S02_Attachment - Geotechnical Engineering Report.pdf

Report Cover Page

Fort Bliss Gravesite Expansion Geotechnical Engineering Report

El Paso, Texas

January 21, 2026 | Terracon Project No. AU255008

Prepared for:

Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC

13605 1st Avenue North, #100

Plymouth, Minnesota 55441

6460 Hiller Street, Suite A-C

El Paso, Texas 79925

P (915) 778-5233

Terracon.com

Report Cover Letter to Sign

January 21, 2026

Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC

13605 1st Avenue North, #100

Plymouth, Minnesota 55441

Attn: Mr. Kyle Stebbings, P.E.

Civil Engineer

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Fort Bliss Gravesite Expansion

5200 Fred Wilson Avenue

El Paso, Texas

Terracon Project No. AU255008

Dear Mr. Stebbings:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to submit our Geotechnical Engineering

Report for the above-referenced project to be located in El Paso, Texas. We trust that this report is responsive to your project needs, and we appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Texas PE Firm Registration No. F-3272

Adriana Erives Gonzalez, E.I. Ivan Avelar, P.E.

Staff Engineer Geotechnical Services Manager

Ruben Solis-Hernandez, P.E.

Operations Manager

Enclosures

Copies Submitted: Addressee (1) Electronic

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Fort Bliss Gravesite Expansion | El Paso, Texas

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i

Table of Contents

Introduction Project Description Site Conditions Geotechnical Characterization

Groundwater Seismic Site Class

Corrosivity Potential Soil Resistivity Chemical Corrosivity Considerations for Protection Against Corrosivity

Geotechnical Overview Earthwork

Demolition Existing Stockpile Material Expansive Soil Considerations Site Preparation Subgrade Preparation Fill Material Types Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements Construction Observation and Testing Grading and Drainage Earthwork Construction Considerations

Lateral Earth Pressures Design Parameters

Burial Installation Burial Installation Considerations

Overhead Powerline Pole Relocation Axial Resistance Design Parameters Drilled Shaft Settlement Lateral Resistance Design Parameters Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

Pavements Pavement Subgrade Preparation Pavement Subgrade Support Characteristics Vehicular Traffic and Loading Conditions Pavement Design Methodology Pavement Section Thicknesses Pavement Material Recommendations Pavement Drainage Pavement Maintenance

Gravel-Surfaced Roads

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials ii

Subgrade Preparation Vehicular Traffic and Loading Conditions Aggregate Surface Thickness Recommendations Aggregate Surface Road Material Recommendations Maintenance and Drainage

Stormwater Channel Realignment General Comments

Figures GeoModel

Attachments

Exploration and Testing Procedures Site Location and Exploration Plans

Exploration and Laboratory Results

Supporting Information

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Blue Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://client.terracon.com/

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 1

Fort Bliss Gravesite Expansion

5200 Fred Wilson Avenue

El Paso, Texas

Terracon Project No. AU255008

January 21, 2026

Introduction

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed gravesite expansion to be located within the southwest portion of the Fort Bliss National Cemetery at 5200 Fred Wilson Avenue in El Paso, Texas for Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC

(Client).

This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program, and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of below-grade structures (crypts and cremation boxes), an open stormwater drainage channel alignment, open-trench pipeline construction, powerline rerouting support foundations, as well as pavement areas and gravel-surface roads for the subject project. Our scope of work was completed in general accordance with Terracon

Proposal No. PAU255008.Revision1, dated March 17, 2025 and authorized by Mr. Kyle

Stebbing, P.E., representing Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC through signature of the Work Order No. 18528-TERRACON-01, dated June 6, 2025, in connection with our

Master Services Agreement dated May 9, 2017 currently in place between Terracon and

Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC.

The purpose of these services was to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations that include:

■ Surficial site conditions observed at the time of our field exploration.

■ A summary description of the subsurface soil stratification in accordance with the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

■ A summary of the subsurface exploration procedures.

■ Groundwater level observations at the time of our field exploration.

■ Seismic site classification.

■ Demolition considerations.

■ Site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill material selection, excavation, and earthwork considerations.

■ Evaluation of suitability of existing soil stockpile as fill material.

■ Geotechnical parameters for drilled shaft design of powerline monopole supports.

■ Guidelines for drilled shaft construction.

■ Pavement thickness design recommendations.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 2

■ Guidelines and material considerations for pavement construction.

■ Lateral earth pressures and coefficients for design and construction of precast crypt structures.

■ Construction guidelines and considerations for shallow stormwater channels.

■ Geotechnical considerations and guidelines for open trench pipe installation

(trench bottom preparation, bedding, and backfill).

■ Other earthwork-related aspects of construction.

The geotechnical scope of services included the advancement of 11 test borings (B-1 through B-11) and three percolation tests (Perc-1 through Perc-3) to depths varying from approximately 5 to 50 feet below existing site grade, as well as laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of this report.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown on the Site Location and

Exploration Plan, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during our field exploration are included on the boring logs and/or in graphical and tabular form in the Exploration and Laboratory Results section.

Project Description

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed during project planning. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided Preliminary grading plans were provided by Anderson on November 17, 2025, dated December 5, 2025.

Project Description

The project consists of approximately 10.8 acres of the expansion of the Fort Bliss National Cemetery. The expansion includes:

■ Raising the overall grade of the undeveloped

(southwest) portion of the site approximately 2 to 7 feet above existing grade.

■ Approximately 11,260 new precast concrete crypts units with special underdrain systems in sections TT, UU, VV, QQ, WW, XX, and YY extending to a depth of approximately 8 feet below final grade.

■ Approximately 5,199 new precast in-ground cremation boxes (IGC) in section W, Y, and Z extending to a depth of approximately 4 feet below final grade.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 3

Item Description

Project Description

(continued from page 2)

■ Realignment of the existing stormwater channel segments located at the southern portion of the undeveloped site. We understand the relocated channel slope areas are planned to be lined with a combination of concrete and riprap material.

■ We understand that invert elevations not exceeding

4 feet below final grades and side slope configurations not exceeding

2.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) are planned to be constructed for the stormwater channel. If our understanding regarding slope height and configuration is not accurate or are planned to be modified from those stated in this report, Terracon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations.

■ Paved main access driveway and cul-de-sac addition to be located along the center of the project site

(aligned in a north-south direction) and aggregate roads to be located between the graveyard sections.

■ Relocation of the existing power line within the south end of the project site.

We understand that small-diameter water supply and stormwater drainage pipelines are planned to be installed within the central and eastern portion of the project site. However, recommendations for buried pipeline excavation and installation were not requested for this project, were considered beyond the scope of work for this project, and were therefore not included in this report.

Construction Type

■ Precast concrete crypts and cremation boxes:

Precast concrete construction, installed at 8 feet and 4 feet below finished grades, respectively.

■ Power Lines: 50 to 70-foot high, steel monopole power line supports.

■ Stormwater Channel segments: rip-rap or concrete lining on cut subgrade.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 4

Maximum Loads

(assumed)

Anticipated structural loads were not provided at the time of this report. In the absence of information provided by the design team, we assume the following maximum structural loads are being considered based on our experience with similar projects:

■ Precast concrete crypts (PCC): 3,000 lbs

(gross weight)

■ Precast in-ground cremation boxes (IGC): 50 lbs

(gross weight)

■ Power Line:

o Axial (downward): 65 to 75 kips o Shear (horizontal): 30 to 40 kips o Moment: 2,000 to 2,500 ft-kips

Grading, Cut/Fill

Earthwork, Slopes and

Finished Grade Elevation

(FGE)1

We understand the FGE within the site is planned to be constructed within 2 to 7 feet above the existing grade.

No cut or fill slopes exceeding 7 feet tall are anticipated.

Below-Grade Structures

Based on information provided by Client, we understand site improvements include precast concrete crypts, and precast in-ground cremation boxes, with an assumed depth of 8 feet below finished grade.

Free-Standing Retaining

Walls

We understand that retaining walls are not anticipated to be constructed as part of site development to achieve final grades. If retaining walls are planned at this site to support sudden changes in site grading, Terracon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations.

Pavements

Based on information provided by Client, we understand that unpaved aggregate-topped driveways and flexible (asphalt) pavement sections and light duty traffic is planned to be considered for this project.

We assume only regular use of the driveways by two-axle, two-ton maintenance vehicles and occasional use

(up to twice per year) by emergency vehicles/fire trucks not exceeding 50,000 lbs in gross weight are planned to be considered for the design of the unpaved aggregate driveways for this project.

Drainage

We understand that stormwater runoff is planned to be disposed of via efficient surface drainage away from structures into the proposed stormwater channels and disposed of into an existing offsite stormwater basin.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 5

Drainage

(continued from page 4)

We understand the proposed depths have in invert elevation of 4 feet below final grade and side slope configurations not exceeding

2.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) for the stormwater channel.

If our understanding of the slopes and depths are inaccurate, Terracon should be notified and provided updated drainage information for our review and evaluation, and for the preparation of additional scope of work and associated fees, if applicable.

We understand that riprap slopes are planned to be adjusted and slightly elevated within the western and eastern portion of the project site. However, recommendations for the riprap slopes, slope analysis were not requested for this project, were considered beyond the scope of work for this project, and were therefore not included in this report.

1. If our understanding of the grading information described above is incorrect, or if the grading is planned to be modified from what is described in this report, Terracon should be contacted and provided with the information for our evaluation and revision of the recommendations presented in this report, if applicable.

Terracon prepared a Limited Geotechnical Sampling and Laboratory Testing memorandum dated September 24, 2025, which provided soil classification, moisture-density relationship, and corrosivity characteristics of the existing stockpile material present at the site at the time of our geotechnical field exploration. The results presented in that memorandum were used in our evaluations and considerations presented in this report.

Terracon should be notified if any of the above information is inconsistent with the planned design and construction, as modifications to our recommendations or preparation of additional scope of work and associated fee estimate may be necessary, if applicable.

Site Conditions

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Site Location and

Parcel

Information

The project site is locates at the southwestern portion of the Fort

Bliss National Cemetery in 5200 Fred Wilson Avenue in El Paso, Texas.

Latitude: N31.82178°, Longitude: W106.42635°.

See Site Location for additional project location information.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 6

Existing

Improvements

The project site consists of a 10.8-acre parcel of partially undeveloped land (appears to have been cleared and grubbed by others). Based on our field exploration observations, stockpiles, spoil piles, and brush piles appear to be present within the entire portion of the site. A pile of soil was also observed within the southeast area of the site. In addition, storm channels were observed to be located along the southern portion of the site. An existing overhead power line traverses near the center of the project site, from west to east.

Current Ground

Cover Exposed native soil (lightly-vegetated).

Existing

Topography

Based on the preliminary plans provided, ground surface appears to slope downward toward the south from approximately 3870 to

3877 feet across the project site.

The ground surface elevations shown in the logs of soil borings were interpolated from the preliminary plans provided by the

Client.

Geology

Specific geologic conditions mapped in the location of the project includes surficial and subsurface deposits from the Hueco Bolson

(late Tertiary to Quaternary alluvium). The deposits include sand, silt, clay, gravel, and caliche (calcium carbonate).

Please note that field seismic wave surveys, ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA) or site-specific seismic response analysis

(SSRA), a geologic fault and hazard investigation, and detailed review of the site geology and seismicity of the project site were considered beyond our scope of work and were not conducted for this project.

Geotechnical Characterization

We developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based on our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project site. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical engineering calculations and evaluation of the site.

Subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as clayey sand (classifying as SC in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, USCS). Sands with varying amounts of silt, clay, and gravel (classifying as SM, SP-SM, SP, SP-SC, SW-SM) were also observed below a depth of 10 to 13 feet from the ground surface. Lean clay with varying amounts of sand

(classifying as CL) was observed at boring B-10 from 5 to 13 feet below grade. Finally, a

10-foot layer of fat clay below the sand deposits was observed in Boring B-11 at a depth of 40 feet below the ground surface.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 7

Details and soil conditions for each of the borings can be found in the individual logs of borings in the Exploration and Laboratory Results. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types. In-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

As part of our evaluation, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. A visual side-by-side fence diagram showing the general subsurface profile observed at borings B-1 through B-11 is presented in the GeoModel, which can be found in the Figures section of this report. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model

Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Clayey Sand Sand with varying amount of clay and calcareous material, medium dense to very dense

2 Sand Sand with varying amount of silt, clay and gravel, medium dense to very dense

3 Lean Clay Clay with a liquid limit (LL) less than 50, hard

4 Fat Clay Clay with a liquid limit (LL) more than 50, hard

Groundwater

Borings B-1 through B-11 were advanced using dry auger drilling techniques to their termination depths (approximately 15 to 50 feet below existing grade) in an effort to evaluate groundwater conditions while drilling and immediately after completion of our drilling operations.

Groundwater was not observed at our borings during or upon completion of our drilling operations within the maximum drilling depth and at the time of our field exploration.

Groundwater observations provide an indication of the groundwater conditions (or absence thereof) present at the time the borings were conducted. The absence of groundwater at the time of the field exploration may not be indicative of other times, circumstances (such as perched water conditions), or at other locations within the project site.

Please note that groundwater level fluctuations may occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were advanced.

Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be present (or different than the levels indicated on the boring logs, if observed). The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project and should be evaluated prior to construction.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 8

Seismic Site Class

Seismic bracing design requirements for structures are based on the Seismic Design

Category, which is to be selected by the Project Structural Engineer. The selection of the

Seismic Design Category requires a Site Classification as defined by International Building

Code (IBC), selected from the results of geotechnical exploration. The Seismic Site

Classification requires either:

a) A weighted average value of the standard penetration test (SPT) resistance, undrained shear strength test values, or shear wave velocity measurements of the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by in accordance with ASCE 7-16

Guidelines, or;

b) A weighted average value of either shear wave velocity of the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by in accordance with ASCE 7-22 Guidelines.

Our scope of work did not include the advancement of a 100-foot deep soil boring nor a shear wave velocity survey. Based on IBC requirements, “When the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the Site class, Site Class D should be used unless the building official or Geotechnical data determines that Site Class E or F likely to be present at the site.”

Therefore, based on our knowledge and experience with the local site geology and review of available field and laboratory data, a Seismic Site Class D should be considered for the design of the structures in accordance with the IBC.

Please note that our scope of work did not include a field geophysics (seismic testing) program, historical research or engineering necessary for the evaluation of a ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA) or site-specific response analysis (SSRA) and is therefore considered beyond our scope of services for this project.

Corrosivity Potential

Many factors can affect the corrosion potential of soil, and the most common factors include moisture content, soil resistivity, and chemical characteristics (pH, chloride ion content, and sulfate ion content).

The following subsections and tables summarize our findings regarding soil corrosivity testing. Please refer to the Exploration and Laboratory Results section of this report for corrosivity characterization details and limitations of the results of our field and laboratory testing of soil corrosivity.

The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the onsite soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for project construction. For general descriptions of soil corrosivity characteristics, refer to the Exploration and Testing Procedures section of this report.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 9

Soil Resistivity

Soil resistivity is considered a primary factor in evaluating the corrosivity potential of the soil to steel elements.

Laboratory soil resistivity testing results on samples obtained from the stockpile at this site are summarized in the following table:

Sample No. USCS Soil Classification Electrical Resistivity (Ω-cm)

S-1 SC 1,962

S-2 SC 1,239

Refer to the Exploration and Testing Procedures section of this report for industry-adopted information about corrosiveness ratings based on soil resistivity.

Chemical Corrosivity

Sulfate ion and chloride ion content, as well as the soil pH play additional roles in the corrosion potential of soil. The chemical corrosivity characteristics of the subsurface soils were evaluated by measuring pH, chloride content and sulfate content.

The table below presents the results of our laboratory testing for soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, and pH on samples obtained from stockpile samples at this site.

Sample

No.

USCS Soil

Classification

Soluble Sulfate mg/kg

(% by mass)

Soluble Chloride mg/kg pH

S-1 SC

(0.0099) 63 9.2

S-2 SC

(0.0064) 88 9.3

Results of soluble sulfate testing can be classified in accordance with the American

Concrete Institute (ACI) Design Manual 318 – Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete. The measured water-soluble sulfates content suggest that the sampled soils have an exposure class of S0 when classified in accordance with Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI

318.

Refer to the Exploration and Testing Procedures section of this report for industry-adopted information about corrosiveness ratings based on soil pH, chloride content and soluble sulfate content.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 10

Considerations for Protection Against Corrosivity

A corrosion protection expert should be retained to evaluate the conditions observed at the site and recommend corrosion prevention steps that should be taken to reduce deterioration of structural elements.

Additionally, numerous sources are available to characterize corrosion potential to buried metals using the parameters above. Guidelines from ANSI/AWWA are commonly used for ductile iron, while threshold values for evaluating the effect on steel can be specific to the buried feature (e.g., piling, culverts, welded wire reinforcement, etc.) or agency for which the work is performed.

The results of our sulfate testing suggest Type I/II portland cement may be used for the construction of concrete elements in direct contact with the ground. Although the potential for exposure of embedded concrete to soluble sulfates in the soil is considered low per ACI guidelines, the soil may be considered severely corrosive to steel reinforcement based on the results of soil resistivity testing.

Portland cement concrete planned to be placed directly in contact with the native soil or recompacted fill should then be designed for low sulfate and severe resistivity exposure and Type II portland cement may be used in the mix design.

To increase the resistance of concrete against sulfate attack, and to reduce the possibility reinforcement steel corrosion inside concrete, Type I/II portland cement may be used provided a portion of the cement in the concrete mixture is replaced with Class F Fly Ash

(at a replacement rate of between 20 to 30 percent by weight of Portland cement). Sulfate-resistant cement types or blends may be used depending on local supplier availability, so local concrete providers should be consulted on the availability of different cement types in the area. Additionally, a water-cement ratio at or below 0.45 should be maintained for the construction of the foundation and floor slab elements.

At a minimum, concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of ACI 318, Chapter 19. We also recommend that at a minimum the contractor exercise stringent care to prevent steel reinforcement and wire ties from breaking the concrete surface of the foundation elements.

Imported fill materials may have significantly different properties than the site materials noted above and should be evaluated if expected to be in contact with metal elements used for construction. Consultation with a NACE certified corrosion professional is recommended for the design of buried metal foundation or utility elements at this site.

Geotechnical Overview

Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing programs, the site can be developed for the proposed project, provided our recommendations presented in this report are implemented in the design and construction phases of this project. A summary of our findings is provided below.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 11

■ Groundwater was not observed at the location of borings B-1 through B-11 within the maximum depths of exploration during or at the completion of drilling. The absence of groundwater at the time of the field exploration may not be indicative of other times, circumstances (such as perched water conditions), or at other locations within the project site. Refer to Groundwater in the Geotechnical

Characterization section of this report for additional details.

■ We understand demolition and realignment of the existing stormwater channel segments, are planned to be performed to help facilitate the construction of the proposed gravesite expansion. Special care should be exercised to demolish and remove the existing stormwater channel to minimize disturbance of the subgrade and potential detrimental effects on construction of the proposed development at this site. Recommendations for demolition and removal of existing foundations, pavements, utilities, etc. are provided in the Demolition Considerations subheading of the Earthwork section of this report.

■ As stated in the Geotechnical Characterization section of this report, the subsurface conditions predominantly consist of native, medium dense to very dense clayey sands with varying amounts of calcareous material and may be considered for reuse as structural fill based on soil classification, provided that the subgrade soils meet the classification and properties presented in Fill Material Types and are placed and compacted as recommended in the Earthwork section of this report.

■ Based on the results of our field exploration and visual classification, the surficial soils observed at the test borings drilled at the site are suitable for support of the proposed below-grade precast structures, stormwater channel, and pavements provided that the exposed soils are properly prepared as recommended in the

Earthwork section of this report.

■ The existing subsurface soils could become susceptible to sloughing when dry or during excavations, therefore burial excavations for precast crypt and cremation boxes structures should be properly braced in accordance to the soil type and OSHA requirements.

■ Effective drainage should be completed early in the construction sequence and maintained after construction. Additional site preparation recommendations, including subgrade improvement, fill placement, and excavations are provided in the Earthwork section of this report.

■ Based on our experience with similar projects in similar site conditions, flexible

(asphaltic concrete) pavement systems may be considered for this site. The

Pavements section addresses design of pavement systems.

■ We also understand that aggregate surface driveway areas are planned. The Gravel

Surfaced Roads section addresses design of gravel surfaced roads.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 12

■ Three soil percolation (test of soil resistance to water infiltration) tests were performed at this site, and the recommendations are presented in the Stormwater

Channel Realignment section of this report.

The above summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. Details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein.

The recommendations contained in this report are based on the results of field and laboratory testing (presented in the Exploration Results), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

Earthwork

Earthwork is anticipated to include site preparation (including demolition, clearing and grubbing), excavations, and engineered fill placement. Earthwork on the project should be evaluated by Terracon, which should include observation and testing of those tasks and materials, and of other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project.

The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to achieve the prepared site conditions considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for below-grade precast crypts and urns, stormwater channel, power line pole foundations, pavements, and gravel-surface roads.

Demolition

As stated previously, we understand that the site is currently occupied with an existing stormwater channels located on the southern portion of the site. The stormwater channel is planned to be demolished and rerouted (by others). We recommend that stormwater channel and their corresponding foundations be completely overexcavated and removed and the excavation backfilled with properly placed and compacted structural fill as presented in Site Preparation. After demolition of the stormwater channel, and during construction, Terracon should be contacted to observe the subsurface conditions underneath existing stormwater channel are similar to those encountered in our borings.

If variations in subsurface conditions is observed, Terracon needs to be contacted to provide additional consultation. If drilled shaft foundations are present, Terracon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. Roots of bushes are to be removed within the construction areas and should be grubbed to full depths. Care should be taken to replace or recompact all soil removed or loosened by the removal of roots as recommended in subsequent paragraphs.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 13

Excavations should be backfilled with properly placed and compacted structural fill as presented in the Earthwork section of this report. The entire volume of the excavations created by demolition and removal of existing features should be backfilled with engineered fill that is properly placed and compacted as recommended in this report.

Under NO circumstances should uncontrolled or uncompacted backfill be allowed to be placed at this site.

Existing Stockpile Material

Based on field observations, stockpile material is present above subgrade elevations within the southeastern portion of the site at locations not explored during our field program.

Terracon was not provided with information about the placement of the stockpiles, spoilpiles, or brushpiles by others and has no records to assess the degree of stockpile placement control. The existing stockpile material located at the southeast corner of the site was tested by Terracon prior to our field exploration at the Client’s request. As stated in the Limited Geotechnical Sampling and Laboratory Testing memorandum dated

September 24, 2025, the laboratory data results was intended to provide initial geotechnical information in support of the design team in their evaluation of the potential use of the stockpile material for general earthwork purposes.

Based on the results of the geotechnical exploration and associated laboratory testing, the stockpile material tested in the memorandum referenced appears to meet the criteria for structural fill material, provided that the stockpile material is free of visual remains of vegetation and organic debris, and free of particles larger than 4 inches in nominal diameter and provided it consistently meets the requirements presented in the Fill Material

Types subheading of the Earthwork section of this report.

Following reuse of stockpile material and removal of unsuitable material (where applicable), the site should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation subsections below.

Expansive Soil Considerations

Moderately expansive soils (native clayey sands with plasticity index values higher than

15) were observed at this site. Some movement and distress of the buried crypts and cremation box structures should be anticipated. The severity of distress will increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of the expansive soils.

Eliminating the risk of movement associated with expansive soils may not be feasible.

The near surface soils could become soft with typical earthwork and construction traffic, especially after precipitation events, which could result in shoving or pumping issues.

Therefore, the effective drainage should be completed early in the construction sequence and maintained after construction.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 14

If possible, the grading should be performed during the warmer and drier time of the year.

If grading is performed during the winter months, an increased risk for possible undercutting and replacement of unstable subgrade will persist. Additional site preparation recommendations, fill placement, and excavation considerations are provided in the

Earthwork section of this report.

Site Preparation

Site preparation should commence with stripping of existing topsoil, existing unsuitable stockpile material, and the removal of vegetation, roots and organic material in the construction area. The stripping should be performed to a sufficient depth to remove visual remains of vegetation, topsoil, organic material, and debris or other unsuitable material.

Stripped unsuitable material should be removed from the site. We anticipate that grading and excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment.

Prior to the placement of fill, the site should be cut and the exposed subgrade graded, proofrolled and prepared to create a relatively level surface to receive fill, as recommended in the Subgrade Preparation below.

Upon completion of site grading and fill operations, the contractor should avoid equipment or foot traffic over prepared subgrade surfaces to a practical extent and should maintain a proper subgrade moisture content prior to placement of concrete elements or pavement areas.

Proper site drainage should be maintained during construction so that ponding of surface runoff does not occur and cause construction delays and/or inhibit site access. Therefore, efficient drainage should be achieved soon after the start of construction and maintained during and after construction completion. See Grading and Drainage for additional information about site grading.

Subgrade Preparation

Following completion of stripping and rough grading described in Site Preparation, and once final subgrade elevations have been achieved the exposed subgrade soils should be carefully proofrolled with an adequately loaded vehicle such as a fully-loaded tandem-axle dump truck, pneumatic roller (or equivalent equipment), to detect weak zones in the subgrade. The bottom of excavations should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soils and disturbed materials prior to backfill placement and/or construction.

Weak areas detected during proofrolling should be removed and replaced with soils exhibiting similar classification, moisture content, and density as the adjacent in-situ soils.

Zones of fill material containing organic matter and debris below finished grade elevations identified during site preparation should be removed and replaced with soils exhibiting similar classification, moisture content, and density as the adjacent in-situ soils.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 15

Proofrolling should be performed under the direct observation of the Geotechnical Engineer or his/her representative. Subsequent to proofrolling and just prior to placement of structural fill, concrete elements or pavement, the exposed subgrade within the construction areas should be evaluated for moisture and density. If the moisture and/or density do not meet the criteria described in the Fill Placement and Compaction

Requirements subsection below, the subgrade should be evaluated, scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted. The moisture content and compaction of the prepared subgrade soils should be maintained until the construction of foundation elements or pavement construction.

Compacted structural fill (onsite soil) should then be placed on prepared subgrade surfaces to the proposed finished pavement subgrade elevation, and the moisture content and compaction of fill should be maintained until the construction of foundation elements or pavement construction.

Surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during or after construction. Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the building areas. Water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. See Grading and Drainage, and Earthwork Construction Considerations for additional considerations. Additional subgrade preparation recommendations for pavement areas is presented in the Pavements section of this report.

Fill Material Types

Onsite native or stockpile material, imported, structural, processed and/or recompacted soil, general fill and backfill used for this site should be free of visual remains of vegetation and organic debris, and free of particles larger than 4 inches in nominal diameter. The classification and physical property requirements of fill material are presented in the table below along with the acceptable locations for placement:

Fill Type1 USCS Classification Suitable for use at these locations

Onsite Soils2

CL and CH

(or combinations thereof)

■ Not suitable for reuse.

SC, SP-SC, SP-SM, SM,

SW-SM

(or combinations thereof)

■ General site grading and fill, including scarified surfaces.

■ As exposed subgrade and for subgrade scarification and preparation.

■ Under pavement areas.

■ Small utility service line and drain trench backfill.

Imported

SM, SC3

(or combinations thereof)

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 16

Fill Type1 USCS Classification Suitable for use at these locations

Imported Flowable Fill4

■ Small-diameter utility service line trench backfill.

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are visually free of organic matter, debris and particles larger than 4 inches. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each proposed fill source should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. Onsite soils classified as clayey sands, silty sands, poorly grade sands, or combination thereof, are considered suitable for use as fill material, provided these soils consistently have a liquid limit (LL) not exceeding 35, and a plasticity index

(PI) not exceeding 15.

3. Imported clayey sands, silty sands, or combinations thereof. The fill material should have a liquid limit (LL) not exceeding 35, and a plasticity index (PI) not exceeding 15.

4. Meeting the requirements for flowable backfill outlined in the TxDOT Standard Specifications

2014, Item 401.

If blended or mixed soils are intended for use to as backfill, Terracon should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. Blended or mixed soils do not occur naturally.

These soils are a blend of sand and clay and will require mechanical mixing at the site with a pulvimixer or similar piece of equipment or method that can consistently produce a fairly homogeneous soil mix. If these soils are not mixed thoroughly to break down the clay clods and blend-in the sand to produce a uniform soil matrix, the fill material may be detrimental to the proposed grade performance. If blended soils are used, we recommend that additional samples of the blended soils, as well as the clay clods, be obtained prior to and during earthwork operations to evaluate if the blended soils meet the classification and plasticity requirements of structural fill. Additionally, the actual type and amount of mechanical mixing at the site will depend on the amount of clay and sand, and properties of the clay.

Prior to filling operations, samples of the proposed borrow and onsite materials should be obtained for laboratory moisture-density testing and suitability of placement guidelines as stated above. The tests will provide a basis for evaluation of fill compaction by in-place density testing. A qualified soil technician should perform sufficient in-place density tests during the filling operations to evaluate that proper levels of compaction, including dry unit weight and moisture content, are being achieved.

Fill Placement and Compaction Requirements

Exposed subgrade and engineered fill should be properly moisture-conditioned and compacted according to the following compaction requirements.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 17

Material Type and Location1

Compaction Parameters2

Min.

Compaction

Requirement3

Range of Moisture

Contents for Compaction

(from Optimum)3

Minimum Maximum

Subgrade proofroll and scarification 95% -3% +3%

Acceptable onsite or engineering fill:

Within precast crypt and cremation burial areas

95% -3% +3%

Beneath stormwater channel 95% -3% +3%

Beneath pavement 95% -3% +3%

Miscellaneous backfill

(sidewalk, landscaping, other) 92% -3% +3%

1. Horizontal level lifts (no sloping lifts) should be placed. Loose fill layers 8-inches thick or less may be placed when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used. Loose fill layers not exceeding 4-inches or less in thickness should be placed when hand-guided equipment

(i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used.

2. The moisture content and percent compaction should be measured against the results of a

Proctor sample per the corresponding ASTM standard, for each lift of engineered fill during placement via the nuclear density method (ASTM D6938). Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

3. The compaction and moisture content criteria are relative to modified proctor (ASTM D577) maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content.

Construction Observation and Testing

A certified laboratory should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe the earthwork operations and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation, proofrolling, placement and compaction of engineered fill, backfilling of excavations, and just prior to rerouting of the stormwater channel segment and associated lining and riprap construction, pavement construction, and buried (water and sewer) utilities. Earthwork operations should be observed by the Geotechnical engineer’s field representative. Observations should also include documentation of adequate removal of surficial materials (vegetation, topsoil), evaluation of existing stockpile materials, as well as removal of loose, soft, unsuitable, or deleterious materials identified during the earthwork operations.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 18

The exposed subgrade and each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and moisture content at a frequency of at least one test for every 5,000 square feet in pavement areas, and a minimum of one test performed for every fill layer in any area. Where not specified by local ordinance, one density and water content test should be performed for every 100 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill. If unanticipated conditions are observed, the Geotechnical Engineer should be contacted to evaluate alternative options.

Grading and Drainage

Proper and efficient drainage site drainage should be achieved soon after the start of and maintained during construction so that ponding of surface runoff does not occur and cause construction delays and/or inhibit site access. Grades should be sloped to promote effective drainage away from the pavement and burial areas, and should be maintained throughout the life of the project.

Surface water should not be allowed to pond at the project site and soak into channel relocation surfaces, pavement subgrade, or burial excavations during or after construction. Water allowed to pond can result in soil movements greater than those discussed in this report, and can result in unacceptable differential movements.

Construction staging should provide drainage of surface water and precipitation away from the areas stated above. Surface water control in the form of sloping surfaces, drainage ditches and trenches, and sump pits and pumps will be important to limit ponding and associated delays due to precipitation and/or seepage during construction.

After burial areas, pavement areas, drainage channel relocations, and construction and landscaping have been completed, final grades should be verified to document effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the project site should also be periodically inspected and adjusted, as necessary, as part of the maintenance program. Where paving is located, a maintenance program should be established to effectively drain the pavement shoulders to prevent surface water infiltration.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Grading, burial excavations, and excavations for the proposed small-diameter utilities and drainage channel relocation are anticipated to be accomplished with conventional construction equipment. Upon completion of grading and fill operations, the contractor should avoid equipment or foot traffic over prepared subgrade surfaces to a practical extent and should maintain a proper subgrade moisture content prior to installation of concrete elements or pavement construction.

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials 19

As previously stated, the site should also be properly graded and surface water should not be allowed to pond on the site and soak into the soil during or after construction. Water that collects over or adjacent to construction areas should be promptly removed, along with any softened or disturbed soils. If the subgrade becomes frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture reconditioned, recompacted and retested prior to drainage system and pavement construction and observed by Terracon for compliance with the recommendations presented in this section.

Once the subgrade is prepared (and fill is placed), measures should be taken to reduce drying of the near surface materials. If the fill dries excessively prior to foundation, or gravel-surfaced road placement, then the contractor should rework the upper, drier materials just prior to placement.

The contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations in order to maintain stability of excavation sides and bottom, as well as of any adjacent structures and foundations. Excavations deeper than 4 feet (if applicable) should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety and should be performed in accordance with OSHA regulations, and in accordance with applicable local and/or state regulations.

The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed those specified by these safety regulations. Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending upon the soil conditions encountered and other external factors.

As a safety measure, no equipment should be operated within at least 5 feet of the edge of the planned excavations and no materials should be stockpiled within a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the planned excavations.