams. This project exceeds
300 feet, so we are requesting that requirement be wa ived. We are awaiting a response
from their office. A copy of the PCN is included with this submittal.
~ase provide documentation concerning authority to perform the proposed off-
site drainage improvements on the existing Castlegate Common Area.
A letter concern ing authority to perform the proposed off-site drainage improvements is
included with this submittal.
~ome sheets illustrate the needed striping and others do not, please provide a
stand-alone striping plan sheet.
A new sheet has been added to the plan set showing the striping, signage and lighting
details.
~~ase provide a single sheet striping plan, similar to details found on Sheet 7.
A new sheet has been . added to the plan set s howing the striping, signage and lighting
details.
~eet 2) Typo on "Existing Outlet Structure Note " reference to Sheet 8 not
Sheet 9?
The note has been corrected.
~heet 2) Please provide language from the fire department for specific loading
capacity of the proposed Temporary Emergency Access Road .
A note has been added.
As;eet 3) Please specify reinforced concrete box culvert design standard ASTM
C-789 or ASTM C-850.
The two ASTM standards are no longer used. They have been replaced by C-1433 which
has two classifications fo r box cu lverts depending on th e depth. A note requiring
comp liance with this standard has been added.
~eet 3) Is the intent for the 10 foot sidewalk to be built right up to the rear
fences of Lots 1 thru 12 of Block 2?
Yes, that is the intent.
~t 3) Victoria mis-labeled as 48 ' B-B.
The note has been corrected .
. (Storm Pipe) RCP is required under public pavement. Where storm sewer is not
under pavement, HOPE with cement stabilized sand as in the structural trench
requirements per detail 03-02 is always utilized is the minimum acceptable .
Note that design engineers are to specifically design and seal the HOPE detail
specific to each set of plans and site. In general we requ ire structural trenching
within 5 ft of public back of curbs or under public sidewalks . HOPE is acceptable
under sidewalks and if the pipe is completely behind the curb.
All pipes that li e under a road are now labe led as RCP. The area around the corner of
Toddi ngton and Ode ll was revised such that the junction boxes are outside of the
roadway, and consequently, we are now ab le to use HDPE pipes in this area.
Additionally, we have added trenching details fo r HPDE pipes.
h orm Pipe) In several locations the storm pipe and water mains are run parallel
in cross proximity of each other. Please provide additional clearance for means
of future access and maintenance . This may require a narrow easement
dedication in the fronts of these lots .
Along Toddington Lane, Hadleigh L ane, and WS. Phillips P arkway, the water lines were
relocated and easements widened to allow for easier maintenance of the respective
mains in addition to the storm sewer.
~et 12) Storm Pipe 231 , structural trenching required within 5 feet of
pavement.
Structural trenching is now included for Storm P ipe 231
~eet 13) Storm Pipe 212 , structural trenching required within 5 feet of
pavement.
Structural trenching is now included for Storm Pipe 212.
~~et 1_4) Please identify s~eel casing in plan view , verifying that the steel
casing will spans the future build-out of WS Phillips Pkwy.
The steel casing was lengthened slightly to ensu re that it will span the future build out of
WS. P hillips Parkway.
h eel 14) Steel casing for 8 inch main should be 16 inch not 14 inch.
16" steel casing was used in lieu of 14" in all places where casing is needed for an 8 "
water line (see W-1, W-2, & W-3).
h heet 14) Please note end caps on both steel encasements.
In all places that a steel casing was used the use of end caps was noted.
~t 15) Please encase the water main as Victoria is classified as a major
collector.
The water line crossing Victoria has been encased as re quested. A lso, the re-design of
the intersection of this water line (W-2) with W-1 may be noted as a resu lt of the
placement of this casing and the requirements of comme nt # 1 6.
~eet 15) Valve missing between Sta. 0+00 and Sta . 9+43 .
A va lve was added at station 3+63.27 of wate r line W-2 .
~eet 15) Sta. 8+50 , check water and sanitary sewer conflict alignment.
No co ict occurs .
. (Sheet 17) Valve missing between Sta . 0+00 and Sta. 9+69 .
A va lve was added at station 4+00 of water li ne W-6 .
~et 18) Valve missing between Sta. 0+00 and Sta. 8+84 .
A va lve was added at station 5+00 of water line W-7.
A heet 19) The steel casing diameter for an 8 inch main is 16 inches and please
note the use of end caps .
The casing has been modified to l 6in and the use of end caps has been noted.
,_;{(sheet 21) In areas where the sanitary sewer main exceeds 14 feet in depth
additional easemen t should be dedicated in order to allow for 15 feet of either
right of way or easement on either side of the sanitary sewer main .
A twenty foot easement was added to provide sufficient space when combined with the
rema inder of the right of way for maintenance of the sanitary sewer line S-4. This sewer
line was re-aligned to be in the center of this available space.
~eet 22) Please note use of end caps on proposed steel casing.
The use of end caps has been noted.
~ase verify and place a note on the plans that no sanitary sewer service will be
left more than 3.5 feet deep at the point of terminus by developer's contractor.
Note #9 was added to the sanitary sewer plans concerning the depth of cleanouts at the
terminus of sa nitary sewer services.
31 . Please verify and place note on plans that water services will be left between 2
and 3 · · veloper 's contractor . Also note that
32 . (Fire Flow) Please provide Water System Analysis included the oversized
infrastructure as well.
The Water System Ana lysis has been modified to include the oversized lines being
proposed with this project. A revised copy is included with this submittal.
A'e Flow) Additional hydrants are needed ; there are residential lots that are
greater than 500 feet from any given hydrant.
Fire hydrant assemb ly #1 on water line W-2 was relocated to provide coverage to lots in
ques tion .
~ease provide street signage detail and ~ut , as well as block numbers tables : v· 'It a . Hadleigh Ln @ Odell Ln 4300 ~
b. Toddington Ln @ Odell Ln 4300..,....-
c . Hadleigh Ln @ Uphor Dr is 4400
d . Toddington Ln@ Uphor Dr is 4400
A street signage p lan was created and added the construction documents , and it includes
the necessary signage details.
~~ease provide your street light plan with construction documents ~-:
1
:treet light plan was created and added to the construction documents .
contact Frank Borroni with the United States Postal Service
ank.e .borroni@usps .gov ; 979-693-4152) to discuss mailbox locations and
please provide the City with these correspondences .
We have provided a copy of the proposed p lat to Mr. B arroni and asked for his input on
locations of mailboxes. The initia l e-mail was sent March 30, 2011. Following rep eated
telephone calls and e-mails, we have not rece ived any co mments and are still awaiting
his response. Pad locations for USPS mailboxes can be added at any point in the future
so it is not imperative that they be s hown on the construction drawings.
~ -The subject tract is located w ithin the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact
Fee Area ($98.39/LUE).
Noted.
~ For future phases Victoria and Etonbury are both classified as major
collectors and will require pavement design , as presented w ith WS Phillips Pkwy.
Noted.
~dit i on to the following standard comments , if more than 5 acres will be
disturbed during construction of this project a NOi must be filed with the state
and a copy provided to the CoCS . Storm water management requirements are
as follows , any questions may be directed to Donnie Willis , CoCS Drainage
Inspector, at 979-764-6375:
Noted.
Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities
The Texas Comm ission on Environmental Quality has issued a general perm it for
construction act ivities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elim ination System . The
general permit (TXR150000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less
than 5 acres or is part of a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less
than 5 acres.
You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site
to the City of College Station 's Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4):
1. Read the general permit {TXR150000) to make sure it applies to your situation.
2 . Adhere to the requirements of the general permit (TXR150000).
3 . Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance
with Part Ill of the general permit {TXR150000).
4 . Sign and post a construction site notice .
5 . At least 2 days before beginning construction , provide a copy of the site notice to
the operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into
which storm water will be discharged .
A MS4s include streets , channels , gutters , ditches or anything else that is publicly
owned , designed or used to collect or transport storm water.
As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to
discharge storm water.
No notice of intent (NOi), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required under this
option-as long as the requirements of this general permit are followed.
This particular general perm it will expire at midnight on March 5 , 2013 .
A copy of General Permit TXR150000 can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq .state .tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterqual ity/attachments/stormwater/txr150000.p
df
A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www. tceq .state . tx. us/assets/public/perm itting/waterq uality/attachments/stormwater/txr152d2 . pdf
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 (Drainage Report)
~ated in your report you are proposing to utilize the additional capacity available in
the downstream "Tower Po int" detention facility during the 2-yr through 50-yr storm
events , while the project will be detaining for the 100-yr event on-site. Are there any
concerns related to additional erosion created from the added intensity of the more
frequent and smaller storm events (2-yr through 50-yr storm).
While it is not shown in the Drainage Report, we modeled the post-development conditions for
the 2, 10, 25 & 50 yr events in our HEC-HMS model and found that the downstream peak
flowrates are all reduced from pre-development conditions. Thus, we do not expect additional
adverse effects from erosion caused by the jlowrates in these smaller events.
2 . Please provide an exhibit illustrating the study points discussed in Exhibits F & G .
Study point locations have been added to the Post D eve lopm ent Drainage Area Map on Exhibit
B . A revised copy of th e Drainage Report is included with this submitta l.
Piease confirm that none of the existing lots/structures in Castlegate I will be affected by
the proposed change in the 100-yr (Blocked) water surface elevation from the
Castlegate 1 -Modified Pond.
The 100-yr blocked water surface elevation for the modified pond in Castlegate 1 is 309.8 feet.
This elevation contour falls within the Common Area around the existing pond. It is below the
_;:;;md elevation of the adjoining lots.
"-"(Sheet 2) Please confirm the proposed top of berm elevation of 310.5 adjacent to the
existing section of Victoria Avenue .
As indicated in #3 above, the blocked WSEL in this pond is 309.8 feet. The low point on the
perimeter of the detentio n is 310. 0 at the sidewalk and inlet on Victoria Avenue near th e Camber
Court intersection. This pond was not built under the current design guidelines requiring an
analysis of the blocked water surface elevation, so it can be expected that the perimeter elevation
would be somewhat less than current requirements wou ld dictate. Ho wever, even under the
extrem e condition involving a blocked outfall, the pond will still function as desired.
Modifications to the grading plan have been made near the Castlegate Drive/Victoria Avenue
Intersection to increase the perimeter elevation in that location , but changes at the inlet/sidewalk
location on Victoria are more difficult, and provide little or no benefit for mitigating flood
damages. In the unlikely event that the WSEL in the pond exceeds the blocked conditions level,
water wou ld simply spill out into Victoria Avenue, run down the curb, and flow into the same
natural drainage channel without harming any surrounding hom es or property. In effect, this lo w
~serves as a secondary spillway if the primary spillway fails completely.
~(Sheet 2) Proposed flume is labeled as sidewalk?
This lab el was incorrect. It now reads "6' Concrete Flume"
A:sheet 2) The modified outlet structure detail is on Sheet 9 not Sheet 8?
The modified outlet structure detail is now located on sheet 11.
4'eet 3) Could the 10 foot wide sidewalk elevation be adjusted from Sta . 22+00 to Sta.
25+00 to a minimum of 314.70 in order to keep the 100-yr "Castlegate 2 -North Pond
Blocked Outlet" water surface elevation from sp illing into WS Phillips Parkway . It looks
to be less than a 1 foot elevation change in all areas and does not appear to have any
effect on the proposed design grade of the future section of WS Phillips Parkway .
The sidewalk was raised in this area such that the minimum elevation is about 314. 70
/<sheet 10) Pipe ID for Storm Pipe #140 differs from plan and profile.
The Pip e IDs now match on the plan and profile.
9. (Exhibit L - 1 Oyr & 1 OOyr) Please verify that your exhibit elevation match the
construction document plan/profile elevations , several appear to differ.
There were severa l pipe elevations that did not match. Additional changes were made to the
sto rm sewer model that resulted in elevation changes to many of the sto rm pipes, including some
not included in th e questions within the City's comments. The pipe elevations shown on the
cons tru ction plans now reflect what is shown in the drainage report exhibits . All pipes are sized
sufficiently and have available capacity, and keep the co rresponding HGL s within the elevations
specified in the Drainage D esign Guidelines .
10 . (Exhibit L - 1 Oyr) Please revise Rim Elevation Upstream for Pipe ID #230 .
See response #9.
11 . (Exhibit L -10 yr) The HGL appears to exceed the Rim Elevation downstream for Pipe
ID #232.
After making revisio ns to our storm sewer model, all H G Ls stay be low the rim elevatio ns for the
10 year storm event. In addition, the HGL does not exceed the R . 0. W elevation in the 100 year
storm event.
12 . (Exhibit L - 1 Oyr) Please confirm total flow and available capacity data provided for Pipe
ID #140 .
See response #9 .
13 . (Exhibit L -100 yr) Pipe ID #160 , please check HGL downstream data.
See response #9.
14. (Exhibit L-100 yr) Pipe ID #150, please check Total Flow data .
See response #9 .
15. (Exhibit L -100 yr) Pipe ID #140, please check Capacity data .
See response #9.
16 . (Exhibit L -100 yr) Please check HGL and Rim Elevation upstream and downstream
data for Pipe ID #211 , 212 , 213, 220 , 221 , 230 , 231 & 232 .
See response #9.
17 . (Exhibit L - 1 OOyr) In the areas where the HGL is exceeding the Rim Elevation is the
water surface elevation staying within the right of way? It appears that some of the
proposed HGL encroach into your proposed residential lots .
See response #9 .
~ng a 100-yr event Pond 1 will back up into Pond 2 and Pond 2 will back up into the
proposed storm sewer system; did you perform a backwater analysis using the tailwater
conditions to verify the system will function properly once the system is inundated by the
subject storm event?
The wording in this comment is not clear. The storm drain system for this subdivision is
designed to convey stormwater from a 10-yr event. During a 100-yr event, the entire system will
cease to "fu nctio n properly" and water will be flowing overland. The storm drain system has
been modeled assuming a tail water effect at the outfa ll in the 100 -yr event, and the HGL 's
remain inside of the right-of-way li nes as required.
~ring the 100-yr event "blocked outlet condition " there appears to be very little future
buildable area available on Block 7, Lot 1, A-0 tract, please address .
According to the Drainage R eport, the WSEL under blocked conditio ns will be 314. 7 feet. The
Fina l Plat calls for a minimum finished floor elevation of 316. 0, which means that fill will be
imported as needed to bu ild on this lot. Since much of the lot fa lls outside of the FEMA
floodplain limits as delineated in the Spring Creek LOMR , it can be raised as much as desired by
the owners.
A sed on the height of the outlet structures proposed and being modified, please verify
t hat these structures do not fall under the TCEQ Dam Safety Program regulations
(TCEQ Chapter 299).
According to the TCEQ Dam Safety Laws, the definition of a dam is
"any ba rrier, including one for flood detention, design ed to impound
liquid vo lumes and which has a height of dam greater than six feet. This
does not include high way, railroad or other roadway embankments,
including low water crossing that may temporarily detain floodwater,
levees designed to prevent inundation by floodwater, closed dikes
designed to temporarily impound liquids in the event of emergencies, or
off-channel impoundments authorized by the commission in accordance
with Texas Water Code, Chapter 26, or the Texas Solid Waste Disposal
Act, Texas Civil Statutes Article 4477-7."
In our case, the embankment of WS Phillips Parkway is les s than 6 feet when measured from the
flow lin e of cha nn e l to the low point on the street (5 . 5 7 feet). Due to its height and the fact that it
is a road embankment, it does not fall under the TCEQ definition of a dam.
The outlet structure serving the existing Castlegate pond measures only 4 feet from the top of
berm to the flow line of the outlet. It too, is built up as part of the roadway embankment for
Castlegate Drive and thus does not qualifj; as a dam.
..
CITY OF CoUEGE STATION
Home o/Ttxas A&M Univmiry•
FINAL PLAT APP LI CATION
TIME :
STAFF:
(Check one) D Minor
($700)
D Amending
($700)
~Final
($932)
D Vacating
($932)
0Replat
($932)
Is this plat in the ET J? D Yes ~ No Is this plat Commercial D or Residential [g]
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
[g] $700-$932 Final Plat Application Fee (see above).
D $233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable).
[g] $600 (minimum) Development Permit Application I Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee . Fee is
1 % of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastruCture , $600 minimum (if fee is > $600 , the balance is
due prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit).
[g] Application completed in ful l. This application fo rm provided by the City of College Station must be used and
may not be adjusted or altered . Please attach pages if additional information is provided .
[g] Fourteen (14) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be subm itted after approval.)
[g] Two (2) copies of the grading , drainage , and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report .
[g] Two (2) copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents (if applicable).
D Copy of original deed restrict ions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
[g] T itle report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate
current within ninety (90) days . The report must include applicable information such as ownership , liens ,
encumbrances , etc .
[g] Paid tax certificates from City of College Station , Brazos County and College Station l.S .D .
[g] The attached Final Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
NOTE: A mylar of the approved preliminary plan must be on file before a final plat application will be considered
complete . If the mylar is submitted with the final plat application , it shall be considered a submittal for the
preliminary plan project and processed and reviewed as such . Until the mylar has been confirmed by staff
to be correct , the final plat application will be considered incomplete .
Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference
NAME OF PROJECT Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
ADDRESS
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT :
At terminus of Victoria Avenue in Castlegate; adjacent to Castlegate Section 7
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name Wallace Phillips E-mail wallace .phillips@ verizon .net
Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive
City College Station State Te xas Zip Code 77845 ------
Phone Number 979 -690-7250 Fax Number 979-690-1041
---------------~
1/11 Page 1 of 9
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified . Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name 3-D Development, LLC E-mail
Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive
City College Station State Te x as Zip Code _7_78_4_5 ____ _
Phone Number 979-690-7250 Fax Number 979-690-1041 -----------------
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION :
Name Kent Laza E-mail klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs .com
Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive
City College Station State Te x as Zip Code 77845 -------
Phone Number 979-690-3141 Fax Number 979-690-1041
----------------~
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? D Yes D No
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume ____ and Page No. __ _
Total No . of Lots 47 R-0-W Acreage 4.4 acres --------Total Acreage 27.1694 acres ------
Existing Use _a_gr._ic_u_lt_u_ra_I __________ _ Proposed Use single family residential
Number of Lots By Zoning District 47 R-1
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
0 .25 R-1
Floodplain Acreage 6.3 acres ------------------------------------
Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? fX Yes
This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to
help determine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance . Notwithstanding any assertion made ,
vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law.
Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the
application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable?
fX Yes
I No
If yes , prov ide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide
additional sheets if necessary):
Project Name : Preliminary Plat for Castlegate II
City Project Number (in known):
Date I Timeframe when submitted : January 20 , 2011 approval by P&Z
1/1 1 Pag e 2 of 9
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and Preliminary Plan (if applicable):
Requested waiver to subdivision regulations and reason for same (if applicable):
Regarding the waiver request, explain how:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the
subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health , safety , or welfare , or injurious to other
property in the area , or to the City in administering subdivision regulations .
4 . The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in
accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance .
Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable):
1. I An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way ;
2. I The presence of unique or unusual topographic , vegetative , or other natural conditions exist so that strict
adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the
purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan;
3. I A capital improvement project is imminent that will i nclude construction of the required sidewalk . Imminent shall
mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months ;
4. I Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate I
rural context ;
5. I When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle , Pedestrian , and
Greenways Master Plan ;
1/11 Page 3 of 9
6. I The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and
Replatting w ithin Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO ; or
7 . I The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6 .6 ,
Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification , in the City's Comprehensive Plan .
Detailed explanation of condition identified above :
NOTE : A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the
same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission .
Requested Oversize Participation 8" to 12" water line and related appurtenances -$23, 863
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
3230 Street~
3375 Sidewalks
3785 Sanitary Sewer Lines
4367 Water Lines
Channels
2225 Storm Sewers
680 Bike Lanes I Paths
Park land Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE :
1.837 No . of acres to be dedicated+$
__ o __ No. of acres in floodplain
__ o __ No . of acres in detention
__ o __ No . of acres in greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND :
86,574 development fee
__ No . of SF Dwelling Units X $ = $ ---------
(date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Adv isory Board ----
NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING.
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are
true , correct, and complete . IF THIS APPL/CATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more
than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application
must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN
HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as
described above .
-3-/-/)
Signature and title Date
1/1 1 Page 4 of 9
CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT
Owner Certification:
1. No work of any kind may start until a permit is issued .
2 . The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein .
3. If revoked, all work must cease until permit is re-issued .
4 . Development shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued .
5. The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance.
6 . Other permits may be required to fulfill local , state , and federal requirements . Owner will obtain or show
compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits prior to construction including NOi and SWPPP .
7. If required, Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre -
pour) and post construction .
8. Owner hereby gives consent to City representatives to make reasonable inspections required to verify
compliance .
9. If, stormwater mitigation is required , including detention ponds proposed as part of this project, it shall be
designed and constructed first in the construction sequence of the project.
10 . In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station , measures shall be taken
to insure that all debris from construction , erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or
existing drainage facilities . All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to
and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the
City of College Station shall apply.
11 . The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents will comply with the
current requirements of the City of College Station , Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified
Design Guidelines Technical Specifications , and Standard Details . All development has been designed in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal
Regulations .
12 . Release of plans to (name or firm) is authorized for bidding purposes
only . I understand that final approval and release of plans and development for construction is contingent on
contractor signature on approved Development Permit.
13. I, THE OWNER , AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN , AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION , ARE , TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE , TRUE , AND
ACCURATE .
~~u£tfl4i/~.1' ------>-=r3~~~~~1/~~~~
Property Owner(s) Date
Engineer Certification:
1/11
1. The project has been designed to ensure that stormwater mitigation , including detention ponds , proposed as part
of the project will be constructed first in the construction sequence .
2. I will obtain or can show compliance with all necessary Local , State and Federal Perm its prior to construction
including NOi and SWPPP . Design will not preclude compliance with TPDES : i.e ., projects over 10 acres may
require a sedimentation basin .
3 . The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents comply with the
current requirements of the City of College Station , Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Un ifi ed
Design Guidelines. All development has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances
of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations .
4 . I , THE ENGINEER , AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN , AND IN ATTACHMENTS
FOR THE EVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, ARE , TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE , TRUE , AND
ACCU E.
T13f £ ti. 6S-'t 2.3 Date
Page 5 of9
The following CERTIFICATIONS apply to development in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, Fill/ Grading Permits, and Clearing Only
Permits:*
A. I, ---+~......,..e~n~+~~L~a~Z.......,'f ____ _ cert ify , as demonstrated in the attached drainage study , that the
alterat ions or development covered by this perm it , shall not:
(i) increase the Base Flood elevation ;
(i i) create add it ional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area ;
(ii i) decrease the conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is not in the floodway
and where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second . This area can
also be approximated to be either areas within 100 feet of the boundary of the regu latory floodway or
areas where the depth of from the BFE to natural ground is 18 inches or greater;
(iv) reduce the Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is beyond
the floodway and conveyance area where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than
one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth in the City of College Station Code of
Ord inances , Chapter 13 concerning encroachment into the Special Flood Hazard Area ; nor
(v) increase Base Flood velocities .
beyo nd t ose areas exempted by ordinance in Sect ion 5.11 .3a of Chapter 13 Code of Ordinances .
Engine er Date
Init ial
D * If a platting-status exemption to this requ irement is asserted , prov ide written j ustification under sepa rate
letter in lieu of certification .
~e~uired for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, and Fill/ Grading Permits:
B. I, , cert ify to the following :
(i) that any nonresidential or multi-family structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of th is application is
des igned to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm .
Engineer Date
Additional certification for Floodway Encroachments: tJ A
C. I, , certify that the construction , improvement , or fill covered by this
perm it shall not increase the base flood elevation . I will apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Ad j ustments .
Engineer Date
1/1 1 Pa ge 6 of9
. .
Required for all projects proposing structures in Special Flood Hazard Area (Elevation Certificate
required).
Residential Structures:
D. I, Kent Laza , cert ify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor , including all utilities , ductwork and any basement , at an
elevation at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation . Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with
elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction .
Eng ~~e~ -Da-te--3 -+/_i_,/,_/~/ _________ _
Commercial Structures: fV fl
E . I, , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any commercial , industrial , or other non-residential structure are designed to have the lowest floor , including all
utilities , ductwork and basements , elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation
Engineer I Surveyor Date
OR
I, , certify that the structure with its attendant utility, ductwork ,
basement and sanitary facilities is designed to be flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities, ductwork ,
basement and sanitary facilities are designed to be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all
areas below the Base Flood Elevation , and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions .
Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-
pour) and post construction .
Engineer I Surveyor Date
Conditions or comments as part of approval:
1/11 Page 7 of 9
Oct. 18. 2011 6:23PM NL! NE
-· ..... ··-· •••••
TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE
HUB NO. 69106
DBE NO. 06397
PROPOSAL
CASllEGATE II SUBDIVISION-SECTION 200, COLLEGE STATION. TX.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Description
Preformed thermoplasllc furn arrow white
Preformed fhermoplostlc only wh ile
Exlrudod lhertnoplostic 4" double yellow solid
Extruded thermoplastic 8" while solid
Exlruded lhermoplostic J2P white solid
Extruded thermoplastic 24" while solid
No. 32 04 P. 2
PROPOSAL NO.
1 t-10-011-B
DATE: October 18, 201 1
WORK TO BE PERFORMED llY:
N·LINE Traffic Molntenance
2620 Clarks Lane
Bryan, TX 77808
Phone: 979· 778-9999
Fax: 979-778-0121
c )-.)
5_sJo. "U
~ s
Quantity Price Unit Total
2 $155 .00 EA $310 ,00
2 $250.00 EA $500.00
810 $2 .60 LF $2.106 .00
235 $3 .50 LF $822 .50
220 $5 .50 LF $1.210.00
60 $9 .50 LF $570 .00
• Excludes surtace cleaning of her than minimal power blowing prior tp marking.
• Bid based on 1 move ln(s). Additional@ $800.00 trip charge.
• Bid based on Plan Sheet #7.
• Includes 2 -ONLY's and 2 • 8" turn lane divider lines not shown on plans but required by MUTCD.
• Excludes raised pavement markers , none shown on plans.
• Excludes 2 Turn Arrow's not required by MUTCD.
WE PROPOSE hereby to rurnlsh material and labor In accordance wllh the above speclllcallons for the sum or:
Five thousand five hundred eighteen dollars and 50/100 +TAX@ .0825%
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, speclllcations, and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You ore authorized
to do the work outlined above. Payment wlll be made as outllned above.
Customer Signature: --------------Date: ____ _
1Austin Bryan Waco
Oct. 20. 2011 4:54 PM NLI NE
-· ..... ··-· •.. ,..
TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE
HUB NO. 69106
DBE NO. 06397
PROPOSAL
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION -SECTION 200, COLLEGE STATION. TX.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
De!crfpllon
Preformed lhermoplastic !urn arrow while
Preformed thermoplastic only while
Palnl 4" double yellow solid
Point 8" while solid
Poin l 12" white solid
Point 24" while solid
No. 3234 P. 1/1
PROPOSAL NO.
11-10-011-C
DATE: October 20, 2011
WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY;
N-LINE Traffic Maintenance
2620 Clarks Lane
Bryon. TX naoa ·
Phone: 919·178-9999
Fax: 979-778 ·0121
y_anll -f<~Ge--nil Total
$310.00 2 $155.00
~EA
BIQ $0.80 LF·
235 $1.05 'tF
60
$500.00
$648 .00
$246.75
$374.00
$189 .00
• Excludes surface cleaning other 1han mlnlmal power blowlng prior 1o marking.
• Bid based on 1 move ln(s), Addlllonal@ $600.00 trip eharge.
• Bid bated on Plan Sheet #7.
• Includes 2 -ONLY's and 2 • 8" turn lane divider llnes not shown on plam but required by MUTCD,
• Excludes raised pavement markers, none shown on plans.
• Excludes 2 Turn Arrow's not required by MUTCD,
WE PROPOSE hereby to lurnlsh material and labor In aeeordance wllh the above specifications for the sum of:
Two thousand, two hundred and sixly-seven and 75/100 +TAX@ .08253
This proposal may be wllh~wn by N-L!NE Traill~ Malnlenance wllhln 30 days.
N-LINE reprosenlallve: ~ 4-~•ob EUgignd Dalo: 10/20/2011 Ternu : NET 3C
WAC r .
ACCEPTANCE or PROPOSAL •
The above prices, spec:llleatlons, ond condlllons are satisractory and are hereby accepted. You are aulhorlz:ed
lo do lhe work oullined above. Payment will be made as oullined above.
Customer Slgnalure: ---------------Date: ____ _
Austin Bryan Waco
-· .•.• . ·-· .......
TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE
HUB NO. 69106
DBE NO. 06397
PROPOSAL -PHILLIPS ENGINEERING
CASTLEGATE II SUB DIVISION -SECTION 200 , CO LL EGE STAT ION , TX.
PAV EMENT MARK INGS
PROPOSAL NO .
l l -l 0-0 l 1-C
DATE : October 25, 2011
WORK TO BE PER FORMED BY :
N-LINE Traff i c Main tenance
2620 Clarks Lan e
Bryan , TX 77808
Phone: 979 -778 -9999
Fax: 979 -778 -01 2 1
Description ~ Quantity Price Un it Total
Paint Turn Arrow white {/'J 2 $70.00 EA $140 .00
Paint "ONLY" w h ite 76o /1./ 2 $120 .00 EA $240.00
Paint 4" double y ellow so lid -------810 $0.80 LF $648 .00
t ~~-;) -----Pain t 8" white so lid _-23 5 $1.05 LF $246.75
Pai nt 12" white so lid ~$1 77 0 ""l.F $374 .00
Pai n t 12" yell ow solid ~ LF $0 .00
Paint 24" white so lid 60 F $189 .00
• Excludes surface cleaning other than minimal power blowing prior to marking.
• Bid based on 1 move in(s). Additional@ $800.00 trip charge.
• Bid based on Plan Sheet #9.
• Excludes raised pavement markers, none shown on plans.
WE PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor in accordance with the above specifications for the sum of:
O n e thousand , e ight h u ndred and thirty-seven a nd 75 /100 +TAX @ .08253
This proposal may be withdr wn by N-LINE Traffic Maintenance within 30 days.
N -LINE representative: -N-~~&,,e--+£.L..J~.c-..:....:;;,,--=._,_---'="-=-'.:s!.::::..:..:..:"'Date: 10/25/2011 Terms : NET 30
WAC
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications, and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to do the work outlined above. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Customer Signature: ----------------Date: ------
Austin Bryan Waco
-· ..... I·-· •••••
TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE
HUB NO. 69106
DBE NO. 06397
PROPOSAL -CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
CASTLEGAIE II SUB DIVISION -SECTION 200. co ~ TX .
PAVE ME NT MARK INGS \ !%}7 .~
Descriptio n
Prefo rmed thermo plastic Tu rn Arrow w hi t e Ii iJ 1 o
Preformed thermoplast ic ON LY wh ite £,,'{ :> /Z,.:>
Extru d e d therm oplast ic 4" doubl e y ellow so lid ( Lff(' /6
Extr ud e d therm oplastic 8" w hite solid 1,'{lo ?f /. oJ
Extrude d thermoplastic 12" w hit e so lid )1 c-( ' -"
Extru d ed therm opl ast ic 12" y e llow solid
Extrude d therm opl ast ic 24" w hit e soli d ,~ 1. IJ
PROPOSAL NO .
11-10-011-B
DATE : October 25 , 2011
WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY :
N-LINE Traffic Maintenance
2620 Clarks Lane
Bryan , TX 77808
Phone : 979 -778-9999
Fax: 979 -778 -01 2 1
~<.)
Quanti Price Unit Total
2 l~ $85 .00 EA $170 .00
2 t-<O $130.00 EA $260 .00
8 10 1,..6 $1 .8 0 LF $1,458 .00
23 5 "]. .s $2.45 LF $575.75
(
22 0 (.c.. $3.80 LF $836 .00
~ 3§?
LF $381 .00
• Excludes surface cleaning other than minimal power blowing prior to marking .
• Bid based on 1 move in(s). Additional@ $800.00 trip charge .
• Bid based on Plan Sheet #9 .
• Excludes raised pavement markers, none shown on plans .
WE PROPOSE hereby to furnish material and labor in accordance with the above specifications for the sum of:
Four thousand , on e hundred and fort y-e ig ht dollars and 25/100 +TAX @ .0825 3
Date: 10/25/2011 Terms : NET 30
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices , specifications, and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
to do the work outlined above. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Customer Signature : ----------------Date: ------
Austin Bryan Waco
College Station Ut ilil 'ies
Reliable, Affordable, Community Owned
Date test completed Monday November 7, 2011
Time completed 10:30 A.M.
Test completed by Justin Tamplin and Floyd Anderson
Witness
FLOW HYDRANT
Location Castle Gate 2 Section 200
Nozzle size 2.5
Hydrant number V-092
Pitot reading in PSI 45
Flow in G .P.M . 1130
STATIC HYDRANT
Location
Hydrant number
Static PSI
Residual PSI
Comments
Castle Gate 2 Section 200
V-091
90
68
Initial
I "
• c
s
c
April 13, 2011
-~,°Engineering &-Envlmnmen~! ----.
:: -_;. -__ -Co11su1tan~Jnc._ -_· =~-· ;.·
Mr. Stephen L. Brooks, Regulatory Branch Chief
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Room 3A37
P . 0. Box 17300
Ft Worth, TX 76102-0300
Re: Transmittal of Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Under Nationwide Permit 29 -Residential Developments for
Proposed Castlegate II Residential Subdivision Development
Proposed WS Phillips Parkway at Proposed Extension of Victoria Avenue
College Station, Texas
CSC Project No. 11008-345
Dear Mr. Brooks:
This letter transmits the Pre-construction Notification (PCN) Form for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 29 -
Residential Developments for the proposed Castlegate II Subdivision in College Station, Brazos County,
Texas. The transmitted form was developed by the Fort Worth District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and is being submitted for review by the USACE ..
The submitted PCN was prepared by CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) on
behalf of the owners and developers of the property, 3-D Development, LLC (permittee). The proposed
development will entail the construction of a residential subdivision that will include residential structures
and associated roadways, utilities, drainage systems, and common areas on a 202.665-acre tract of land
(see Figure 3 in Attachment E of the PCN submittal). The transmitted PCN is being submitted in
compliance with the conditions of Nationwide Permit 29 -Residential Developments (NWP-29) relative
to anticipated impacts to "waters of the U.S." associated with the proposed development.
The only natural drainage way on the subject tract consists of the upper segment or "reach" of Tributary
D of Spring Creek. The referenced drainage way is located in the northwestern portion of the proposed
development (see Figures 2, 3 and 4 in Attachment E of the PCN submittal). The existing drainage way
consists of an ephemeral stream that is very narrow (see site Photograph 2 in Attachment C of the PCN
submittal). Significant portions of the drainage way have been previously impacted by the installation of
an energy pipeline (see Photographs 3 and 4) by others and by the downstream development of a
residential subdivision with an existing storm water retention/detention pond (see Figures 3 and 4 of
Attachment E and Photographs 5 and 6 of Attachment C). The impacts to the proposed drainage way
were conservatively estimated to be 0 .25-acres. Most of the impacts to the existing drainage way will be
associated with excavation of the drainage way with mechanized equipment (see Figure 5 of Attachment
E). The excavation is required to create a storm water retention/detention basin within a common area of
the . proposed subdivision as well as to refine an associated and already existing qutfall drainage swale
within the common area of the existing residential subdivision. The drainage swale will carry water from
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, Texas 77808
Phone (979) 778-281 O
· Fax (979) 778-0820
..
Transmittal of Preconstruction Notification Under Nationwide Permit ?9-Residential Developments
Proposed Castlegate II Subdivision
Proposed WS Phillips Parkway at Extension of Victoria Avenue; College Station, Texas
Page2
the proposed storm water retention/detention basin to an existing pond located within a common area of
the existing residential subdivision located downstream of the proposed subdivision (see Figures 3 and 4
of Attachment E and photographs 5 and 6 of Attachment C). There will also be some impacts associated
with the filling of the drainage way for a proposed roadway (WS Phillips Parkway) crossing of the
drainage way within the boundaries of the proposed subdivision. The fill for the roadway embankment
will also serve to create the proposed storm water retention /detention basin within the common area of
the proposed subdivision.
Some mitigation of the proposed impacts will be included in the proposed development scheme. Existing
wetland vegetation in the area of the proposed excavated drainage swale between the proposed storm
water retention/detention basin and the existing stormwater retention/detention basin will be re-
established in the same areas following completion of the excavation operations . In addition, native
grasses , bushes, and trees will be planted in the common area around of the proposed storm water
retenti on/detention basin. The vegetation will be planted in the common area above the planned
permanent pool elevation of the proposed basin and will function as a filtering system for storm water
runoff to the proposed basin. Areas of vegetation re-establishment will be at least 0 .I-acre and areas of
planting will be comparable so that the proposed mitigation areas will likely approach 0.2-acre. We
anticipate that the proposed areas of vegetation re-establishment and planting will largely compensate for
the un-avoidable impacts associated with the planned development.
The current project timeline indicates that construction of the proposed project is planned in August of
2011.
CSC appreciates your review of the transmitted PCN. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (979) 778-
2810 if you have any questions or require additional information concerning any of the matters discussed
in the transmitted document.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
MFC :rc
Via U. S . Mail
cc: Phillips Engineering
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, TX 77845
Attention: Mr. Kent M . Laza, P.E., Manager
Via: U .S. Mail
CSC ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Fort Worth District
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
This form integrates requirements of the Nationwide Permit Program within the Fort Worth District, including
General and Regional Conditions. Please consult instructions included at the end prior to completing this form.
Contents
• Description of NWP 29
• Part I: NWP Conditions and Requirements Checklist
o General Conditions Checklist
o NWP 29-Specific Requirements Checklist
o Regional Conditions Checklist
• Part II: Project Information Form
• Part III: Project Impacts and Mitigation Form
• Part IV: Attachments Form
• Instructions
DESCRIPTION OF NWP 29 -RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
Residential Developments. Discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United
States. (U.S.) for the construction or expansion of a . single residence, a multiple-unit residential
development, or a residential subdivision. This NWP authorizes the construction of building foundations
and building pads and attendant features that are necessary for the use of the residence or residential
development. Attendant features may include but are not limited to roads, parking lots, garages, yards,
· utility Jines, storm water management facilities, septic fields, and recreation facilities such as
playgrounds, playing fields, and golf courses (provided the golf course is an integral part of the
residential development).
The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non-tidal waters of the U.S.,
including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed, unless for intermittent and ephemeral
stream beds this 300 linear foot limit is waived in writing by the district engineer. This NWP does not
authorize discharges into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters.
Subdi_visions. For residential subdivisions, the aggregate total loss of waters of U.S. authorized by
this NWP cannot exceed 1/2-acre. This includes any loss of waters of the U.S. associated with
development of individual subdivision lots.
Part I: NWP Conditions and Requirements Checklist
To ensure compliance with the General Conditions (GC), in order for an
authorization by a NWP to be valid, please answer the following questions:
1. Navigation (Applies to Section 10 waters [i.e. navigable waters of the U.S.], see
instruction 4 for link to list):
a. Does the project cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation?
D Yes · [8J No D N/A
b. · Does the project require the installation and maintenance of any safety lights and signals
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the U.S.?
D Yes [8J No D N/A
Page 1of18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29 -
c. Does the Applicant understand and agree that if future operations by the U.S. require the
removal, relocation, or other alteration of the structure or work herein auth.orized, or if, in the
opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work
shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the
Applicant will be required, upon due notice from the USACE, to remove, relocate, or alter the
structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the U.S.; and no claim
shall be made against the U.S. on account of any such removal or alteration?
D Yes 0 No ~ N/A
If you answered yes to question a. or b. above, or if you answered no to question c. above,
please explain how the project would be in compliance with this GC or be aware that the project
would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
2. Aquatic Life Movements:
a. Does the project substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of
aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate
through the area? 0 Yes ~ No
b. Is the project's primary purpose to impound water? 0 Yes ~ No
c. Will culverts placed in streams be installed to maintain low flow conditions?
~Yes 0No ON/A
If you answered yes to question a. or b. above, or if you answered no to question c. above,
please explain how the project would be in compliance with this GC or be aware that the project
would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable
3. Spawning Areas:
a. Does the project avoid spawning areas during the spawning season to the maximum extent
practicable? r8J Yes D No 0 N/A
b. Does the project result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or
downstream smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area?
D Yes r8J No D N/A ·
If you answered no to question a. above; or if you answered yes to question b. above, please
explain how the project would be in compliance with this GC or be aware that the project would
require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas:
a. Does the project avoid waters of the U.S. that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds to
the maximum extent practicable? ~Yes 0 No 0 N/A
If you answered no to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application: ..
Not Applicable.
5. Shellfish Beds:
a. Does the project occur in areas of concentrated shellfish pqpulations? D Yes r8J No
If you answered yes to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
Page 2 of 18 SWF Recommended Applicat ion Form -NWP 29
Not Applicable.
6. Suitable Material:
a. Does the project use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.)?
D Yes k8J No
b. Is the material used for construction or discharged in a water of the U.S. free from toxic
pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act)? ~ Yes D No
If you answered yes to question a. above, or if you answered no to question b. above, please
explain how the project would be in compliance with this GC or be aware that the project would
require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
7. Water Supply Intakes:
a. Does the project occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake? D Yes ~ No
If you answered yes to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments:
a. Does the project create an impoundment of water? k8:I Yes D No
b. ·If you answered yes to question a. above; are the adverse effects (to the aquatic system due
to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow) minimized to the maximum
extent practicable? k8J Yes 0 No 0 N/A
If you answered no to question b. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC o"r be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
9. Management of Water Flows:
a. Does the project maintain the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of
open waters to the maximum extent practicable, for each activity, including stream
channelization and storm water management activities? k8J Yes D No
b. Will the project be constructed to withstand expected high flows? k8J Yes 0 No .
c. Will the project restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows? ~Yes D No
If you answered no to question a. or b. above, or if you answered yes to question c. above,
please explain how the project would be in compliance with this GC or be aware that the project
would require an individual permit application: ·
The project will involve the construction of a storm water detention basin that will regulate
outflows to those volumes attributable to pre-development conditions, but will temporarily detain
the increases flO\oVS associated with development.
10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains:
a. Does the project comply with applicable FEMA-approved state or local floodplain management
· requirements? [gj Yes D No D N/ A
If you answered no to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
Page 3of18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
11-. Equipment:
a. Will heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats be placed on mats, or other measures
be taken to minimize soil disturbance?-D Yes [gJ No D N/A
If you answered no to question a. above,. please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
The· wetland area of the project between the proposed pond and the existing pond will be filled to
promote drainage between the ponds but herbaceous wetland vegetation will be re-established in
the fill areas outside of the narrow concrete drainage flume.
12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls:
a. Will the project use appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls and maintain them in
effective operating condition throughout construction? [gJ Yes 0 No
b. Will all exposed soil and other fills, as Well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or
high tide line, be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date? [g) Yes 0 No
c. Be aware that if work will be conducted within waters of the U.S., Applicants are encouraged
to perform that work during periods of low-flow or no-flow.
If you answered no to question a. or b. above, please explain how the project would be in
compliance with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit
application:
Not Applicable.
13. Removal of Temporary Fills:
a. Will temporary fills be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-
construction elevations? [gJ Yes D No 0 N/A
b. Will the affected areas be revegetated, as appropriate? [gJ Yes 0 No 0 N/A
If you answered no to question a. or b. above,_ please explain how the project would be in
compliance with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit
application:
Not Applicable.
14. Proper Maintenance:
a. Will any authorized structure or fill be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure
public safety? · [gJ Yes 0 No
If you answered no to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
15. Wild and Scenic River:
There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the geographic boundaries of the Fort Worth District.
Therefore, this GC does not apply.
16. Tribal Rights:
a. Will the project or its operation impair . reserved tribal rights, includi'22! but not limited to,
reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights? 0 Yes ~ No 0 N/A ·
If you answered yes to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
Page 4of18 SWF Recommended Applicat ion Form -NWP 29
17. Endangered Species (see also Box 8 in Part III):
a. Is the project likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered
species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA), or will the project destroy or adversely modify the critical
habitat of such species? D Yes ~ No ·
b. Might the project affect any listed species or designated critical habitat? D .Yes r8l . No
c. Is any listed species or designated critical habitat in the vicinity of the project?
0Yes ~No
d. If the project "may affect" a listed species or critical habitat, has Section 7 consultation
addressing the effects of the proposed activity been completed?
0Yes D No ~ N/A
If you answered yes to question a. or b. or c. above, or if you answered no to question d. above,
please explain how the project would be in compliance with this GC or be aware that the project
would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
18. Historic Properties (see also Box 9 in Part III):
a. Does the project have the potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed,
determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties?
0 Yes ~ No D N/A
If you answered yes to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC or be aware that the project would require an individual permit application:
Not Applicable.
19. Designated Critical Resource Waters:
a. Will the project impact · critical resource waters, which include NOAA-designated marine
sanctuaries, ·National Estuarine Research Reserves, state natur~I heritage sites, and
outstanding national resource waters or other waters officially designated by a state as having
particular environmental or ecological significance and identified by the district engineer after
notice and opportunity for public comment? D Yes r8l No
If you answered yes to question a. above, be aware that discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S. are not authorized by NWP 29 for any activity within, or directly affecting,
critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters.
20. Mitigation (see also Box 10 in Part III):
a. Will the project include appropriate and practicable m~ation necessary to ensure that
adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal? 161 Yes 0 No
If you answered no to question a. above, please include an explanation in Box 10 of why no
mitigation would be necessary in order to be in compliance with this GC or be aware that the
project would require an individual. permit application.
21. Water Quality (see also Box 11 in Part III):
a. If in Texas, does the pro~ct comply with the conditions of the TCEQ water quality certification
for NWP 29? 1:8J Yes LJ No D N/ A
b. If in "Indian Country," does the project comply with the conditions of the EPA water quality
certification for NWPs? D Yes D No ~ N/A
Page 5of18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
c. If in Louisiana, does the project have an individual water quality certification, waiver, or other
approval by the LDEQ? D Yes D No ~ N/A
If you answered no to question a., b., or c. above, please be aware that the project would require
an individual permit application.
22. Coastal Zone Management:
The Fort Worth District does not cover any Coastal Zone; therefore, this GC does not apply.
23. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions:
See the Regional Conditions checklist below to ensure compliance with this GC.
24. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits:
a. Does the project use more than one NWP for a single and complete project?
0Yes ~No
b. If you answered yes to question a. above, be aware that unless the project's acreage loss of
waters of the U.S. authorized by the NWPs is below the acreage limit of the NWP with the
highest specified acreage limit, no NWP can be issued, and the project would require an
individual permit application.
If you answered yes to question a. above, please explain how the project would be in compliance
with this GC and what additional NWP number you intend to use:
Not Applicable.
25. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications:
a. Does the Applicant agree that if he or she sells the property associated with the nationwide
permit verification, the Applicant may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new
owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate USACE district office to validate the transfer?
~Yes D No
26. Compliance Certification:
a. Does the Applicant agree that if he or she receives the NWP verification from the USACE, they
must submit a signed certification regarding the completed work and any required mitigation
(the certification form will be sent by the USACE with the NWP verification letter)?
~Yes D No
27. Notification:
a. All residential developments and subdivisions as described in NWP 29 must submit a pre-
construction . notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity.
b. Does the Applicant agree that he or she will not begin the project until either:
1) He or she is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under
the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or
2) Forty-five calendar days have passed from the district engineer's receipt of the complete
PCN and the Applicant has not received written notice from the district or division engineer?
However, if the Applicant was required to notify the USACE pursuant to general condition 17
that listed species or critical habitat might be affected or in the vicinity of the project, or to
notify the USACE pursuant to general condition 18 that the activity may have the potential to
cause effects to historic properties, the Applicant cannot begin the activity until receiving
written notification from the USACE that there is "no effect" on listed species or "no potential
to cause effects" on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is
completed. ~ Yes D No
Page 6of18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
c. Does the Applicant agree that if the district or division engineer notifies the Applicant in
writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete
PCN, the Applicant cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained.?
~Yes D No
28. Single and Complete Project:
a. Does the Applicant certify that the project is a "single and complete project" as defined
below?
Page 7of18
~Yes D No
Single and complete project: The term "single and complete project" is defined at 33 CFR
330.2(i) as the total project proposed or accomplished by one owner/developer or partnership
or other association of owners/developers. A single and complete project must have
independent utility (see definition).
Independent utility: Defined as a test to determine what constitutes a single and complete
project in the USACE regulatory program. A project is considered to have independent utility if
it would be constructed absent the construction of other projects in the project area. Portions
of a multi-phase project that depend upon other phases of the project do not have
independent utility. Phases of a project that would be constructed even if the other phases
were not built can be considered as separate single and complete projects with independent
utility. ·
SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
To ensure compliance with the NWP 29-specific requirements please answer the
following questions:
1. Does the project involve the construction or expansion of a single residence, a multiple-unit
residential development, or a residential subdivision? [8J Yes D No
If you answered no to question 1. above, be aware that discharges of dredged or fill material into
waters of the U.S. are not authorized by NWP 29 and would require an individual permit
application.
2. Does the project (for residential subdivisions, including the development of individual subdivision
lots) cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non-tidal waters of the U.S? D Yes ~ No
If you answered yes to question 2. above, be aware that discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S . are not authorized by NWP 29 and would require an individual permit
application. Note: For residential subdivisions, the aggregate total loss of waters of the U.S.
authorized by this NWP cannot exceed 1/2-acre, including any loss of waters of the U.S.
associated with development of individual subdivision lots.
3. Does the project cause the loss of more than 300 linear feet of perennial stream bed?
D Yes [8J No
If you answered yes to question 3. above, be aware that discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S. are not authorized by NWP 29 and would require an individual permit
application.
4. Does the project cause the loss of more than 300 linear feet of intermittent or ephemeral stream
bed? ~ Yes D No
If you answered yes to question 4. above, be aware that the 300 linear foot limit must be waived
in writing by the district engineer in order for the project to be authorized by NWP 29 and
otherwise would require an individual permit application.
5. Does the project cause a discharge into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters?
D Yes ~No
If you answered yes to question 5. above, be aware that discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S. are not authorized by NWP 29 and would require an individual permit
application.
Page 8of18 SWF Recommended Applicat ion Form -NWP 29
•
REGIONAL CONDITIONS CHECKLIST
To ens~re compliance with the Regional Conditions within the Fort Worth District,
in the State of Texas, in order for an authorization by a NWP to be valid, please
answer the following questions (for projects in Texas only):
1. Will the project include required compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio for all
special aquatic sites that exceed 1/10 acre and require pre-construction notification, and for all
losses to streams that exceed 300 linear feet and require pre-construction notification (unless the
appropriate District Engineer determines in writing that some other form of mitigation would be
more environmentally appropriate and provides a project-specific waiver of this requirement)?
0Yes 0 No ~ N/A
If you answered no to question 1. above, be aware that the project would not be authorized by a
NWP 29 and would require an individual permit application.
2. Does the project involve a discharge into habitat types that are wetlands (typically referred to as
pitcher plant bogs) that are characterized by an organic surface soil layer and indude vegetation
such as pitcher plants (Sarracenia sp.), sundews (Drosera sp.), and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum
sp.) or wetlands (typically referred to as bald cypress-tupelo swamps) comprised predominantly
of bald cypress trees ( Taxodium distichum), and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), that are
occasionally or regularly flooded by fresh water with common associates including red maple
(Acer rubrum), swamp privet (Forestiera acuminata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsy/vanica), water
elm (Planera aquatica), lizard's tail (Saururus cemuus), water mermaid weed (Proserpinaca spp.),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and smartweed (Polygonum spp.)? D Yes ~No
If you answered yes to question 2. above, notification of the District · Engineer is required in
accordance with NWP GC 27, and the USACE will coordinate with other resource agencies as
specified in NWP GC 27( d).
3. Is the project in the area of Caddo Lake within Texas that is designated as a "Wetland of
International Importance" under the Ramsar Convention? D Yes ~No
If you answered yes to question 3. above, notification of the District Engineer is required in
accordance with NWP GC 27, and the USACE will coordinate with other resource agencies as
specified in NWP GC 27( d)
4. a. Is the project in an area of Dallas, Denton, or Tarrant counties that is within the study area of
the "Final Regional Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Trinity River and Tributaries" (May
1986)? D Yes [g] No
b. If Yes, does the project meet the criteria and follow the guidelines specified in Section III of
the Record of Decision for the Regional EIS, including the hydraulic impact requirements? .
D Yes D No [g] N/A
If you answered no to question 4b. above, be aware that the project would not be authorized by
a NWP 29 and would require an individual permit application.
Page 9of18 SWF Recommended Applicati~n Form -NWP 29
To ensure compliance with the Regional Conditions within the Fort Worth District,
· in the State of Louisiana, in order for an authorization by a NWP to be valid, please
answer the following questions (for projects in Louisiana only):
1. Does the activity cause the permanent loss of greater than 1/2 acre of seasonally inundated
cypress swamp and/or cypress-tupelo swamp? D Yes D No
2.
If you answered yes to question 1. above, be aware that the project would not be authorized by
a NWP 29 and . would require an individual permit application.
Does the activity cause the permanent loss of3reater than 1/2 acre of pine savanna, pine
flatwoods, and/or pitcher plant bogs? D Yes LJ No
If you answered yes to question 2. above, be aware that the project would not be authorized by
a NWP 29 and would require an individual permit application. ·
)
· 3. Has the activity been determined to have an adverse impact upon a federal or state designated
rookery and/or bird sanctuary? D Yes D No
If you answered yes to question 3. above, be aware that the project would not be authorized by
a NWP 29 and would require an individual permit application.
4. Does .the activity fell any existing den or candidate den trees within areas known to be occupied
by the threatened Louisiana black bear? (Candidate den trees are defined as bald cypress and/or
tupelo gum with visible cavities, having a minimum diameter-at-breast-height of 36 inches, and
associated with rivers, lakes, streams, bayous, sloughs, or other waterbodies.) D Yes D No
If you answered yes to question 4. above, be aware that the project would not be authorized by
a NWP 29 and would require an individual permit application.
5. Does the project involve instream activities in the following waterways: Bayou Boeuf Tributaries
in Rapides Parish: (Brown Creek, Mack Branch, Clear Creek, Little Brushy Creek, Loving Creek,
Little Loving Creek, Long Branch, Bayou Clear, Castor Creek, Valentine Creek, and Little Bayou
Clear), Amite River (LA Highway 37 at Grangeville to Port Vincent), Bogue Falaya River and
Tributaries, Abita River and Tributaries, Bayou Chinchuba (between U.S. 190 and Louisiana
Highway 59), West Pearl River, Bogue Chitto River and Tributaries, and Red River tributaries in
Grant Parish (Black Creek, Swafford Creek, Cypress Creek, Beaver Creek, Cress Creek, Jordon
Creek, Hudson Creek, Gray Creek, Moccosin Branch and James Branch)? D Yes D No
If you answered yes to question 5. above, notification of the District Engineer is required in
accordance with NWP GC 27 due to the occurrence of threatened or endangered species.
6. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, is any excavated and/or fill material to be placed within
wetlands free of contaminants? D Yes D No D N/A
If you answered no to question 6. above, be aware that the project would not be authorized by a
NWP 29 and would require an individual permit application.
7. Regional Condition 7 applies to work within the Louisiana Coastal Zone and/or the Outer
Continental Shelf off Louisiana, and therefore does not apply in the USACE Fort Worth District.
Work in these areas may require coordination with the USACE Galveston or New Orleans districts.
Page 10 of 18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
8. Does the activity adversely affect greater than 1/10 acre of wetlands, and/or adversely impact a
designated Natural and Scenic River, a state or federal wildlife management area, and/or refuge?
0Yes 0 No
If you answered yes to question 8. above, notification of the District Engineer is required in
accordance with NWP GC 27.
9. Be aware that NWP 29, via disavowal of water quality certification by the LDEQ, is considered
denied without prejudice. Individual requests for approval under NWP 29 will be considered on a
case-by-case basis only after receipt by the appropriate USACE district of an individual water
quality certification, waiver, or other approval by the LDEQ.
Additional Discussion:
This section is not applicable.
Page 11of18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
Part II: Project Information
Box 1 Project Name: Applicant Name
Castleqate II Subdivision . Wallace Phillips
Applicant Title Applicant Company, Agency, etc.
Onwer/Developer 3-D Development, LLC
Mailing Address Applicant's internal tracking number (if any)
4490 Castlegate Drive Not Applicable
Work Phone with area code Home Phone with area Fax# E-mail Address
979-690-7250 code
Cellular Phone
979-690-1041 wallace.phillips@verizon.net
979-255-4466
Relationship of applicant to property:
~ Owner D Purchaser D Lessee . D Other:
Application is hereby made for verification that subject regulated activities associated with subject project qualify
for authorization under a USACE nationwide permit or permits as described herein. I certify that I am familiar
with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such
information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the
proposed activities. I hereby grant to the agency to which this application is made the right to enter the
above-described location to inspect the proposed, in-progress, or completed work. I agree to start work only
a~er all necessary permits have been received.
Signature of applicant ltl~eg s/-lddp :a: Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
04/11/11
I
Box 2 Authorized Agent/ Operator Name and Signature: (If an age11t is acting for the applicant
during the permit process)
M. Frederick Conlin, Jr.
Agent/Operator Title
Professional En ineer
Mailing Address
Agent/Operator Company, Agency, etc.
CSC En ineerin & Environmental Consultants
3407 Tabor Road; B an, TX 77808
E-mail Address
rconlin@tx ber.com
Work Phone with area code
979-778-2810
Home Phone with area code Fax #
979-693-7401 979-778-0820
Cell Phone#
979-229-8329
I hereby authorize the above-named agent to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish,
upon request, supplemental information in support of this permit application. I understand that I am bound by the actions of
m a ent and I understand that if a federal or state ermit is issued I or m a ent must si n the ermit. ·
I certify that I am familiar with the informatio .. contained in this application, and that to the best of my
knowled e and belief such information is true com lete and accurate.
Signature of auiJl ized agent Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
04/11/11
Box 3 Name of property owner, if other than applicant:
Not Applicable
0 . Multi pie Current Owners {If multiple current property owners, check here and include a list as an attachment)
Owner Title Owner Company, Agency, etc.
Not Applicable Not Applicable
'page 12 of 18 SWF Recommended Application Form -.NWP 29
Mailing Address
Not A licable
Work Phone with area code
Not A licable
Home Phone with area code
Not A licable
Box 4 Project location, including street address, city, county, state, and zip code
where proposed activity will occur:
The project is located northwest of the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and Sweetwater
Drive in College Station, Texas (see attached Figure 1).
Nature of Activity (Description of project; include all featu res; see instructi ons):
-Construction of a single family residential subdivision that will include excavation of the upper
reach of an emphemeral drainageway knonw as Tributary D of Spring Creek to create a storm
water retention/detention basin, plus the filling of a protion of the tributary drainage way for a
roadway crossing, and the additional filling of an already filled portion of the drainage way
downstream of the roadway crossing to permit drainage to an existing pond in an adjacent
subdivision (see attached Fiqures 3 and 4).
· Project Purpose (Description of the reason or purpose of the project; see instructions):
The purpose of the project is to construct a sinqle family residential subdivision.
Has a delineation of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, been completed? (see instructions)
~ Yes, Attached 0No
If a delineation has been completed, has it been verified in writing by the USACE?
0 Yes, Da t e of approved or preliminary j urisdictional determination (mm/dd/yyyy): USACE project:
~No
Are color photographs of the existing conditions available? ~ Yes, Attached 0No
Are aerial photographs available? ~ Yes, Attached 0No
0 Multiple Waters of the U.S. (If multiple waters of the U.S., check here and complete the table in
Attachment D)
Waterbody(ies) (if known; otherwise enter "an unnamed tributary to''): Tributary D to Spring Creek
Tributary(ies) to what known, downstream waterbody(ies): Sprinq Creek
Latitude & longitude (Decimal Degrees):
30.5445 North and 96.2849 West
USGS Quad map name(s):
Wellborn, TX Quadrangle Map (see attached Figure 5).
Watershed(s) and other location descriptions, if known:
Sprinq Creek watershed.
Directions to the project location:
Take SH 6 south to College Station; exit SH 40 west (right); go rvl.4-mile to Victoria Ave. and
turn south (left); take Victoria Ave "'0.7-mile to south to where it ends at project site .
Part III: Project Impacts and Mitigation
Box 5 Reason(s) for Discharge into waters of the U.S.:
Discharge to drainage way is related to development of a single family residential subdivision
and related roadwa and storm draina e control construction.
Page 13of 18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
Type(s) of material being discharged and the amount of each type in cubic yards:
Most of impacts will be associated with excavations. Material being discharged in fill ~reas is
soil . for roadway embankment. Volume with respect to original drainage way channel is
estimated to be in the ranqe of 20 to 30 cubic yards.
iota! surface area (in acres) of wetlands or other waters of the U.S. to be filled:
0.-25 acres
Indicate the proposed impacts to waters of the U.S. in ACRES (for wetlands and impoundments) and LINEAR
FEET (for rivers and streams), and identify the impact(s) as permanent and/or temporary for each waterbody
type fisted below. The table below is intended as a tool to summarize impacts by resource type for planning
compensatory mitigation and does not replace the table of waters of the U.S. in Attachment D for those projects
with impacts to multiple waters of the U.S.
Permanent Temporary
Waterbody Type Acres Linear feet Acres Linearfeet ·
Non-forested wetland 0.13
Forested wetland
Perennial stream
Intermittent stream
Ephemeral stream 0.07
Impoundment 0.05
Other:
Total: 0.25 .
Potential indirect and/or cumulative impacts of proposed discharge (if any):·
None known; but see Table 1 in Attachment D along with explaination of impacts to WOUS.
Required drawings (see instructions):
Vicinity map: ~ Attached
To-scale plan view drawirig(s): ~Attached
To-scale elevation and/or· cross section drawing(s): ~Attached
Is any portion of the work already complete? D Yes [8J No
If yes, describe the work: Not Applicable.
Box 6 Authority: (see instructions)
Is Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for projects affecting navigable waters applicable?·
D Yes ~No (seeFortWorthDisbictNavigable Waters list)
Is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act applicable? [8J Yes D No
Box 7 Larger Plan of Development:
Is the discharge of fill or dredged material for which Section 10/404 authorization is sought
intended for a residential development project which is part of a larger plan .of development?
D Yes ~ N 0 (If yes, please provide the information in the remainder of Box 7)
Does the residential development project have independent utility in addition to the larger plan
of development? D Yes D No
If yes, explain:
Not Applicable.
Page 14 of 18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
If discharge of fill or dredged material is part of
for that larger development (start-up, duration, an
development, name and proposed schedule
d completion dates):
Not A licable.
fill or dredged material is part of a plan of Location of larger development (If discharge of
development, a map of suitable quality and de tail for the entire project site should be
included):
Not A licable.
Total area in acres of entire project area (includ ing 1arg er plan of development, where applicable):
Not A licable.
pecies (see instructions)
ned or endangered species or critical habitat
Box 8 Federally Threatened or Endangered S
Please list any federally-listed (or proposed) threate
potentially affected by the project (use scientific nam es (i.e., genus species), if known):
None
USFWS) protocols, been conducted? Have surveys, using U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (
D Yes, Report attached [8J No (explain): An ex
the limited area of disturbed and did not observ
perienced rangeland scientist has surveyed
e any threatened or endagered species or
critical habitat.
If a federally-listed species would potentially be a ffected, please provide a description and a
biological evaluation.
D Yes, Re ort attached r8J Not attached
Has Section 7 consultation been initiated by· anothe r federal agency?
D Yes, Initiation letter attached ~No
Has Section 10 consultation been initiated for the p roposed project?
D Yes, Initiation letter attached ~No
Has the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion?
D Yes, Report attached r8J No
If es, list date 0 inion was issued mm/dd/ v): Not Applicable.
es Box 9 Historic properties and cultural resourc
Please list any historic properties listed (or eligible to
Places which the project has the potential to affect:
be listed) on the National Register of Historic
No ro erties are listed.
d?
records searches for other projects in the
Has an archaeological records search been conducte
D Yes, Report attached r8J No (explain): Other
area -did not indicate the presence of sites of hist
Also there has been extensive residential develop
orical signficance on the subject property.
ment of the areas all around the subject
ro e and no sites of historical or archeolo ical s· 1gnicance have been encountered.
Are any cultural resources of any type known to exis ton-site?
D Yes r8J No
cted for the site?
area of impact is relatively small and the
where there has been extensive residential
Has an archaeological pedestrian survey been condu
D Yes, Report attached [8J No (explain): The
absence of archeological sites in the adjacent areas
develo ment did not seem to ·usti an on-site surve
Has Section 106 or SHPO consultation been initiated
~y.
D Yes, Initiation letter attached ~ No
by another federal or state agency?
Has a Section 106 ·MOA been signed by another fede ral agency and the SHPO?
D Yes, Attached [8J No
Page 15 of 18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
....--
r
L
;'
If yes, list date MOA was signed (mm/dd/yyyy): Not Applicable.
Box 10 Proposed Conceptual Mitigation Plan Summary (see instructions)
Measures taken to avoid and min·imize impacts to waters of the U.S. (if any):
The areas around the existing drainage way are currently relatively barren of surface
vegetation. As part of the proposed development, the areas outside of the proposed pond and
roadway will be planted with native grasses, bushes, and trees to promote filtering of storm
water runoff. The drainage swale area between the proposed pond and the existing pond will
be cultivated to promote the re-establishment of the existing herbaceous wetland vegetation
following filling of the area.
Applicant proposes combination of one or more of the following mitigation types:
D Mitiqation Bank ~On-site D Off-site (Number of sites: ) D None
Applicant proposes to purchase mitigation bank credits: D Yes ~No
Mitigation Bank Name: Not Applicable.
Number of Credits: Not Applicable.
Indicate in ACRES (for wetlands and impoundments) and LINEAR FEET (for rivers and streams) the total quantity
of waters of the U.S. proposed to be created, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved for purposes of providing
compensatory mitigation. Indicate mitigation site type (on-or off-site) and number. Indicate waterbody type
(non-forested wetland, forested wetland, perennial stream, intermittent stream, ephemeral stream,
impoundment, other) or non-jurisdictional (uplands 1).
Mitigation Waterbody Type Created Restored Enhanced Preserved
Site Type and
N_umber
e.g., On-site 1 Non-forested wetland 0.5 acre
e.g., Off-site 1 Intermittent stream 500LF JOOOLF
On-site Ephemeral Stream 0.10
On-site Non-juris upland 0.10
(non-designated
buffer but designated
common area).
Totals: 0.10 0.10
1 For uplands. olease. indicate if desianed as an uoland buffer.
Summary of Mitigation Work Plan (Describe the mitigation activities listed in the table above):
Mitigation involves the restoration of existing vegetation in disturbed area between the
proposed storm water retention/detention basin (pond) and the existing pond (see Figure 4)
and also plantings of native trees, cushes and grasses in the common area around the
proposed pond.
If no mitigation is proposed,· provide a detailed explanation of why no mitigation would be
necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal:
Not Applicable.
Page 16of18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
Has a conceptual mitigation plan been prepared in accordance with the USACE regulations and
guidelines?
D Yes, Attached [::gj No (explain): Miitigation involves restoration of existing vegetation in
disturbed areas.
Mitigation site(s) latitude & longitude (Decimal USGS Quad map name(s):
Degrees): Same of Project Site Lat & Lonq Same of Project Site Quad Map
Other location descriptions, if known:
Not Applicable.
Directions to the mitigation location(s):
Not Applicable.
Box 11 Water Quality Certification (see instructions):
For Texas:
Does the project meet the conditions of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) Clean Water Act Section 401 certification for NWP 29? [::gj Yes 0No
Does the project include soil erosion control and sediment control Best Management Practices
(BMPs)? [::gj Yes. 0No
Does the project include BMPs for post-construction total suspended solids control?
[::gj Yes 0No
For Louisiana:
Individual water quality certification issued by LDEQ? 0 Yes, Attached 0No
Water quality certification waiver or other approval by LDEQ? D Yes, Attached 0No
Explain: Not Applicable.
For Tribal Lands ("Indian Country''):
Does the project meet the conditions of the EPA water quality certification for NWPs?
0Yes 0No
Box 12 List of other certifications or approvals/ denials received from other
federal, state, or local agencies for work described in this application:
Agency Approval Identification Date Applied Date Date Denied Type 2 No. Aooroved
2 Would include but 1s not restricted to zonrn ..
Page 17 of 18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
Part IV: Attachments
A. List of Property Owners
B. Delineation of Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands
C. Color Photographs
D. Table of Waters of the U.S. Impacted by the Proposed Project
E. Required Drawings/Figures ·
F. Threatened or Endangered Species Reports and/or Letters
G. Historic Properties and Cultural Resources Reports and/or Letters
H. Conceptual Mitigation Plan
I. Other:
End of Form
Included
D
~
~
~
~
D
D
D
D
Page 18of18 SWF Recommended Application Form -NWP 29
Instructions: [please do not include these pages when submitting form]
1) Complete Part I of the form first to determine if the project meets the conditions and
requirements of NWP 29, including the General and Regional Conditions as well as the
notification requirements. Additional information on the general conditions is
available at the following website:
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/environ/regulatory/permitting/gp.asp
2) Boxes 1 to 3: Provide contact information for the Applicant, Agent, Owner, etc.
3) Box4:
a. Nature of Activity: Describe the overall activity or project. Give appropriate dimensions of
structures such as wingwalls, dikes (identify the materials to be used in construction, as well
as the methods by which the work is to be done), or excavations (length, width, and height).
Indicate whether discharge of dredged or fill material is involved. Also, identify any structure
to be constructed on a fill, piles, or float-supported platforms. The written descriptions and
illustrations are an important part of the application. Please describe, in detail, what you wish
to do. If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet marked "Box 4 Nature of Activity."
b. Proposed Project Purpose: Describe the purpose and need for the proposed project. What
will it be used for and why? Also include a brief description of any related activities to be
developed as the result of the proposed project.
c. Delineation of waters of the U.S.:
Waters of the U.S. are defined under 33 CFR part 328.3 (a) as:
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or .may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
mudflats, sandflatS, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural ponds,. the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or
foreign commerce including any such waters: ·
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational ·or other
purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign
commerce; or
(iii) Which ·are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise denned as waters of the U.S. under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (4) of this section;
(6) The territorial seas;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified
in paragraphs (a) (1) through (6) of this section.
In addition, 33 CFR part 328.3 (b) states: The term wetlands means those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted . for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs, and similar areas.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the
ord inary high water mark, as well as any adjacent wetlands, demarcate the limits of non-tidal
waters of the U.S. Wetlands are identified and delineated using the methods and criteria
established in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (i.e., occurrence of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) as well as any applicable interim
regional supplements.
d. Multiple Waters of the U.S.: If the project impacts multiple waters of the U.S., include
information for each water in the table in Attachment D.
4) Box 5:
Required drawings (see examples in separate file): Submit one legible copy of all
drawings (8 1/2 x 11-inch or 11 x 17-inch) with a 1-inch marg in around the entire sheet. The
title box shall contain the title of the proposed project, date, and sheet number.
i. Vicinity map: Cover an area large enough so the project can be easily located; include
arrow marking the project area, identifiable landmarks (e.g., named waterbody, county,
city), name or number of roads, north arrow, and scale.
ii. Plan view: Include features such as existing bank lines, ordinary high water mark line(s),
average water depth around the activity, dimensions of the proposed project, dimensions
of any structures immediately adjacent to the proposed activity, north arrow, and scale.
iii. Elevation and/or cross-section views: Include features such as water elevation as
shown on plan view drawing, existing and proposed ground level, dimensions of the
proposed project, dimensions of any structures immediately adjacent to the proposed
activity, and scale.
5) Box 6: A list of navigable waters in the Fort Worth District can be found at the following
website:
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/environ/regulatory/jurisdiction/navlist.pdf
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
materia l into waters of the U.S. More information on regulated activities can be found at the
following website:
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/environ/regulatory/regulatedactivities.asp
6) Box 8: Information on federally threatened or endangered species may be found on the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service website and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department website . Include an
attachment if additional space is required for listing species or critical habitat potentially affected
by the project.
http://www.fws.gov/ southwest/ es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/index.phtml
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/endangered_species/
7) Box 10: When completing this box, be aware that the USACE will consider if the project has
been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters
of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable at the project site when determining appropriate
and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment
are min imal. The USACE may also require compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one
ratio for losses of wetlands, streams, and open waters to ensure that the proj ect r esults in
minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. See the USACE Fort Worth Distri ct
Regulatory Branch website for a mitigation plan template and requirements.
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/environ/regulatory/permitting/mitigation.asp
B) Box 11: Projects in Texas should meet the conditions of the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) Clean Water Act Section 401 certification for NWP 29. The TCEQ conditions of
Section 401 certification for NWP 29 as well as a description of Best Management Practices can
be found at the following website:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water_quality/wq_assessment/401certification/401certifica
tion_nationwide. html
Projects in Louisiana require water quality certification from the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality (LDEQ). LDEQ has denied water quality certification for NWP 29 and will
consider water quality certification on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, an individual water quality
certification, waiver, or other approval by the LDEQ is necessary prior to USACE consideration of
a project for authorization under NWP · 29 in Louisiana. Information about water quality
certification from LDEQ can be found at the following website:
http://www.deq .louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2268/Default.aspx
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency required to address water quality
certification of the 2007 NWPs in "Indian Country" where a tribe has not received treatment in
the same manner as a state for the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 program. "Indian
Country," as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, means: (1) all land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction .of the U.S. government, not withstanding the issuance of any
patent, and including rights-of-way running through the reservation; (2) all dependent Indian
communities within the borders of the U.S. whether within the original or subsequently-acquired
territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state; and (3) all Indian allotments,
the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through
the same. 'At this time, no Indian tribes in Texas or Louisiana have CWA Section 401 au~hority.
The EPA has developed a list of conditions that must be met in order for water quality
certification of NWPs in "Indian Country" lands. The list of "401 Certification Conditions of
Nationwide Permits for Tribal Lands in Texas" can be found at the following website:
http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/permitnw/NWP%202007%20Information/npw_regional%20c
onditions/2007NWPTXwqcEP A.pdf
The list of "Water Quality Regional NWPs Conditions for 'Indian Country' Lands" in Louisiana can
be found in Part III of the document at the following website:
http://www. mvn .usace.army. mil/ops/regulatory /2007%20NWP%20regional%20conditions%20-
%20Louisiana. pdf
9) Attachments: Check the boxes in Part N for those attachments that are included, and place a
cover sheet or tab with each attachment behind the last page of the form. If Attachment D is not
needed, discard this page, but if more room is necessary, include an additional table.
Al IACHMENT B
DELINEATION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
INCLUDING WETLANDS
See Figure 4 in Attachment E
Al IACHMENT C
COLOR SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs 1 through 6
. (See Figure 4 in Attachment E for location and orientation of view of each photograph)
Photograph I: View of upper reaches of drainage way through common area of proposed subdivision
development showing poorly defined features of drainage channel. Area immediately adjacent to drainage
way was recently been disturbed by clearing operations. View looking west from near western boundary of
common area of ro osed subdivision develo ment.
Photograph 2: View of middle portion of drainage way undisturbed by clearing. Note well defined and
very narrow width of natural drainage channel. View looking downward and in east-northeasterly direction
from near center of previously referenced common area in proposed pond location.
• c
s
c
Engmeenng & Enwronmental
Consultants Inc Castlegate II Subdivision
College Station, Texas
Photograph 3 : View of backwater in drainage way created by previous construction of energy pipeline by
others with resulting artificial "damming" of drainage way . View looking northeast from near propo sed
downstream portion of pond at proposed roadway crossing of common area of proposed residential
development. Note cows grazing in area.
Photograph 4 : Another view of wider portion of backwater in drainage way created by previous
construction of energy pipeline by others . View looking southwest from boundary between already
developed phase of subdivision and proposed development area .
• c
s
c
Engmeenng & Environmental
Consultants Inc Castlegate II Subdivision
College Station , Texas
Photograph 5: View looking downstream from proposed culverts under proposed roadway in drainage
swale area between proposed pond and existing pond (in background of photograph) located in currently
developed area of subdivision. View is looking northeast from near previously described location for
Photograph 4 . Note vegetation in drainage swale that is characteristic of palustrine emergent wetland .
Portion of swale will be filled to provide drainage between proposed pond and existing pond but natural
herbaceous wetland vegetation will be re-establi s h in fill areas .
• c
s
c
Engmeenng & Environmental
Consultants Inc Castlegate II Subdivision
College Station, Texas
Photograph 6 : View of existing pond downstream of proposed area of development showing land scaped
area around pond and at end of proposed drainage swa le between ponds . Pond is similar to propo sed pond
in existing impounded backwater areas of proposed subdivision shown in Photographs 3 and 4. View
looking northeast from near southwestern end of existing pond .
• c
s
c
Engmeenng & Enwronmental
Consultants Inc Castlegate II Subdivision
College Station, Texas
Al IACHMENT D
TABLE OF WATERS OF THE U.S. IMPACTED BY
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
USACE Table, CSC Table 1 Plus Remarks
Attachment D: Table of Waters of the U.S. Impacted by the Proposed Project
Waterbody Latitude and Resource Linear Feet Acres in Impact
ID1 Longitude Type 2 in Project Project Type3
(Decimal Degrees) Area Area
e.g., W-1 32.755°N, 97.755°W NFW -0.25 D/P
IA -1 30.544 N, 96.287W ES 1,045 0.07 D/P
IA-2 30.544N, 96.285W I 182 0.05 D/P
IA-3 30.545N, 96.284W NFW 320 0.13 D{f
1 Waterbody ID may be the name of a feature or an assigned label such as "W-1" for a wetland.
2 Resource Types: NFW -Non-forested wetland, FW -Forested wetland, PS -Perennial Stream,
IS -Intermittent Stream, ES -Ephemeral Stream, I -Impoundment
Linear
Feet of
Impact
-
1045
182
320
Acres of Cubic Yards of
Impact Material to be
Discharged
0.15 1210
0.07 116
0.05 Mostly cut
0.13 Mostly cut
3 Impact Types: D/P -Direct* and Permanent, D{f -Direct and Temporary, I/P -Indirect** and Permanent, I{f -Indirect and Temporary
* Direct impacts are here defined as those adverse affects caused by the proposed activity, such as discharge or excavation.
** Indirect impacts are here defined as those adverse affects caused subsequent to the proposed activity, such as flooding or effects
of drainage on adjacent waters of the U.S.
c a c EN131NEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, I N C •
Nationwide Permit 29 Application Proposed Castlegate II Subdivision; College Station , TX
Table 1. Estimated Impacts to Waters of the United States Associated with the Planned Development of the Castlegate Subdivision -Phase II; Proposed W S
Phillips Parkway at Victoria Avenue; College Station, Texas
IMPACT
AREA
DESIGNA-
TION Note I
ESTIMATED
AVERAGE WIDTH
OF OHWMNotc 2
WITHIN DRAINAGE
WAY
ESTIMATED
AVERAGE LENGTH
~F DRAINAGE WAY
WITHIN FILL AREA
COMPUTED
AREA OF
FILL IMP ACT AREA
WITHIN
DRAINAGE WAY
COMMENTS
OR
OBSERVATIONS
IA-1 3 feet 1,045 feet 3,135 ftL 0 .07 acres Channel is dry ephemeral stream width (and OHWM) is
relatively consistent along portion of channel to be filled
(see photographs in Attachment C of Application).
IA-2a 6 feet 72 feet 432 ftL 0.01 acres Upper portion of surface impoundment of standing
water created during construction of pipeline easement.
Ponded water is used for watering cattle . OHWM is
average over length of impoundment (see photographs
in Attachment C).
IA-2b 15 feet 110 feet 1,650 ftL 0.04 acres Lower and wider portion of surface impoundment of
standing water created during construction of pipeline
easement. OHWM is average over length of
impoundment (see photographs in Attachment C).
IA-3 25 feet 220 feet 0.13 acres
TOTAL IMPACTS COMBINING ALL IMPACTED AREAS i0,717 ft2 I ---0.25 acres
Notes:
I . See accompanying Figure 4 in Attachment E of application for location of designated drainage way impact areas .
2 . OHWM =Ordinary High Water Mark.
1
Palustrine emergent wetland will be partially filled to
facility drainage to existing pond. OHWM is estimated
width of wetland area (see photographs in Attachment
C).
Less than the 0 .5 acres required for qualification under
NWP29.
c a c ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC,
Report of Environmental Constraints Study Proposed Health Science Center Parkway; Bryan-College Station, TX
COMMENTS:
Impact Area A-1: Most of the impacts are associated with the filling of the very narrow ephemeral stream that runs through the common area. However the lower 550 feet or so of the existing
ephemeral drainage way lies within the area of the proposed stonn water retention/detention basin and will be excavated during the formation of the basin .
Impact Area A-2: Most of the impacts are associated with the excavation of the existing "impoundments," i.e ., the "backwater" created by the construction of the energy pipeline by others (see site
photographs in Attachment C), for the construction of the proposed stonn water retention/detention basin as illustrated on Figure 5 in Attachment E . In addition, there will be some impacts associated
with the filling of the lower end of the existing impoundment area for the proposed WS Phillips Parkway crossing of the impoundments . Culverts will be constructed under the roadway to maintain
the drainage pathway. Furthermore, the disturbed "common area" around the proposed stonn water'retention/detention basin will be re-planted with natural grasses, bushes, and trees to minimize
impacts to the area.
Impact Area A-3: This impact area lies within a man-made palustrine wetland area situated between an existing pond and the proposed pond . The area will be largely excavated as part of the
drainage scheme (see Figure 5 in Attachment E) and a narrow concrete flume which will be constructed down the middle of the area to connect the proposed pond with the existing pond (see Figure 4
in Attachment E). Except for the area occupied by the narrow concrete flume, all of the disturbed area will be replanted with Palustrine emergent wetland vegetation and the wetland area re-
established following the cut or excavation of the area.
2
..
Al IACHMENT E
REQUIRED DRAWINGS/FIGURES
Figures 1 through 7
Figure 1 -Project Vicinity Map
-Figure 2 -2005 Aerial Photograph of Subject Property and Surrounding Area
Figure 3 -Proposed Development Scheme
Figure 4 -Drainageway Impact Area
Figure 5 -Section Views of Existing and Proposed Grading Along Drainage Way
Figure 6 -Topographic Map of Subject Property and Surrounding Area
Figure 7 -Wetland Inventory Map of Subject Property and Surrounding Area
'JELLBDRN
-Source Map: Texas Department of Transportation
Urban Files -Brazos County
Map Modifications: Project Location (CSC 2011)
• c
s E11g111ce1111g & I n1·11 mm1c11tal
Com11/ta11ts,fti(
C Regi.ltration N~r F-10'78
or:
PHILLIPS
ENGINEERING
2000 0
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
PROJECT 11008-345
LOCATION : COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS
APPR :MFC REV.DATE:-
DRAWN BY: AEA SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: 04/13/11 FIGURE NO .: 1
2000 FEET
I
,.
Source: TNRIS Wellborn , DRG
Modification: Property Location (CSC 2011)
E11g111cc1 mg & l.m 11 onmcllfal
Co11,11/tallf1, Inc
PHILLIPS
ENGINEERING
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND SURROUNDING AREA
PROJECT 11008-345
LOCATION : COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS
APPR:MFC REV.DATE:-
DRAWN BY : AEA SCALE : AS SHOWN
DATE : 04/13/11 FIGURE NO .: 6
11 -~1
4 .1-0.11
3 :t:e
~(
Apr il 19, 2011
Wallace Phillips
3D Development
Casf{e_Jcde Owners' 7lssociation
P.O. Box 9748
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone: (979) 690-2330 Fax: (979) 690-0330
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
RE: DETENTION POND MODIF ICATIONS
CASTLEGATE SU BDIVISION
COLLEGE STAT ION , TEXAS
Dear Wallace ,
The Board of Directors of the Castlegate Owners Associat io n Inc. have reviewed the plans and
have discussed your request to perform modifications to the existing detention pond on Victoria
Avenue adjacent to Section 7. Our understanding is that these modifications are necessary as
part of the drainage improvements associated with the expansion of the Castlegate Community
in the development immediately upstream of this pond . The Directors have agreed to grant 3D
Development and it's contractor's access onto the property to perform the necessary
improvements.
We ask that all reasonable precautions be taken to protect ped estr ians and vehicular traffic
during construction, and that the site be returned to an attractive , maintainable condition as
quickly as possible . Please consider this le tter as authorization to proceed with this work .
Please contact us if any changes or modifica tions need to be made to the plans submitted fo r
approval .
Sincerely,
Sandie Miller, Administrator
for the Directors of Castlegate Owners Assoc ., Inc .
•
I
. ••
•
• . .
•
~
POWHh
PO W Hh
SUBJECT PROPERTY
, rPOWlih
\
POWHh
Source: National Wetlands Inventory Map, United States
Department of the Interior, Welborn (1993)
1000 0
Modification : Property Location (CSC 2011)
I c
s £11grnec1111g & I II\ 11 onmcntal
Consutranf.\. /nc c Re1idroti011 Nlllrlbtr F-1Ul8
PHILLIPS
ENGINEERING
WETLAND INVENTORY MAP
OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND SURROUNDING AREA
PROJECT 11008-345
LOCATION : COLLEGE STATION TEXAS
APPR: MFC REV. DATE : --
DRAWN BY: AEA SCALE : AS SHOWN
DATE : 04/13/11 FIGURE NO .: 7
}
J
f
)
1000 FEET
I
11 · '31
l-f -zo · IJ
?:' t;.:) u
Ph i llips Engineering
Pr oviding Civi l En g in ee ring Se rvice s to Co ll eg e Station and Surrounding Communities
4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141
April 19 , 2011
Josh Norton
Development Services
City of College Station
P .O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE : LETTER ACKN OWLE DGIN G CITY STANDARDS
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVIS ION , SECTION 200
COLLE GE STATIO N, TEXAS
Dear Josh:
The purpose of this letter is to acknow ledge any deviations from the B/CS Design Guideline Manu al during the
design of Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200 . The following deviations are hereby noted:
1. Both the existing and the new detention ponds were not specifically designed to capture and detain the
2 , 10 , 25 , and 50 year storm events . This was in accordance with an agreement with City staff
following conversations with the engineer developing the Spring Creek LOMR. However, when runoff
from these storm events were compu ted using the same HEC-HMS model as the 100 yr event, all peak
runoff rates fell below the pre-development flowrates. Even though this was not the original intent, a
reduction in the peak runoff rates was an unexpected benefit.
2 . The low point in the berm surrounding the existing pond in Castlegate does not meet the required
freeboard above the blocked outlet conditions WSEL. This is explained in the Response to Comments.
The free b oard is computed at 0.2 feet instead of 0.5 feet as ca ll ed for in the Design Guidelines .
3. WS Phillips Parkway is being constructed as a half-street as requested by the City staff. Full width is
on1y provided at the intersection of Victoria Avenue.
4 . Sidewalks along WS Phillips Parkway will be constructed in a Common Area that is more than 3 feet
from the back of curb as called for in the Design Gu idelines.
5. The 10' bike path along WS Phillips Parkway is being constructed outside of the pavement instead of a
separate lane inside the paved area as called for in the Design Guidelines .
6 . The reinforced concrete box culverts under WS Phillips Parkway are specified to meet ASTM C-1433 .
This is the new standard that replaces ASTM C-789 and C-850 that are called for in the Design
Guidelines . The plans a lso all ow an option to build cast-in-place box culv erts in accordance with
TxDOT MC-6-16 Standard.
7 . A segment of the sewer line on Hadleigh Lane exceeds 14 feet in depth. The Design Guidelines call for
a 30 ft wide easement where this occurs. Our design calls for the line to be constructed in a 20 foot
easement, but the available ROW behind the curb provides an additional 11 feet which yields a total of
31 feet available to maintenance crews to work on this line.
I a lso acknow ledge that , to the best of my knowledge, the detai ls provided in the construction plans are in
accordance with the B /CS Standard Details .
Josh Norton -WS Phillips Intersection Design
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Kent Laza" <klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs .com>
"'Josh Norton"' <Jnorton@cstx.gov>
01/27/2011 4:40 PM
WS Phillips Intersection Design
Page 1of1
CC:
Attachments:
<wallace. phillips@verizon.net>, "Ben Wilson" <ben@phillipsengineeringbcs ...
Intersection Design Exhibits.pdf
Josh,
I phoned earlier and left a message, but this is what it was about. We are having a discussion in the office about
intersection designs and how we should present them for this interim design until the ultimate roadway is built.
Attached are four rough exhibits, two of the WS Phillips/Odell intersection and two of the WS PhillipsNictoria
intersection . Hopefully they are sufficient to convey our thoughts on the designs.
The question is whether we need to build the future left and right tum Janes with our project(s). The problem is
that the left tum lanes are on the wrong side of the road in the interim design. If we build them now, the "inside"
curb will meander in and out, making it confusing for the drivers . I suggest we leave the "inside" curb straight as
shown in Exhibit A. You can envision the alternative by looking at the ultimate design in Exhibit B. This
intersection design will be replicated every 800 feet or so at each residential street. I believe the street will look
cleaner and be less confusing for drivers if it is left straight in the interim. We will still plan to build the left tum
lanes at Greens Prairie, Victoria, and the future street on the adjacent property to the northwest.
On Exhibit D, I have shown a right-tum Jane from WS Phillips to Victoria on the Ultimate Design. I also show
the small bike path Jane at the intersection as required in the UDO when a right turn lane is provided . It is not
likely that a right-tum lane will be needed at that intersection for a long time, if ever, but I wanted to show there is
room available when/if one is needed. I propose to leave it off of our interim design as shown in Exhibit C.
I'd like to get your feedback on these ideas. I thought it best to ask now rather than wait until a design is
submitted. FYI, we are nearing completion of the construction plans for Section 200 . We hope to print them for
internal review early next week. I hope to be ready for our first submittal to you shortly after that. CSC
Engineering is conducting a geotechnical investigation of the site to give us a pavement design. They will also be
conducting an analysis of the Waters of the US. At this time, Rick Conlin feels we will fall under one or more
Nationwide Permits, so it will not be necessary to do much more that simple notification to the COE.
Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager
Phillips Engineering
PROVIDING CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO COLLEGE STATION, BRYAN AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
(979) 690-3141 office
(979) 220-1957 cell
(979) 690-1041 fax
klaza @philli sen _ ineerin _bes.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jnorton\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D41AOOACit... 02/01/2011
1
City of College Station
Purchase Order
Purchase Order No.
120208
1101 Texas Avenue P 0 Box 9960
Ab ove n umber mu st ap p ear
o n a ll c o r respondence
College Station, Texas 77842 -0960 Date
(979) 764 -3555 Fax: (979) 764 -3899 11/16/11
www.cstx.gov
4 7 765
V PHI LL I PS IV, WALLACE S
E 3D DEVELOPMENT
N 4490 CASTLEGAT E DR
S CI TY OF COLLEGE STAT ION
H CITY HALL
I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
P 1101 TEXAS AVENUE D COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845
0
R
T COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840
0
DELIVER BY I ·F .O .B . I TERMS I ACCOUNT NO I PROJECT NO.
02/29/12 I .DES T IN I NET/30 I 21291119735502 I WT WOC
LI""' QUANTITY UOM DESCRIPTION
1 1.00 EA OVERSIZE WATERLINE PARTICIPATION FOR
APPROX I MA TELY
2113 FEET OF 12-INCH WATERLINE TO BE LOCATED ALONG
WS PHILL I PS AND TO DDINGTON.
REMARKS :
Prices, Terms, Conditions and Specifications of
contract number 11-249 shall app l y to this
purchase order.
Approved by City Council on 04-28-11 2e
NOT ICE T O VEN DOR: To insure {lrompt payment mail invoice in duplicate and copy of pai d freight bi ll to be included
if invoici ng for preJJaid freig ht . Mail invoice to Attn: Accounting Department, P. 0. Box 9973, College Stat ion, Texas
77842-0973. The City of Co ll ege Station is exe mpt from Federal, State, an d Local taxes. Fede ral No . 1s I-74-6000534-5.
REO . NO .
UNIT COST
29730.0000
I GRAND
TOTAL
BID NO
EXTENSION
29730.00
29730 .00
PURCHASING AGENT
Phillips Enginee r ing
Providing Civi l Engineering Services to College Station, Bryan and Surrounding Communities
449 0 Castlegate Dr ive, Co ll ege Station, Texas 7784 5 (979) 69 0-3141
November 11, 2011
Josh Norton
Development Services
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION EXPENDITURES
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
Dear Josh :
On behalf of the developer, 3-D Development, LLC , I wish to make formal request for reimbursement
of the expenditures associated with the oversizing of the 12" water line in Castlegate II Subdivision, Section
200. This reimbursement request is associated with the Oversize Participation Agreement between 3-D
Development, LLC and The City of College Station dated May 18 , 2011 . The actual cost incurred for
oversizing the water line from an 8" line to a 12" line is as follows :
Construction Costs
Performance & Payment Bond
TOTAL
$ 21,481
6,000
$ 27 ,481
The construction costs are more fully described on Exhibit A attached to this letter .
As the Design Engineer responsible for this project, I hereby certify that these figures are an accurate
reflection of the actual costs incurred for this work. To the best of my knowledge, all construction has been
completed and all punchlist items finalized on the project. A Letter of Completion has been submitted and we
are presently awaiting the Letter of Acceptance from the City. I ask that this request be processed as quickly as
possible and the reimbursement forwarded to 3-D Development, LLC. Thank you .
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAZOS
)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF BILLS PAID
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Wallace Phillips, IV
("Affiant"), of 3-D Development, LLC ("Contractor"), who being first duly sworn, deposed -and
state the following:
"My name is Wallace Phillips, IV. I am over 18 years of age, and of sound
mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the
facts stated in it, which facts are true and correct.
Pursuant to that certain City Participation Agreement, dated as of May 18,
2011 (the "Contract") by and between the City of College Station, Texas,
and 3-D Development, LLC, Contractor furnished labor and materials to
construct a 12" Water Main on the real property known as Castlegate II
Subdivision, Section 200 (more particularly described in the Contract) the
"Project".
To the extent that the Contractor constructed or contracted for the
construction of such 12" Water Main, Contractor has paid each of its sub-
contractors , laborers and materialmen in full (except for statutory retainage)
for all labor and/or materials provided to Contractor on the Project.
To the best of Affiant's knowledge, Contractor has not received notice of
any claims pending against the Project in connection with the 12" Water
Main described in the Contract.
Further, Affiant saith not.
Executed the J L/tA day of November, 2011.
AFFIANT:
tJ~~N"'~
Printed Name~/!;/ l·p liZ ~
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this iLf r k day of November, 2011.
,,, ... ,,, ~~'..~.'~!':~,,, BEN TYLER WILSON f"/::JC·t§ Notary Public. ~tate of .Texas ~.;.:.~;:.Of My Comm1ss1on Expires
~,::,t,M,~~~,~ July 21, 2013
Notary Public, State of Texas
Item
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Exhibit A
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
SUMMARY OF OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION COSTS-POST CONSTRUCTION
November 9, 2011
Descripti on Unit Unit Price
wt s t a er •YS em w /12" Ii nes
12" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Structural Backfill 659 LF 15 .20
12" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,454 LF 15 .20
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 309 LF 6 .80
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,038 LF 6.80
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 4.10
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 862 LF 4 .10
20" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 70 LF 90.00
14" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 110 LF 75 .00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 12"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 2,057 .00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee, va lve, bend & hydrant) I EA 2,020.00
Connect to existing water line 2 EA 500.00
12" X 12" M.J. Cro ss 1 EA 238 .00
12" X 8" M.J. Cross I EA 131.00
8" X 6" M.J. Cro ss I EA 83.00
12" X 12" Tee 1 EA 193 .00
8" X 8" Tee I EA 100.00
12" M.J. Gate Valve 3 EA 1,2 15 .00
8" M.J . Ga te Valve 6 EA 658 .00
6" M .J . Gate Valve 3 EA 414 .00
12" X 45° M.J . Bend 6 EA 115 .00
8" X 45 ° M.J. Bend 7 EA 54 .00
8" X 22.5 ° M.J . Bend 2 EA 53.00
12"x 8" M.J. Reducer 2 EA 65 .00
8"x 6" M .J. Reducer I EA 65 .00
4" BlowoffValve 3 EA 623 .00
2" BlowoffValve 3 EA 510.00
I" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length = 3 ft) 2 EA 600.00
I" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 5 EA 1,100 .00
1.5" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length = 3 ft) II EA 650.00
1.5" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 9 EA 1,250 .00
Water System w/ 12" lines
w s ater ivstem w 18" Ii nes
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 968 LF 6.80
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 2,492 LF 6 .80
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 4.10
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structura l Backfill 862 LF 4 .10
14" Steel Casing Pipe, w/ca sing spacers and end caps 180 LF 75.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 8"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 2 ,040.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee, va lve, bend & hydrant) I EA 2 ,020.00
Connect to existing water li ne 2 EA 500.00
8" X 8" M.J. Cross 2 EA 95.00
8" X 6" M.J. Cross I EA 83 .00
8" X 8" Tee 2 EA 100.00
8" M.J. Gate Valve 9 EA 658.00
6" M .J . Gate Valve 3 EA 414 .00
8" X 45 ° M.J. Bend 13 EA 54 .00
8" X 22.5° M.J. Bend 2 EA 53.00
12"x 8" M.J. Reducer 2 EA 65 .00
8"x 6" M .J . Reducer I EA 65.00
2" BlowoffValve 6 EA 510.00
I" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft) 2 EA 600.00
I" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 5 EA 1,100.00
1.5'' Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length = 3 ft) II EA 650.00
1.5" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 9 EA 1,250.00
Water System w/8" lines
Oversize Participatio n Estimate
Total
10,017
22,101
2,101
7,058
185
3,534
6,300
8,250
4,114
2,020
1,000
238
131
83
193
100
3 ,645
3,948
1,242
690
378
106
130
65
1,869
1,530
1,200
5,500
7,150
11 ,250
$106,128
6,582
16,946
185
3,534
13,500
4,080
2,020
1,000
190
83
200
5,922
1,242
702
106
130
65
3,060
1,200
5,500
7,150
11 ,250
$84,647
$21,481
e Civil
Constructors
Inc.
1707 Graham Road • College Station, TX 77845
(979) 690-7711 • Fax: (979) 690-9797
B J CC999 11
INVOICE
NO.
73
1
I 3-D DEVELOPMENT
L 4490 CASTLEGATE DRIVE
0 CCI MISC JOB YR 2011
B
L COLLEGE STATION TX 778 4 5
T
0
QUANTITY D E S C R I P T I 0 N
N
0
ATTENTION: WALLACE PHILLIPS
BONDS FOR CASTLEGATE PHASE II
SECT 200 -WATER SY$TEM
UNI'l'
PRICE
CONTRACT NO.
EXTENDED
PRICE
. 6 ,000.00
GROSS RETAINAGE TAX NET AMOUNT
6 _{) 0 0 0 0 . •n 0 0 I 0 0 . 6 f 0 0 0 • 0 0 FINANCE CHARGE of 1:53· iriterest (per month) w1 be added to all Invoices over 30 days.
1:...
•11E Et~ OUl: u n a·z-l :1!t bl.s 2 T \'.. 1, :• .... b .S 01 OOtolt ,--. ·-------·----~'wiii"Jc-=~;-;;~~-----··· ..... -·-----·
't-0.L.L XJ. 'm>tt919 •09110=>
QI p~ ui•~.•J p J.OL I
:>Uf '•kJ~NJ•.uo:;, U"40 .. f UuvT>O tJ-:0 .:.~:::···:=-;~:·::·:~~~~~·=':::::::~=~~::::_:~:~:.~~;~~=~~=~·::::=;:~~::::;;~~;~
r ---n-avoT'Tll
l .6501:
T-rn-p /-,-r ,,...
o•t~~-::f&J~~:uc-r;.
J.N.!INd0,\11\llO 0--t:
Josh Norton -OP Reimbursement Information
From:
To:
Date:
"Kent Laza" <klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs .com>
"'Josh Norton"' <Jnorton@cstx.gov>
11/17/201111:31 AM
Subject: OP Reimbursement Information
Attachments: Copy oflnvoice from CCI for Bonds.pdf
Josh,
Page 1 of 1
Attached is a copy of the invoice and the cancelled check for the Performance and Payment Bonds that Dusty
secured from Civil Constructors Inc (Texcon) related to the over sizing of the water system in Castlegate II. Let
me know if you need anything else . Thanks.
Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager
Phillips Engineering
PROVIDING CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO COLLEGE STATION, BRYAN AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
(979) 690-3141 office
(979) 220-1957 cell
(979) 690-1041/ax
klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs.com
file://C:\Documents and Settings~norton\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4EC4F088City... 11117/2011
ROUTING SHEET
CONTRACTS & OTHER AGREEMENTS
(These Documents Require Council Approval)
For Office Use Only: :sJ i I
1.originals sent to Fiscal on l 11
_\_copies sent to Legal on S '1 \I
Scanned into Laserficheon '5 \ 't ~
Contract No.: 11 -249 Project No.:
0:4' f-; / ' --------~---'
Project Name:$ . ,C'ASTLEGATE ii SUBDIVISION SECTION 200 PROJEC r ~ ~ 7·~----,---'---,----"-'--"---:;-c
~ R
Name.of Contractor: 3-D DEVELOPMENT LLC
Contract Description: CITY PARTIOPADON AGREEMENT-Construction of a water main -Castlegate II Subdivision
CRC Approval Date (if required):
presell6itiye/Extension
Council Approval Date (if required): 04-28-2011 _ / &Z..Z. {
AgendaitemNo.: CONSENTITTM1($ . ~ ~
Finance Review Required: Insurance Certificate$. f<-flrtormance Boncl:_}(_~t Bond: X
. {Jel'SOf1 reviewing, please initial if approved)
Comments: This matter was presented to Counc il on 04-28-2011 and approved by Ordinance No. 2010-3333 (a copy 1
which is attached).
By Ordinance No. 2010-3333, the City Council approves the City Participation Agreement with 3-D
Development, LLC obligating the City to pay a maximum of $29,730.00 out of a total estimated amount of
$195,563.00 for the labor, materials, and equipment required for the improvements related to the ·
Castlegate II Subdivision Section 200 Project. The funding for this contract shall be as budgeted
from the Wastewater Capital Improvement Projects Funds.
5 ~~~
MAYOR
4 ~·~
CITY MANAGER
3 _....U..._...4_A_.....1J~6't-1M""""'""ifhA"---"'-. ..__/ __ _
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
2-:lt--H-+A-+~( ~~--
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR/
ADMINISTERING CONTRACT DIRECTOR
DATE
S-1'1-tt
DATE
S -17-11
DATE
DATE
s-13-11
DATE
CITY OF COllEGE STATION
Home of Texas A&M University'
FOR OFFIC~\USE ONLY
CASE NO.: I l 1 31
DATE SUBMITTED : .-4-, 9-S. L
TIME : \466
STAFF : '{..):\
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal.
D New Project Submittal
D Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application . Case No .:
IT' Existing Project Submittal. Case No .: Ff / /-0 0 .s= 1200 ~ / --------
Project Name --=--~~---l---=-<--=-___..._._ ___ ~_..::.e-'c=::.....!..(,_,J:.·'"-',,..----'2.=tJ=--0-------------
Phone Number _-'6>=-f~0_-__.._/..::...0_9__,_/ ___ _
We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment (check all that apply):
D Comprehensive Plan Amendment
D Rezoning Application
D Conditional Use Permit
D Preliminary Plan
D Final Plat
D Development Plat
D Site Plan
D Special District Site Plan
D Special District Building I Sign
D Landscape Plan
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
D Non-Residential Architectural Standards
D Irrigation Plan
D Variance Request
D Development Permit
D Development Exaction Appeal
D FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR
D Grading Plan
D Other -Please specify below
All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set.
The following are included in the complete set:
D Comprehensive Plan Amendment
D TxDOT Driveway Permit
D TxDOT Utility Permit
D Drainage Letter or Report
D Fire Flow Analysis
Special Instructions :
10/10
D
D
D
D
D
Print Form
Waterline Construction Documents
Sewerline Construction Documents
Street Co nstruction Documents
Easemen t Application
Other -Pl ease specify
CITY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into this day of , 2011, by
and between the City of College Station, a Texas home rule municipal corporation
(hereinafter "CITY"), and 3-D Development, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company
(hereinafter "DEVELOPER").
WHEREAS , DEVELOPER is developing property within the City of College Station,
more particularly described as Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200, College Station,
Brazos County, Texas (hereinafter "Property") a description of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS , DEVELOPER is required to construct certain public infrastructure, such as
roadways , utilities, sidewalks, drainage facilities , water and sewer facilities , etc . that
relate to DEVELOPER'S proposed development; and
WHEREAS , CITY is required or desirous of assuming some or all responsibility for
construction of certain public infrastructure affecting DEVELOPER 'S development ; and
WHEREAS , because of this and in order to comply with CITY 's overall development
scheme both DEVELOPER and CITY agree that it is in the best interests of the public to
jointly construct certain identified public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS , the City Engineer has reviewed the data , reports and analysis , including that
pro vided by DEVELOPER's engineers, and determined that such public improvement
qualifies for joint CITY-DEVELOPER participation; and
WHEREAS , both parties agree as to the nature and proportion of joint participation as
further recited herein and as may be required in accordance with section 212 .071 et seq
and Chapter 252 Texas Local Government Code;
NOW, THEREFORE , for and in consideration of the recitations above and the promises
and covenants herein expressed, the parties hereby agree as follows :
I.
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Approved Plans means the plans and specifications that meet the requirements of
this Participation Agreement, the City of College Station Codes and Ordinances and any
other applicable laws and that have been submitted to , reviewed and appro ved by the City
of College Station Development Services Department, the City Engineer.
1.2 CITY or College Station means the City of College Station, a Texas home rule
municipal corporation located at 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas 77840 .
Contract No. \ \-:2.L\. 9 City Participation Agreement Page 1
1.3 DEVELOPER means 3-D Development, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Company whose principal office is located at 4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station,
Texas 77845.
1.4 Effective Date. The date on which this Agreement is signed by the last party
whose signing makes the Agreement fully executed .
1.5 Final Completion. The term "Final Completion" means that all the work on the
Project has been completed, a written guarantee of performance for a one year
maintenance period has been provided, all final punch list items have been inspected and
satisfactorily completed, all payments to materialmen and subcontractors have been
made , all documentation, and all closeout documents have been executed and approved
by the DEVELOPER as required, all Letters of Completion and other CITY
documentation have been issued for the Project, all reports have been submitted and
reporting requirements have been met, and DEVELOPER has fully performed any other
requirements contained herein.
1.6 Letter of Completion: A letter issued by the City Engineer stating that the
construction of public improvements conforms to the plans , specifications and standards
contained in or referred to in the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANC E.
1. 7 Property means Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200 and as further described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein made a part hereof.
1.8 Project means the construction of a water main, as detailed in Exhibit B attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference .
II.
CITY COST PARTICIATION
2.1 Agree to Participate. CITY agrees to cost participate in the Project in the
maximum amount estimated as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference . CITY 'S actual rate of participation will be based upon
the final actual cost of the Project as reflected by the breakdown of costs required
pursuant to this Agreement but in no event shall exceed the maximum amount estimated
in Exhibit B .
2.2 Public Bidding. The total estimated cost of the Project is as set forth in Exhibit
B . If CITY 's cost participation exceeds 30% of the total cost of the Project or is located
within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the CITY, then the Project must be competitively
bid pursuant to Chapter 252 Texas Local Government Code, as amended. If CITY
participation exceeds 30 % of the total cost of the Project, CITY shall be responsible for
adv ertising and obtaining bids or negotiating proposals for the construction of the Project.
DEVELOPER shall pay for all costs associated with advertising , printing, and
distributing plans and specifications for the Project.
Contract No. l \-;)_1-\-q City Participation Agreement Page 2
If CITY 's cost participation is 30% or less of the total cost of the Project and is
located within the boundaries of the CITY, the Project need not be competitively bid.
2.3 Cost of Project. DEVELOPER's engineer's detailed cost estimate of the Project
is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
2.4 Application for Payment. Application for payment by the DEVELOPER to the
CITY for payment to the DEVELOPER pursuant to the terms of this Agreement must
include the following in a form acceptable to CITY:
(1) Final Completion of the Project in accordance with the Approved
Plans;
(2) issuance of all Letters of Completion relating to the Project;
(3) DEVELOPER's compliance with all CITY Codes, Ordinances and
standards relating to the Project, the Property and its subdivision and
development;
(4) dedication of the land for the right-of-way either by plat or by deed
(5)
(6)
CITY;
relating to the Project;
a current title report as of the date of such land dedication and
updated within sixty ( 60) days of the date of this Agreement;
lien releases or subordinations from all lenders as required by
(7) Proof that all guarantees of performance and payment as set forth
in this Agreement have been met, including all bond requirements when
applicable; and
(8) A breakdown of actual costs of the Project with supporting
documentation, including all payment receipts.
2.5 City Participation Payment. DEVELOPER shall submit the written application
for CITY participation payment within thirty (30) days after issuance of all Letters of
Completion relating to the Project or DEVELOPER shall be ineligible to receive the
CITY participation payment specified in this Agreement and CITY 's obligation to cost
participate shall terminate without any liability. Applications may not be submitted prior
to Final Completion. CITY will pay its participation funds in one payment within thirty
(30) days after receipt of a complete written application for participation payment from
DEVELOPER.
2.6 Reports, books and other records. DEVELOPER shall make its books and
other records related to the project available for inspection by CITY. DEVELOPER shall
submit to CITY any and all information or reports requested to verify the expenditures
submitted for CITY participation eligibility including but not limited to bid documents,
payment applications , including any supporting information, cancelled checks, copies of
construction and engineering documents, as determined by the City Engineer in his sole
discretion, for the verification of the cost of the Project detailed in Exhibit B of this
Agreement. The submission of these reports and information shall be the responsibility
Contract No. l \ -J-4 °I City Participation Agreement Page 3
of DEVELOPER and shall be certified by DEVELOPER's Licensed Professional
Engineer at DEVELOPER 's expense and signed by an authorized official of the entity.
III.
GOVERNMENT AL IMMUNITY, INDEMNIFICATION AND RELEASE
CITY is a political subdivision of the state and enjoys governmental immunity. By
entering into this Agreement, CITY does not consent to suit, waive its governmental
immunity, or the limitations as to damages under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
DEVELOPER agrees to and shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend CITY and
its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, losses,
damages, causes of action, suits, and liability of every kind, including all expenses of
litigation, court costs, expert fees and attorney's fees, for injury to or death of any
person, or for damage to any property, or for breach of contract, arising out of or in
connection with the work done by DEVELOPER under this Agreement, regardless
of whether such injuries, death, damages or breach are caused in whole or in part
by the negligence of CITY, any other party indemnified hereunder, or the
DEVELOPER.
DEVELOPER shall indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any claims of
suppliers or subcontractors of DEVELOPER for improvements constructed or
caused to be constructed by DEVELOPER.
DEVELOPER shall indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any and all injuries to
or claims of adjacent property developers resulting from or relating to their
performance under this Agreement.
DEVELOPER assumes full responsibility for the work to be performed hereunder,
and releases, relinquishes and discharges CITY, its officers, agents and employees,
from all claims, demands, and causes of action of every kind and character,
including the cost of defense therefore, for any injury to or death of any persons and
any loss of or damage to any property that is caused by, alleged to be caused by,
arising out of, or in connection with, DEVELOPER's work to be performed
hereunder. This release shall apply whether or not said claims, demands, and causes
or action are covered in whole or in part by insurance and regardless of whether or
not said claims, demands, and causes of action were caused in whole or in part by
the negligence of CITY, any other party released hereunder, or DEVELOPER.
IV.
PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION
4.1 Right to Inspect the Work. CITY may inspect the improvements for
compliance with the Approved Plans during construction . In the event that it is
determined by CITY that any of the work or materials furnished is not in strict
accordance with the Approved Plans, CITY may withhold funds until the nonconforming
Contract No . \ \ -.'.J..~ ~I City Participation Agreement Page4
work conforms to the Approved Plans or terminate this Agreement at CITY ' s election
without any further liability.
4.2 Independent Contractor . DEVELOPER shall be solely responsible for
selecting, supervising, and paying the construction contractor(s) or subcontractors and for
complying with all applicable laws , including but not limited to all requirements
concerning workers compensation and construction retainage.
The parties to this Agreement agree and understand that all employees , volunteers ,
personnel and materials furnished or used by DEVELOPER in the installation of the
specified improvements shall be the responsibility of DEVELOPER and shall not be
deemed employees or agents of CITY for any purpose .
4.3 Payment for materials and labor. DEVELOPER shall be solely and exclusively
responsible for compensating any of its contractors, employees, subcontractors ,
materialmen and/or suppliers of any type or nature whatsoever and insuring that no
claims or liens of any type will be filed against any property owned by CITY arising out
of or incidental to the performance of any service performed pursuant to this Agreement.
In the event a statutory lien notice is sent to CITY, DEVELOPER shall , where no
payment bond covers the work , upon written notice from the CITY, immediately obtain a
bond at its expense and hold CITY harmless from any losses that may result from the
filing or enforcement of any said lien notice .
4.4 Affidavit of bills paid. Prior to the issuance of a Letter of Completion of the
improvements , DEVELOPER shall provide CITY a notarized affidavit stating that all
bills for labor, materials , and incidentals incurred have been paid in full , that any claims
from manufacturers, materialmen, and subcontractors have been released , and that there
are no claims pending of which DEVELOPER has been notified . Such affidavit shall be
in a form as substantially set forth in Exhibit C which is attached hereto and incorporated
by reference .
4.5 Requirements of Applicable rules remain. This Agreement does not alter,
amend modify or replace any other requirements contained in the Code of Ordinances ,
Unified Development Code, or other applicable law .
v.
GUARANTEEOFPERFORMANCEANDPAYMENT
5.1 Bonding Requirements of Developer. Where CITY participation is 30% or less
of the total value of the Project, DEVELOPER shall execute a performance bond to
ensure construction of the Project and shall ensure that its contractor performing the
Project executes a payment bond to ensure payment to subcontractors, if any. The bonds
must be executed by a corporate surety in accordance with CHAPTER 2253 , TEXAS
GO VERNME NT CODE. The bonds shall be in the total amount of the contract price as
approved by CITY.
ContractNo . \}-~~OJ City Participation Agreement Page 5
5.2 Bonding Requirements of City. Where CITY participation is greater than 30%
of the total value of the Project or when the Project is located within the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the CITY , the CITY shall ensure that the prime contractor of the Project
execute to the CITY a performance bond and/or a payment bond as may be required
pursuant to chapter 2253 Texas Government Code.
VI.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 Amendments. No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective and binding
unless and until it is reduced to writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of
both parties .
6.2 Choice of law and Venue. This Agreement has been made under and shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Performance and all matters related thereto
shall be in Brazos County, Texas, United States of America .
6.3 Authority to enter into Agreement. Each party represents that it has the full
power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement. The person executing this
Agreement on behalf of each party has been properly authorized and empowered to enter
into this Agreement. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of DEVELOPER
represents that he or she is authorized to sign on behalf of DEVELOPER and agrees to
provide proof of such authorization to the CITY upon request.
6.4 Agreement read. The parties acknowledge that they have read , understand and
intend to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
6.5 Notice. All notices and documents required herein shall be sent and provided to
the parties at the addresses and telephone numbers listed below :
DEVELOPER:
3-D DEVELOPMENT , LLC
WALLACE PHILLIPS IV, MANAGER
4490 CASTLEGATE DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77845
City of College Station
City Engineer
P .O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
With copies to :
City Attorney and City Manager
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77842
Contract No . \ I -d ~ q City Participation Agreement Page 6
All notices and documents shall be deemed received when mailed with sufficient postage
and deposited in a regular mailbox of the United States Post Office. The parties may
change addresses upon thirty (30) days ' written notice sent certified mail , return receipt
requested .
6.6 Assignment. This Agreement and the rights and obligations contained herein
may not be assigned by DEVELOPER without the prior written approval of the CITY.
6.7 Default. In the event of a breach of this Agreement by DEVELOPER, CITY may
terminate this Agreement and exercise any and all legal remedies available to it.
Executed this ___ day of _______________ , 2011.
List of Exhibits:
A A description of the Property
B Request Letter describing Project & Engineer 's estimate of the costs of the Project
C Affidavit of All Bills Paid form
3-D DEVELOPMENT, LLC
BY: t/dJ/l~JZl9.kJ.
Printed Name:~ /14'4 5. Pk,•/ k,s CZ
Title: #'11a1A")e/
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
BY~~~
Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED :
City Manager
(ru/a/I~
City Attorney
Chie
Contract No . \ \ -;;:l..Ll 4 City Participation Agreement Page 7
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAZOS
)
)
)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
WALLACE PHILLIPS IV as Manager of 3-D DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Texas Limited
Liability Company, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the
purposes and consideration therein expressed.
Given under my hand and seal of office on this the 25__ day of ftp (1 \
,,,..,,,,
,.~\.~.'!r:';•,, BEN TYLER WILSON f":~f'~ Notary Public, State of Texas ;.~.~·"·?-.? My Commission Expires ~-1:,f,p,~,\~~, .. -July 27. 2013
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAZOS
)
)
)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
'2011.
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
_______ as Mayor of the City of College Station, a Texas home-rule municipal
corporation, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and
consideration therein expressed.
Given under my hand and seal of office on this the J1i"day of ~ 2011.
TANYA MCNUTT
No tary Public, State of Taus
My Commission Explr&S
FEBRUARY 14.2014
Contract No. \ \ -;;)_~ 4 City Participation Agreement Page 8
cortfll:A![f#--K:x.t.-
ITUl:Of''IO'U -·-.. _,,,.,..._.._., ... .......,_,'"' __ ....... .,_:rf __ _
::::.-:.:::r-:.:=-~-~..:..-=--=:-..-..:-.~"',::-:: :..;..~~ ... -==--.:=:-::--=== 0:::-::-... --=;::. ---
:n.11:rwx...s ---::':::.::..-==--~-~":::="=-.-::~'"":'" .:; ... _ ... _______ _
--... ---.. ---41 ---~
CID'!ft'ICA'll:•Off-
.. att>~.t-Ol,.tC..0.. ....... -......, :"&::::...---= =-'" -_._ "' ... -.__._."'
~·--·--·-
"'-
=
.. --............ -...... ..._ ............. "',........, ~?-~£=:~-==~-=
~ICf/1'11Co:unTaoOllC
SU.1Ct#lCILl.1
~--.. ~-------.. ........... --,-.-"""...,.__.._ _ _, ______ ,,,, __ ..,.._ .... _
~~--.. ---.t-c...,. ....... -.-
•..:n-.,--..w-. ... ...,-".._~-
c;;;;;;:,o;;; ---
LEGEND
----IRl'lolC ----------I.-..: _ __ .,..,.
-··---··-..... ---·:1~.1 ,t>I LO"' ROOCl1QlllC__...,.. --
.......... - ---·· . ~---·-= ::: . ---·---~ . ---·--. ---·· . -~ --·---~ . -:::: _, .... . -:::: ---·· ----·· ::: --~ " ---·· :: ---·· .. --~ ---_ _. ... -::: -·· N ., --· -., --·· --~ -·~ --•w --~ ---_, ..... :::: -:::: -::: --·· ----·· ::: ------·· -------·· --~ ~ --•w ----·· ----·· ::: --~ --·· -·-----··
IKI.,_ -l.llCl'--"4 -
"'U .. -··-... """ -... -"" --w-... ·--..-... "" -.......... .... ..... MPWWt .. --w-.... __ .,,_ .. __ .,_ .. __ .,._
" -_ _._ ~ .. ----
IO --t'r-.. -_.,,'" IO_...,..,,_ ... .,., ---
Ut •l.ol' ....... '" Lit --.,,-
-"-•IL -...--r-
-~ ....... ___
C1 -------------~.-:...--=::-~~---NC2·1s •2!."'\V-<rr.n----~-------------------~ _,,,
S4!"03'31"E-15e6.M'
PAJU<lAND
1.387 ACRES .., -=-
f<Ua"03' 31'W-112.60'
LEGEND
----~-----i.«IH
P.-..C ~----------UC
I
I
J
I .. ·
.
. i ......
P.\(,J:i P.\~;r I
FINAL PLAT
CASTI.EGATE II SUBDIVISION
SECTION200
28.557 ACRES
l03DTSTEVENSON tAAGtn> ... A-M
coueceSTAnoN. BkAZOS COl.NrY, TI!::XAS
-.. llrft,_lt -.. ~,,,_,.
M.oo;f,.LOTllJ111W H
11.act.'.T,LO'\'I
-~ .. L ---__ ,_,_
--·~----
Phillips Engineering
Providing Civil Engineering Servic es to College Station and Surrounding Comm1111itles
4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station, Texas 77045 (979) 690-3141
March 1, 2011
Josh Norton
Development Services
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION REQUEST
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Dear Josh:
Wi th this letter I wish to initiate a request for Oversize Participation by the City of College
Station for the 12" water line being installed with Section 200 of Castlegate II. This water line
was designed to comply with the City's Water Masterplan which calls for a 12" line to parallel
WS Phillips Parkway through the subdivision. The constrnction plans for the water system are
included with this submittal for your review. They show a total of approximately 2113 feet of
12" line running along WS Phillips and Toddington .
In the accompanying Water System Rep01t, you will see that we have modeled the water system
in the subdivision using 4", 6" and 8" lines. The model demonstrates that the system performs
above minimµm standards using these line sizes. 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 systems using 12" lines and
another using 8" lines instead. The difference in cost between the two line sizes and the related
fittings is $23,863. I believe this is a conservative number and that actual construction costs
should not exceed that figure. I also estimate a cost of 3 % of that figure for the performance and
payment bonds which comes to $5,867. The total Oversize Participation request is for $29,730.
This figure is approximately 15% of the overall water system cost and is well below the threshold
limit of 30% where competitive bidding becomes a requirement.
I ask that you review these accompanying documents and forward them to other staff members
involved in the Oversize Pa1ticipation process . Please let me know what subsequent steps we ned
to take to move forward with this request. Thank you.
Si~i
KentLaza,P.E. ~
Manager
Phillips Engineering
attachments
Item
No .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION COSTS
March 1, 2011
Description Unit Unit Price
w t s t /12" iJ a er •YS cm w llCS
12" Waler PVC CL200 (C900). CL200 Structural Backfill 659 LF 33.00
12" Wa ter PVC CL200 (C900). CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,454 LF 29.00
8" Wa ter PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 309 LF 24.00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Str11ctural Backfill 1,038 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 21.00
611 Water PVC CL200 (C900). CL200 Non-Stru olllral Backfill 862 LF 18.00
20" Steel Casing Pipe, w/caslng spacers and end caps 70 LF 90 .00
14" Steel Casing Pipe, w/caslng spacers and end caps 110 LF 75.00
Fire Hydran t Assembly (lncl. l2"x6 " tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 3,500.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (Incl. 6"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 1 EA 3,300.00
Connect to existing water line 2 BA 500.00
12" X 12" M.J. Cross 1 EA 750 .00
12" X 8" M.J. Cross 1 EA 600.00
8" X 6" M.J. Cross 1 EA 500.00
12" X 12" Tee 1 EA 600.00
8"X8"Tec 1 EA 400 .00
12" M.J. Gate Valve 3 BA 1,800.00
811 M.J. Gate Valve 6 BA 1,200 .00
611 M.J. Gato Valve 3 EA 850,00
12" X 45° M.J. Bend 6 EA 400,00
8" X 45° M.J. Bend 7 EA 300.00
8" X 22.5° M.J. Bend 2 EA 300 .00
12"x 811 M.J. Reducer 2 EA 300 .00
8"x 6" M.J. Reducer I BA 225 .00
4' BlowoffValve 3 BA 2,200.00
2• BlowoffValve 3 EA 1,500.00
I" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft) 2 EA 600.00
l" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length =47 ft) 5 EA 1,100 .00
1.5" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft) 11 EA 650.00
1.5'' Water Service,> 15 ft (avg iength = 47 ft) 9 BA I 250.00
Water System w/ 12''. lines
Water S stem w/8 11 lines
8" Wa ter PVC CL200 (C900). CL200, Structural Backfill 968 LF 24.00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Slructural Backfill 2,492 LF 21.00
6" Wa ter PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 862 LF 18 .00
14" Steel Casing Pi e, w/easlng spacers and end caps 180 LF 75.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (Incl. 811x6 11 tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 3,300.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (lncl. 6"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) I EA 3,300 .00
Connect to existing water llne 2 EA 500 .0 0
811 X 811 M.J. Cross 2 EA 600.00
811 X 6" M.J. Cross I EA 500.00
8"X8"Tce 2 EA 400 .00
8" M.J. Gate Valve 9 EA 1,200.00
6" M.J. Gato Valve EA 850.00
811 X 45° M.J . Bend 13 EA 300.00
8" X 22.5° M.J. Bend 2 BA 300.00
12"x 8" M.J. Reducer 2 EA 300 .00
8"x 6" M.J . Reducer 1 BA 225.00
2" BlowoffValve 6 BA 1,500.00
111 Water Service,< 15 ft(avglength =<3 ft) 2 EA 600.00
l" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length a 47 ft 5 BA 1,100.00
1.5" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length"' 3 ft) 11 BA 650 ,00
1.5" Water Serv ice, > 15 ft avg len h = 47 ft 9 BA 1,250.00
Water System w/8 11 lines
Oversize Participation Estimate
Tolol
21,747
42,166
7,416
21,798
945
15,516
6,300
8,250
7,000
3,300
1,000
750
600
500
600
400
5,400
7,200
2,550
2,400
2,100
600
600
225
6,600
4,500
1,200
5,500
7,150
11,250
$195,563
23,232
52,332 .
945
15,516
13,500
6,600
3,300
1,000
1,200
500
800
10,800
2,550
3,900
600
600
225
9,000
1,200
5,500
7,150
11 250
$171,700
$23,863
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAZOS l AFFIDAVIT OF BILLS PAID
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared
________________ ("Affiant"), __________ _
of ____________ ("Contractor"), who being first duly sworn, deposed
and state the following :
200
"My name is . I am over 18 years of age,
of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted
with the facts stated in it, which facts are true and correct.
Pursuant to that certain contract, dated as of
_____ , 200_ (the "Contract") by and between the City of
College Station, Texas , and ----------------Con tractor furnished labor and materials to construct
on the real property known as ____________ (more
particularly described in the Contract) the "Project".
To the extend that Contractor constructed or contracted for the
construction of such -------------------
Con tractor has paid each of its sub-contractors, laborers and materialmen
in full (except fo r statutory retainage) for all labor and/or materials
provided to Contractor on the Project.
To the best of Affiant's knowledge, Contractor has not received notice of
any claims pending against the Project in connection with the
described in the Contract. -------------
Further, Affiant saith not.
Executed this ____ day of _________ , 200_.
AFFIANT:
Printed Name: --------
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this __ day of ____ .
Notary Public, State of Texas
11 /10 /2011 14:39 FAX 9796901041 CASTLEGATE 141001 /00 1
Form W•9
(Rev . October 2007i
Department c 1 1he Traast!ry
!n 1emu1 Rever.:..ie Se"';ce
Request for Taxpayer
Identification Number and Certification
Give form to the
requester. D o n o t
sen d to th e IRS.
tax return)
N ! , =l\Z:: ~ t--'\1-..E--"J~ILU~--\--'-llU-.l.J-J~-W.l-e . ---------------·-·--·-
:::>.I
§ ~ -----------· -·--···--·-·-·----------
~ § ' Chee~ aµprop11al oox.. C lrio1 v;d uai/Sole propnemr [J Gorocrat·on ;_··' Part r1ersnio
~·:. 'I !l] L 1m1 teo l1 ab1hty company . Enter l he t ax c !ass1i1cat1on ID=drs r ~a rd ec e·1 ~1 ty . c~co r!)()rar :on . P=p artn~rsh i pJ •
0 2 ! 0 Other ise e 1nstn.1cbons) ~
;---Cxc."Tip t
L._ p2yl3~
.~ ~ ! .~dd ress (n umoer . street. and apt . or su;te no.i
·---------------------·----·----
Req uesler's na 11'e a"lO accre·;s ;oo l:o ria :1
~ ~ i <-f ~-1 ~e . f!'~~t~'a±! j)L -----------!
~I ;--1.,t"-C.L.CIUjft--\-q..,'4--f-+C!!'ll'...-4--.l---P---_!'.....!--.QL.J_.,}.. ______ . _________ ....L ________ .
"' "' (/)
.. .,..,.. __ T~a~x~p~a~yLe~r:..._::ld~e~n~t~if~ic~a~t~io~n ~N~u::::..:m~b~e~r~T~l~N~)~-------~--~~-~~-~
Enter y our TIN in th e appropriate box . The TIN provided mu st ma;ch the name g iven on Lin e 1 to avoid
backup withho ld ing . For ind ivid uals, this is your social sec urity number (SSN l. Howe ver. for a res id ent
alien , sole proprietor. or d isregarded ent ity, see the Pan I in stru ct ions on page 3. For omer ent i ties, it is
your employ er ident if icat ion number (E JN ). If you do not have a number. see How to get a TIN on page 3 .
\Socia l security numb er
: ______________ _
or
Note . 11 the ac c ount is in more t han one name. see me chan ori pa ge 4 for gu1aeli nes or. whose I Emg loyer identific ation number
i ,17 : .1 'J Y ~7 )"......,.S--'--1 __ n wn ber 10 enter.
l:tftilil Certific ation
Under penalties of p erju ry . I cert ify that :
1 . Th e number shown on th is form 1s m y correct taxpa ye r identif icat ioC' n~m oer lor I am waiti ng for a nc;mbe r 10 be issued to mej . and
2. I am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I a"' ~xempt from ba cku p wi thlloloing, or (b ) I have not been not ifi«o by :ne ln:erna i
Re venue Serv ice (IRS ) that I am subjec; to backup w it hho ld ing ;:i s 8 re sun of a fa ilure w re p ort all int erest or dividen ds . Jr cc: '.r.e IRS .,as
noti fied me that I am no longer sub1ec t to backup w ithholding. a"d
3. I am a U.S. citi zen or other U.S. person (d efined below).
Certification instruction s. You m ust cross out i te m 2 abo ve if you have bee n r.ou11ed b y the IRS that you are currenrly sutiect to tlac 1<u p
w ithho ldin g because you have fa iled to report all interest and d ividends on your tax ret urn. For rea l estate transactions. iterr 2 cioes not apply
For mortgage interest p aid. ac quisiti on or abandonm en t ot se cured property . canceli atior: o i oeb t , cont ributions to &n 1ndiv1c :ual retirem e:it
arrang ement (I RA). and gener all y, payments othe r than interest and dividends . yoL are not re quired to sig n the C<!r.ificatio n. but you must
provide your corr ec t TIN. See the ins tru c t io ns on pag e 4.
Sign
Here
' Signature of
U.S . person ~
Sec tion rei ere nc es are to the Intern al Re ve n ue Cod e un less
o t her w ise noted.
Purpose of Form
A person w h o is required to file an 1nformat1o n return w it h tne
IR S must obtain your correct taxpayer iden t if icat ion n u mbe r (T IN )
to repo rt, f or example , income paid l o y ou. rea l estate
t ransact ions , mortgage inter est you p aid , acquisit io n or
abandonmen t of secured p r oper ty , cancelia ion of debt. o r
contribu tions you m ade to an IRA
Use Form W -9 on ly ii you are a U .S . person (includ ing a
res ident alien). to p rov1oe you r correct T l to the p erson
requesting it (t he req uester) and. when appli cable . to :
1. Certify that t he T IN you a re g ivin g is corre ct (or you are
waiting for a num ber t o be issued),
2 . C ertify that you are n ot subject to backu p w ithholding . or
3 . C la im exempUo oi f rom bac kup w ithh o ld ing if y ou are a U .S.
exempt payee . If applicable, you are also cert ify ing th at as a
U .S. person . your a ll o cable sh are of any partne rship income from
a U .S . trade or business is not s ub;ect to t he w ithhold in g tax on
fore ign part ners ' s hare of ettect iv ely con n ected inco me .
Note . If a requester g ives you a form other t han Form W -9 l o
request your TIN , you must use the request er's form if it 1s
substantially s im ilar t o t his Fo rm W-9 .
-------------------·
Date ~ I l-I 0 -l '
D efinition o t a U .S. person . For iecer ai !a) purposes . you are
cons idered a U .S. pers on if you are:
• An 1ndiv 1cual who 1s a U .S . ci tizen o r U.S. r;sidem a!1 en .
• A partnership . corpor at ion. company . o r as:;oc1at ion c reated or
o rgan ized in t he U111t ed Stat es o r under the laws of the U ni ted
St ates .
• An estate (et her than a fo r eign estate). or
• A domest ic trus t (as deiined in Regulat ions sect1011
301 . 7701 -7).
Sp ecia l rules for partnerships . PE.rt nerships that conduct a
trade or ousiness ;n the Unitec S ta tes ae ger era 11y require o to
pay a withholding t ax on any fore ign part ne rs ' share oi income
from s uch busin es s . Fu11 her. in certain cases nher e a Form W -9
has not been rece 1v eo , a partnership is r eq uiroid to presum e that
a partn er is a foreign person . an d pay the w1 ti1ho ld tng t ax .
Thereiore. 1f you are a U .S. person that is a p artner 1n a
p artnership conducting a t rade o r b usin ess in th e Uni t ed St at es.
p rov;de Form W-9 to tM pariners n :p to estab !1 sh your U .S .
sta •us and avoid withhold ing o n your share or partnership
in come .
The p erson who g ;ve s Form W -9 to the par nersnip for
purposes or estab1 :sht11 g its U .S s:atus a nd avrnc :ng w 1lhhold 1ng
on its a 11o cabte sh are of n et income rro rn the partn ersh ip
cori duc•in g a trace o r busin ess in the Un11ed ~>:a t es os 1n th e
follow ing cases :
• The U .S . own er of a d 1sregaroeo entity and not th e ent ity.
Cat. No . 1()'231X For.0 W-9 (Re·; 10-2G07,
REQUEST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BUDGET TRANSFER
DATE: 4/08/11
FROM:
PROJECT NAME & NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER
Oversize Partici ation 212-9111-973-55-02
WF0136621 WTWOC
REASON FOR AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS:
Oversize Partici ation OP funds are bud eted each
TO:
PROJECT NAME & NUMBER ACCOUNT NUMBER
Castle ate II Subdivision, Sect 200 212-9111-973-55-02
WF0136621/001 WTWOC
JUSTIFICATION OF NEED FOR TRANSFER:
AMOUNT
$29 ,730 .00
AMOUNT
$29,730.00
the Cit contribution re uested is $29,730 .00 . FY11 Oversized Partici ation funds were a roved in the
amount of $100 ,000 .00 .
Budget Review: __________ _
Approved: avid Coleman
Department Head
(( ~'Zoll Approved: -------------
Budget Officer
Council Approved: ----=-A=p.:..:.ri'-'I 2=8'-'-. -=2-=-0-=-11"----Approved: ____________ _
City Manager
CITY PARTICIPATION REQUEST
()p REQUEST#.WTll-0001.
C!TY O F C OLLEG E STAT ION
Planning and Development Services
Proj ec t Name: Ca stlegate II, Section 200 -Water City Participation Requ es t
·S.ubdivi s ion~ Ca stlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
D evelo.per: 3..fH1ev e lopm ent, LLC (Wa ll ace Phillip s IV)
Eng ineer/ Firm: Phillips Engineering (Kent f::lza)
Project Description: 12 inch water main exten sion ·
Total Cost Estimate: $195,563.00
City Contribution Requested: · $29 ;730.00
Construction Schedule : Summer 2011
. College Station Utilities . ,
Engineer Approval: . g~:;--7{~~1/ZiJ ;b .(,u i---
As. sistant Director Approva;:j'l~ ~ t
Director Approval: ~ ~-=l(
Comments:
FUNDING: Water Capital Improvement Project Fund
Estimated amount to be utilized from Previous Request:
Current Request:
Remaining Amount Available:
Finance
Funding Source: Water Capital
Approval (Signature & Date):
Note: Attach location map and engineer's estimate.
I of 1
$100 ,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 29 ,730.00
$ 70,270.00
CITY P ARTICIP A TI ON REQUEST
OP REQUEST# WTll-0001.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning and Development Services
Project Name: Castlegate II, Section 200 -Water City Participation Request
Subdivision~ Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
Developer: 3-D Development, LLC (Wallace Phillips IV)
Engineer/ Firm : Phillips Engineering (Kent Laza)
Project Description: 12 inch water main extension
Total Cost Estimate: $195,563.00
City Contribution Requested: $29,730 .00
Construction Schedule: Summer 2011
. College Station Utilities
Engineer Approval: ~~t~~c:atJ!!~%}:~!L/,-.c___,,,,.=--------------
Assistant Director Approval:
Director Approval:
Comments:
FUNDING: Water Capital Improvement Project Fund
Estimated amount to be utilized from Previous Request:
Current Request:
Remaining Amount Available:
Finance
Funding Source: Water Capital
Approval (Signature & Date):
Note: Attach location map and engineer's estimate.
l of l
$100,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 29,730.00
$ 70,270.00
CITY PARTICIPATION REQUEST
OP REQUEST# WTll-0001.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning and Development Services
Project Name: Castlegate JI, Section 200 -Water City Participation Request
Subdivision~ Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
Developer: 3-D Development, LLC (Wallace Phillips IV)
Engineer/ Firm: Phillips Engineering (Kent Laza)
Project Description: 12 inch water main extension
Total Cost Estimate: $195,563.00
City Contribution Requested: $29,730 .00
Construction Schedule: Summer 2011
. College Station Utilities
Engineer Approval:
Assistant Director Approval:
Director Approval :
Comments:
FUNDING: Water Capital Improvement Project Fund
Estimated amount to be utilized from Previous Request:
Current Request:
Remaining Amount Available:
Finance
$100,000 .00
$ 0.00
$ 29,730.00
$ 70,270.00
Funding Source: Water Capital Improvement Project Funds -WF1366201
Approval (Signature & Date):
Note: Attach location map and engineer's estimate.
I of I
CITY PARTICIPATION REQUEST
OP REQUEST# WTll-0001.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning and Development Services
Project Name: Castlegate II , Section 200 -Water City Participation Request
Subdivision~
Developer:
Engineer/ Firm:
Project Description:
Total Cost Estimate:
City Contribution Requested:
Construction Schedule:
Comments:
P/DS Engineer Signature/ Date
College Station Utilities
Engineer Approval:
Assistant Director Approval:
Director Approval:
Comments:
Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200
3-D Development, LLC (Wallace Phillips IV)
Phillips Engineering (Kent Laza)
12 inch water main extension
$195,563.00
$29,730.00
Summer 2011
FUNDING: Water Capital Improvement Project Fund
Estimated amount to be utilized from Previous Request:
Current Request:
Remaining Amount Available:
Finance
$100,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 29 ,730 .00
$ 70 ,270.00
Funding Source: Water Capital Improvement Project Funds -WF1366201
Approval (Signature & Date):
Note: Attach location map and engineer 's estimate.
I of I
CREENS PRAIRIE
IN'IESTOftS
4e20/&4
P :i( ,r: ~ f'\CJ· !
conn:A1l 01....,.... -Dmlt410N
llAf[OfD.lt
OCIMn"Ol .. .UOS
CA.STlECATE
SUBDIVISION
SCCTION 7, PHASE 1
7814/265
·=
flOOOlOHCM,ASOCUHCAJD)
IV THC lOWIOI l'OINT LOtM * lNTS OI 100 'r(NI noooPl.MH
ASllCOJU"ltD.,.fHCClfYOF
COULCIC stATIOH STOMI WMOI
""""""""""'"""
~ -,.,., •• 11, --11>-.~ILC, -·-........ ., ... ,,.,." .... -s:.;r~~.==:==:~::.:..:-~c;:.e
=...::.~_...~ ..................... ___ ... .,'""' ...... -
.__,...,.. . .._, __
ITJ.W:: Ol 10'.AI
COJMTTOI .. ~
~=:::."-:: 9!:..J.::;.=l:._~~-= ~-:-...': ~
__ ..,..._ __ .., ... _,.,.,, ___ N_
DOS OOfWlO
()(V(LOPMENT UC.
REMAINDER Of
202.6& /IC. TRACT
9656/213
QlllWIC.l.W::•Ort-
~ Cllt~., ... Qt,etc:.l _ _,,,._i.. .. , ::a.,-: l.:...-::t:. =-M -,_._to el IM --~·-'
CDM'IColllflfMaRl<'IUll .......... -·-l ..... K.t-, ....... -l.-'__. .... oot.i. ........ 11,_.....,.
~F·~~..=:~:=..=:~-=
eufft'K4W::Of1"lo:um'Q.DIC
ITJ.W::OfJDIAS
~rt Of~
l ~°"'·--.... -,. .. _.,.-«t __ = :r--.... II• ----IO:::~-:.::':"= ~··r:-::... ... _ -.;;;,. ----
LEGEND
-··-1,.0flH . -""""' ,)J... --= u..m (IG[-
-------CMOCHl"UIC _____ .,.
-··-··-··--•OMHll ~
,,,. ..... .,, nooCIZO!tEIOUICWl'I' --
-. ~· -.. . -::: .. .. .. .. .. . ..... -
~ -· ~ .... ~.,,
_ _._, .. -
-~ .. -.. .. •d -..
M .. -M .. -_ ... , .. ... .. .... .,_ .. ..
•d .. .. -.. ---.. ----........... .. --~~ ..
M ··~ ·--•w -·-·--dW .. ---WW -
IHI~ -IHI~ -
ll -_ _._ UI 6'.0f' ....... -
I.I ..... ~ ....... _ .............. ..,, ... -....... _ ... , ... .,._ ... ....
u -...... -................. -.. -...... -......... _.,_
.. ,_ .... .,_ .. ,. ... _ .......
Ut --WWI:
UI -_..,_...
UI --14'-lll -_,,,_
FINAL PLAT
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION
SECTION 200
28.557 A CRES I I '11
ROBl!.RT STEVE..~SON LEAGUE. A-54
1
/ j
COUEGESTATION,BRAZOSCOUNTY,TI!.."'j ~ i l
·'71..0TS I' .
=~:a:,:;1 YA : ~
OWNfiR/DEVRlOf>P..11; ktft;'Ull"I U j
M>~U.C: KAU!I,., ENCINF..F.
r-.~""::',l!.-MAaCM. 1"11 -;;;;;LLJPS
ENGINEEllING _ ....... ,L ---0:--. __ ._
111•11~,.,,_, .. IO!_ ...
Cl _ ----
-s---==---::::--::...~ --N42• 16' 2~~ -437.
--.~---------.82' ------------~""" 13
so· OJ' 31"E -1566.26'
PARKU.ND
1.387 ACRES w J::::
N-43' 03' 31~ -912.llO'
LE GENO
-~-----UllUC . ....
---------UJC -------··-··-··-...... IONllCl lOUJCll«I' ---
GREENS PRAIRIE
INVESTORS
4820/9'4
I
I
P\(,I·. J
FINAL PLA T
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION
SECTION 200
28.557 ACRES
ROBERT STliVENSON U!AGUP., A.S4
COLI.EGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
SUll.VR\'Oll!
-:~11::w
ENCINEEA: -;;;;;w;s-
l!NGINl!l!IUNG ---"-_,_,,... __ ,...,, ___ .. , --... ··
Phillips Engineeri ng
Providing Civil Engineering Services to Colleg e Station and Surrounding Commun ities
4490 Ca s tlegate Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690 -3141
March 1, 2011
Josh Norton
Development Services
City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION REQUEST
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Dear Josh:
With this letter I wish to initiate a request for Oversize Participation by the City of College
Station for the 12" water line being installed with Section 200 of Castlegate II. This water line
was designed to comply with the City's Water Masterplan which calls for a 12 " line to parallel
WS Phillips Parkway through the subdivision. The construction plans for the water system are
included with this submittal for your review. They show a total of approximately 2113 feet of
12" line running along WS Phillips and Toddington.
In the accompanying Water System Report, you will see that we have modeled the water system
in the subdivision using 4", 6" and 8" lines . The model demonstrates that the system perfonns
above minimi,im standards using these line sizes. 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 systems using 12" lines and
another using 8" lines instead . The difference in cost between the two line sizes and the related
fittings is $23,863. I believe this is a conservative number and that actual construction costs
should not exceed that figure . I also estimate a cost of 3% of that figure for the performance and
payment bonds which comes to $5,867 . The total Oversize Participation request is for $29,730 .
This figure is approximately 15% of the overall water system cost and is well below the threshold
limit of 30% where competitive bidding becomes a requirement.
I ask tha t you review these accompanying documents and forward them to other staff members
involved in the Oversize Pa1ticipation process. Please let me know what subsequent steps we ned
to take to move forward with this request. Thank you .
Si~/_
Kent Laza, P.E. r--
Manager
Phillips Engineering
attachments
Hem
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
CASTLEGATE II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 200
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION COSTS
March 1, 2011
Description Unit Unit Price
/1 I 2' lines Water System w
12" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Structural Backfill 659 LF 33.00
12" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,454 LF 29.00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 309 LF 24.00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 1,038 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900}, CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 862 LF 18 .00
20" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 70 LF 90.00
14" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 110 LF 75.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. l 2"x6" tee , valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 3,500.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 1 EA 3,300.00
Connect to existing water line 2 EA 500.00
12" X 12" M.J . Cross 1 EA 750 .00
12" X 8" M.J. Cross l EA 600 .00
8" X 6" M.J. Cro ss 1 EA 500.00
12" X 12" Tee 1 EA 600.00
8" X 8" Tee 1 EA 400.00
12" M.J. Gate Valve 3 EA 1,800.00
8" M.J. Gate Valve 6 EA 1,200 .00
6" M.J. Gate Valve 3 EA 850.00
12" X 45° M.J. Bend 6 EA 400.00
8" X 45° M.J. Bend 7 EA 300.00
8" X 22.5° M.J. Bend 2 EA 300 .00
12"x 8" M.J. Reducer 2 EA 300.00
8"x 6" M.J. Reducer 1 EA 225.00
4" BlowoffValve 3 EA 2,200.00
2" BlowoffValve 3 EA 1,500.00
l" Water Service, < 15 ft (avg length = 3 ft) 2 EA 600.00
l" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg length= 47 ft) 5 EA 1,100.00
1.5" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft) 11 EA 650.00
1.5" Water Service,> 15 ft (avg iength = 47 ft) 9 EA 1,250.00
Water System w/ 12" lines
Water S stem w/8" lines
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 968 LF 24 .00
8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 2,492 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 45 LF 21.00
6" Water PVC CL200 (C900}, CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 862 LF 18.00
14" Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 180 LF 75.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 8"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) 2 EA 3,300.00
Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee, valve, bend & hydrant) EA 3,300 .00
Connect to existing water line 2 EA 500 .00
8" X 8" M.J . Cross 2 EA 600 .00
8" X 6" M.J. Cross EA 500.00
8" X 8" Tee 2 EA 400.00
8" M.J. Gate Valve 9 EA 1,200.00
6" M.J. Gate Valve 3 EA 850 .00
8" X 45° M.J . Bend 13 EA 300.00
8" X 22.5° M.J . Bend 2 EA 300 .00
12"x 8" M.J. Reducer 2 EA 300.00
8"x 6" M.J. Reducer EA 225.00
2" BlowoffValve 6 EA 1,500.00
l" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft) 2 EA 600.00
l " Water Service, > 15 ft avg length = 4 7 ft) 5 EA 1,100 .00
1.5" Water Service,< 15 ft (avg length= 3 ft) 11 EA 650 .00
1.5" Water Service,> 15 ft avg length= 47 ft) 9 EA 1,250.00
Water System w/8" lines
Oversize Participation Estima te
Totnl
21,747
42,166
7,416
21,798
945
15,516
6,300
8,250
7,000
3,300
1,000
750
600
500
600
400
5,400
7,200
2,550
2,400
2,100
600
600
225
6,600
4,500
1,200
5,500
7,150
11,250
$195,563
23,232
52,332 .
945
15,516
13,500
6,600
3,300
1,000
1,200
500
800
10,800
2,550
3,900
600
600
225
9,000
1,200
5,500
7,150
11,250
$171,700
$23,863
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAZOS l AFFIDAVIT OF BILLS PAID
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared
________________ ("Affiant "), __________ _
of ____________ ("Contractor"), who being first duly sworn, deposed
and state the following:
200
"My name is . I am over 18 years of age,
of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit , and personally acquainted
with the facts stated in it, which facts are true and correct.
Pursuant to that certain contract, dated as of
_____ , 200_ (the "Contract") by and between the City of
College Station, Texas, and _______________ _
Contractor furnished labor and materials to construct
on the real property known as ____________ (more
particularly described in the Contract) the "Project".
To the extend that Contractor constructed or contracted for the
construction of such
------------------~
Contractor has paid each of its sub-contractors , laborers and materialmen
in full (except for statutory retainage) for all labor and/or materials
provided to Contractor on the Project.
To the best of Affiant's knowledge , Contractor has not received notice of
any claims pending against the Project in connection with the
described in the Contract.
------------~
Further, Affiant saith not.
Executed this ____ day of _________ , 200_
AFFIANT:
Printed Name: --------
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this __ day of ___ _
Notary Public , State of Texas
Project No. __________ _ PAYMENT BOND
TEXAS STATUTORY PAYMENT BOND
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§
§
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THE COUNTY OF BRAZOS
THAT WE, -----------------' as Principal, hereinafter called
"Principal" and the other subscriber hereto , a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of , licensed to business in the State of
Texas and admitted to write bonds, as Surety, herein after called "Surety", do hereby acknowledge ourselves
to b e held and firmly bound to the City of College Station, a municipal corporation, in the sum of
________ ($ ) for payment whereof, the said Principal and Surety bind themselves, and
their heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns jointly an d severally.
THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH THAT:
WHEREAS, Principal has entered into a certain contract with the City of College Station, dated the
___ day of , 20_, for -----------------------
which contract is hereby referred to and made a part h ereof as fully and to the same extent as if copied at
length herein.
NOW THEREFORE, the condition of this o bligation is such that if Principal shall pay all
claimants supplying labor and material to him or a subcontractor in the prosecution of the work provided for
in said contract, then, this obligation shall b e null and void ; otherwise to remain in full force and effect;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that this bond is executed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2253
of the Texas Government Code and all liabilities on this bond shall be determined in accordance with the
provisions, conditions and limitations of said Code to the same extent as if it were copied at length herein .
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the said Principal and Surety have signed and sealed this instrument on
the respective dates written below their signatures.
Council Approved -02112103
Revised 09/2 7/04(a)
PERFORMANCE BOND
BOND NO.: T AACSU0557500
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,
That we, Civil Constructors Inc . as Principal , and Allegheny
Casualty Company [Insuran ce Company] as Surety, are held and
firmly bound unto ~3-~D~D~e~v~e~lo"""'p~m~e~n~t __________ [Develope r] and The City of College
Station, Texas as Obligees, in the sum of One Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Three
and No/I 00 Dollars ($ 195,563.00) Dollars for which sum, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, by these presents.
WHEREAS , on the 18111 day of April , 2011 , the Principal entered into a contract with the Obligee for
Castlegate II Subdivision, Section 200 (Water System only) as described in the approved construction
plans and specifications by Phillips Engineering [D escribe th e Project].
Which contract is by reference made a part hereof and is hereafter referred to as the Contract.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THE OBLIGATION IS SUCH , That, ifthe Principal shall
faithfull y perform said Contract in accordance with the plans, specifications and terms thereof, then this
obligation shall be void , otherwise, it shall remain in full force and effect.
Sealed with our Seals and Dated this 29111 day of April , 2011 .
Allegheny Casualty Company
By: f<.eRJitQ; &<@!'0J
Kelly L7ooks, Attorney-in-Fact
0: /Contracts/Oversize Participation/Forms/Perf Bond Dual Obligee
Project No. __________ _ PAYME N T BOND
TEXAS STATUTORY PAYMENT BOND
BOND NO.: T AACSU0557500
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§
§
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THE CO TY O F BRAZOS
THAT WE, Civil Constructors Inc. as Principal, hereinafter called
"Principal" and the other subscriber hereto A ll egheny Casualty Company , a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania , licen sed to bu siness in the State of
Texas and admitted to write bonds, as Surety, herein after call ed "Surety", do hereby acknowledge ourselves
to be held and firmly bound to The City of College Station, a municipal corporation, and 3-D Development
[D evelopetj, in the sum of One Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Three and No/100
Doll ars ($195 .563.00) for payment whereof, the said Principal and Surety bind themselves, and their heirs,
administrators, executors, successors and ass ign s jointly and severally.
THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SU CH THAT :
WHEREAS , Principal ha s entered into a certain contract with the City of College Station, dated the
18th da y of April, 2011, for Castlegate II Subdivision. Section 200 (\Vater System only) as described in the
approved construction p lans and specifications by Phillips Engineering, which contract is hereby referred to
and made a part hereof as full y and to the same extent as if copied at length herein .
NOW THE REFORE , the condition of this obligation is such that if Principal shall pay all
claimants supplying labor and material to him or a subcontractor in the prosecution of the work provided for
in said contract, then, this obli gation shall be null and void ; otherwise to remain in full force and effect;
PROVIDE D, HOWEVER, that this bond is executed pursu ant to the provisions of Chapter 2253
of the Texas Government Code and all liabilities on this bond shall be determined in accordance with the
provisions, conditions and limitations of said Code to the same extent as if it were copied at length herein .
IN WITNE SS THEREOF, tl1e said Principal and Surety have signed and sealed this instrument on
the re spective dates written below their signatures.
Council Approved -02112103
Re vised 09/27/04(a)
ATTEST, SEAL: (if a corporation)
WITNESS: (if n ot a corporation)
ATTEST /\VITN ESS (SEAL)
By: ~th~lzS: ..... i&J'-f-+-"'-\ A~)t~:!k~-----
NameP Misty Witt
Title: Secretary
Date: April 29, 2011
REVIEWED:
City Attorney's Office
Council Approved -02112103
Revised 09127104(a)
Civil Constructors Inc.
(Name of Contractor)
By: ---~~C-/~~·r:~-
N ame: ?J. ~ . .> /-; ;:.,-//
Title: 1. _...,,. ,... · _ _, /~..>6-l}Z'4?
Date: .-_,,.,L-11
All egheny Casualty Company
(Full ame of Surety)
3689 Coolidge Court. Unit 6
(A ddress of Surety for Notice)
Tallahassee FL 32311
By: l:U;, ~ &mm-J Ze: ielly ]. Brooks
Title: Attorney-in-Fact
Date: April 29, 2011
THE FOREGOING BOND IS ACCEPTED
ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS:
< HOME OFFtCE!QNE NEWARKGENTER ! 2QTH:FLOOR ;
NE~ARK,, NEW J~RS§Y 0710l~5 ~p7 ; :>
. ~~W ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT~: . That ALLEGHENY CASUALTY C<JMP~( ~ corpo ra tio~ ~fga nized ahd eitistihJ~~~~tlaiJ.t to the ]~Q~{
of the State of Pennsylvania , and having its principal. office in the C ity of Newark, New Jersey, 40.is bereby consti!tlte and appoint < . ;:. ?
Houston , TX .
" .. ' . ' . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . •... , .·.·• . . . . -. . . ' . . . .. :, -'· . ~:· . ·' ..... '.•:.
it s true and lawful. atto rn ey(s)-in-fact to execute , sea l and deliver for and on its beh!llf as surety '· any and a ll bonds and undertakil)gS, co ntracts of indem~lty and
oth er wntmgs obligatory .m the nature thereof, whi ch are or may be allowed , requtred or pen:mrted by law , sta~ure , rule , regul atron , contract or oth e rwise ; and
th e execuaon of such mstrument (s) m purs uan ce of the se presents, shall be as b1.11dmg up on th e said ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY;·
as . fuUy and amply , to all intents and purposes, as if the sa me had been duly executed and acknowledged by its regularly .elected officers 'at its ·
prmc1pal office.
This Power of Attorney. 1 iss exec uted , and may be revoked , pursuant to and by authority of Article 3-Section 3 , of tbe By -Laws adopted by the Board of
Directors of ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY at a meeting call ed a nd held on th e 7th da y of February , 1974 .
The power of attorney is granted under a nd by authority of the following reso luti on adopted by the Board of Directors of ALLEGHENY CASUALTY
COMPANY at a meeting dul y held on th e 15th day of August , 2000.
RESOLVED , that (I) the Pres ident , Vice Preside nt , or Secretary of ALLEGHENY CA SUALTY COM PANY sha ll ha ve the power to appoint, and
to rev oke the ap pointments of, Attorneys-in-Fact or agents with power a nd authority as defined or limited in th eir respective powers of attorney, and
to execute on behalf of the Company and affix th e Company's seal thereto , bond s , und e rtakin gs, recognizances , co ntr ac ts of indemnity and other
written obligations in the nature thereof of related thereto: and (2) any s uch Offi cers of the Company may appoint and revo ke th e appointments of
joint-co ntrol custodians , agents for acceptance of process , and Attorneys-in-fact with a uthority to exec ute waivers and co nsents o n behalf of tbe
Co mpan y ; and (3) the signa ture of any such Office r of ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY and the Company sea l may be affixed by facsimi le
to any power o f attorney or certifi ca ti on given fo r the execution of any bo nd , und ertaki ng , recognizance , co ntract of indemnity or other written
ob ligation in tb e nature thereof or related tb ereto , such sig nature and sea ls when so use d wh eth er heretofo re o r hereafte r , being hereby adopted by
th e Company as th e original sig nature of s uch officer and th e o ri g in al sea l of the Company, to be valid and binding upon the Company with the same
force and effect as thou gh manually affixed .
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF , ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY ha s ca us ed this in strument to be
signed a nd its corpora te seal to be affixed by its authorized officer , thi s 12th day of November , A .O . 2009 .
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Co un ty o f Essex
ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY
Secretary
On thi s 12th day of November 2009, before me cam e the individual who exec uted the preceding. instrument, to me J>ersonallyknown , and , being by me duly
swo rn , said th e he is th e th ere in described and authorized officer of the ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY; that the sea l affixed to
sa id instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company; th at th e sa id Corporate Sea l and bi s signature were dul y affixed by ord er of the Board of Directors of
sa id Company .
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF , I hav e hereunto se t my hand affixe d my Official Seal ,
at the C ity of Newark, New Jersey th e day and year fir st above written.
CERTIFICATION
A NOTARY PUBLlC OF NEW JERSEY .
My Commission Expires March 27 ; 20 14 •·
I , the undersigned officer of ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY do h ~teby certify than have eompa:red die fo reg oing copy Ji tb e ·· · . y . <
Power of Attorney and affidayit , and tbe copy. of th.e Section Of the 13y -Laws of.said Company a$ set forth in said PoWer o f Atto.roey, \\fith (he ORIGII'.4~4S ON
IN THE HOME OFFIC.E OF SAlD COMP ANY. and that th e $a me are co rrect trnnscdptS thereo f, and of the whoh(of .the sa id o(lg inals ,'a nd thattlJe sal<f }>.o'wer
of.Atto rney ba s not been revoked a nd is llO'.o/)n. fu .ll force and .effect .·.. .· · · · · · · · · ·
· .. · IN T~$'J'IMONY Wl!EREOF1 I have h e.rlmnto se t my hangthi s 29th da y of
IMPORTANT NOTICE
TO OBTAIN INFORMATION OR MAKE A COMPLAINT:
You may call Allegheny Casualty Company's toll-free telephone
number for information or make a complaint at:
1-877-539-8698
You may also write to Allegheny Casualty Company at:
3689 Coolidge Court, Unit 6
Tallahassee, Florida 32311
Attn: Greg Parrish
You may contact the Texas Department of Insurance to obtain
information on companies, coverages, rights or complaints at:
800-252-3439
You may write the Texas Department of Insurance at:
P.O. Box 149104
Austin, TX 78714-9104
ATTACH THIS NOTICE TO YOUR BOND. This notice is for
infonnation only and does not become a part or a condition of the
attached document and is given to comply with Section 2253.048,
Government Code, and Section 53.202, Property Code, effective
September 1, 2001.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH DIS TRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 17300
FORT WORTH , TEXAS 76102 -0300
April 21, 2011
Planning, Environmental, and Regulatory Division
Regulatory Branch
SUBJECT: Project Number SWF-2011-00200, Proposed Castlegate Il Residential Subdivision
Development
Mr . Frederick Conlin, Jr.
CSC Engineering &Environmental Consultants
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, TX 77808
Dear Mr. Conlin:
Thank you for your letter received April 18, 2011, concerning a proposal by 3-D
Development, LLC to construct a residential development, located in the City of College Station,
Brazos County, Texas. This project has been assigned Project Number SWF-2011-00200.
Please include this number in all future c01Tespondence concerning this project.
Mr. Frederick Land has been assigned as the regulatory project manager for your request and
will be evaluating it as expeditiously as possible.
You may be contacted for additional information about your request. For your information,
please reference the Fort Worth District Regulatory Branch homepage at
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/regulatory and particularly guidance on submittals at
http ://www. swf. usace.army.mil/pubdata/environ/regulatory/introduction/submital. pdf, and
mitigation at http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/final_cmr.aspx that may help you
supplement your current request or prepare future requests.
If you have any questions about the evaluation of your s.ubmittal or would like to request a
copy of one of the documents referenced above, please contact Mr. Frederick Land at the address
above or telephone (817)886-1729 and refer to your assigned project number. Please note that it
is unlawful to start work without a Department of the Anny permit if one is required.
Please help the Regulatory Program improve its service by completing the survey on the
following website: http://per2.nwp.usace.ru.my.mil/survey.html.
Stephen L. Brooks
Chief, Regulatory Branch