ESBD_465682_1761602300956_Attachment D1.LSCOJWB-Canopy Stuctures-signed.pdf

Proposal Cover Page

Report Cover Page

LSCO Joe Welch Center

Building Geotechnical Engineering Report

Orange, Texas

September 11, 2025 | Terracon Project No. CF255020

Prepared for:

Lamar State College Orange

410 Front Street

Orange, TX 77630

551 League City Parkway, Suite F

League City, Texas 77573

P (281) 557-2900

Terracon.com

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

Report Cover Letter to Sign

September 11, 2025

Lamar State College Orange

410 Front Street

Orange, TX 77630

Attn: Leanna Odom- Interim VP of Finance and Operations & CFO

P: 409-984-6129

E: Leanna.Odom@lsco.edu

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

LSCO Joe Welch Center Building

Green Avenue and 4th Street

Orange, Texas

Terracon Project No. CF255020

Dear Ms. Odom

We have completed the scope of geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. PCF255020, dated

July 15, 2025. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning the design and construction of foundations for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

(Texas Firm Registration No.: F-3272)

Ganesh Madagani Joshua C. Miles, P.E.

Geotechnical Staff Engineer Senior Engineer

Geotechnical Engineering Report

LSCO Joe Welch Center Building | Orange, Texas

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials i

Table of Contents

Introduction Project Description Site Conditions Geotechnical Characterization

Geology Subsurface Profile Groundwater Conditions

Seismic Site Class Geotechnical Overview Shallow Footings

Shallow Spread Footings Design Parameters – Compressive Loads Shallow Spread Footing Design Parameters – Overturning and Uplift Loads Shallow Footings Construction Considerations

Deep Foundations Drilled Straight Shaft Design Parameters Drilled Shaft Lateral Loading Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

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 www.terracon.com.

Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://www.terracon.com/ http://www.terracon.com/

Introduction

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed new pitched canopy roof structures to be located at the LSCO student center building at southeast corner of Green Avenue and 4th Street in

Orange, Texas. The purpose of these services was to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions

■ Groundwater conditions

■ Seismic site classification

■ Foundation design and construction

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of two soil borings, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and preparation of this report.

Drawings showing the site and boring location 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 log in the Exploration Results section.

Project Description

Item Description

Information

Provided

An email request for a proposal was provided by Hill

International, Inc. on June 26, 2025. This request included a

PDF with proposed boring locations. The proposed boring locations are within the LSCO student center building boundary.

Proposed Structures

We understand, the proposed development involves the renovation of the facade of the Joe Welch Student Center building. As part of the project, new pitched canopy roof structures will be installed at both the north and south entrances of the building.

Site Conditions

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located at southeast corner of Green Avenue and 4th Street in Orange, Texas.

Project GPS: 30.0929, -93.7327 (approximate)

See Site Location

Existing Improvements

Based on the information provided to us and Google Earth imagery, the site is occupied by LSCO student center building. The area includes overhead and underground utilities, roadways, parking lots, college facilities, and adjacent residential properties.

Current Ground Cover Concrete parking lot

Existing Topography Relatively level

Geotechnical Characterization

Geology

Based on the geologic maps published by the Bureau of Economic Geology, the site for the proposed construction is located on the Beaumont formation, a deltaic nonmarine

Pleistocene deposit. The Beaumont formation is heterogeneous containing thick interbedded layers of clay, fine sand, and silt.

The clay fraction is primarily composed of montmorillonite, illite, kaolinite, and finely ground quartz. The clay present in the formation has been preconsolidated by a process of desiccation. Numerous wetting and drying cycles have produced a network of small randomly oriented, closely-spaced joints within some depth zones. These small joints frequently have a shiny appearance and the clays are called slickensided in these cases.

The joint pattern may have an influence on the construction and engineering behavior of the soil.

The coastal plain in this region has a complex tectonic geology, several major features of which are: Gulf Coastal geosyncline, salt domes, and major sea level fluctuations during the glacial stages, subsidence and geologic faulting activities. Most of these geologic faulting activities have ceased for millions of years, but some are still active. A detailed geologic fault investigation and study of the site geology are beyond the scope of this report.

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of the site. Conditions observed at each exploration point are indicated on the boring log. The boring log can be found in the

Exploration Results and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures attachment of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. 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 Pavement about 3 inches of asphalt overlying about 8 inches of crushed aggregate with sand and fines

2 Fill - silty sand and lean clay dark gray, with scattered roots, sand pockets and calcareous nodules

3 Lean Clay gray, light gray, tan and light gray, very soft to very stiff, with sand pockets and seams, slickensides and ferrous nodules

Groundwater Conditions

Borings B-01 and B-02 were advanced using dry drilling techniques to their termination depths (approximately 25 feet). Groundwater was initially observed at borings B-01 and B-02 at a depth of about 13 and 15 feet during dry drilling. After a 15-minute monitoring period, groundwater was observed in the borings at a depth of about 4.2 and 5.5 feet. The water levels observed in each borehole can be found on the boring logs in the Exploration Results attached to this report.

The presence of groundwater in the borings does not necessarily mean the water levels summarized above are stable groundwater levels. A relatively long period may be necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole. Long-term observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater levels.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structures may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

Seismic Site Class

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic

Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure. The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC). Based on the soil properties observed at the site and as described on the exploration logs and results, our professional opinion is that a

Seismic Site Classification of D be considered for the project. Subsurface explorations at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 25 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area.

Geotechnical Overview

The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings, provided that the recommendations provided in this report are implemented in the design and construction phases of this project.

The proposed canopy roof structures may be supported on a foundation system consisting of either shallow spread footings or drilled straight shafts. The Shallow Foundations section addresses support of the canopy roof structures on shallow footings bearing on native soils. The Deep Foundations section addresses support of the canopy roof structures on drilled straight shafts.

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

Shallow Footings

Shallow Spread Footings Design Parameters – Compressive Loads

Item Parameters

Maximum Net Allowable Bearing

Pressure, Dead Load Plus Sustained

Live Load 1, 2, 3

2,300 psf

Maximum Net Allowable Bearing

Pressure, Total Load 1, 2, 3

3,400 psf

Required Bearing Stratum

Native undisturbed clay soils.

Bearing stratum to be verified by

Terracon

Minimum Foundation Dimensions Per IBC 1809.7

Allowable Passive Pressure (below 4 feet)

500 psf

Sliding Resistance 250 psf allowable

Minimum Embedment below

Existing Grade

4 feet

Estimated Total Settlement from

Structural Loads

About 1 inch

Estimated Differential Settlement 2, 7,8

About ½ of total settlement

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Values assume that grades are no steeper than 20% within 10 feet of the proposed structure.

2. Values provided are for maximum loads of 100 kips or foundation dimensions less than 7 feet by 7 feet. Additional geotechnical consultation will be necessary if higher loads are anticipated.

3. The allowable bearing pressure for dead load plus sustained live load values include a safety of at least 3. The allowable bearing pressure for total load values include a factor of safety of at least 2.

4. Unsuitable or soft soils, if encountered, should be undercut and replaced in footings bear on suitable native soils at this lower elevation.

5. The passive pressure should be neglected within the upper 4 feet due to surface effects and the presence of expansive soils.

6. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials. Frictional resistance for granular materials is dependent on the bearing pressure which may vary due to load combinations. For fine-grained materials, lateral resistance using cohesion should not exceed ½ the dead load.

Item Parameters

7. Embedment necessary to minimize the effects of seasonal water content variations. For sloping ground, maintain depth below the lowest adjacent exterior grade within 5 horizontal feet of the structure.

8. Differential settlements are noted for equivalent-loaded foundations and bearing elevation as measured over a span of 10 feet.

Shallow Spread Footing Design Parameters – Overturning and Uplift Loads

Shallow foundations subjected to overturning loads should be proportioned such that the resultant eccentricity is maintained in the center-third of the foundation (e.g., e < b/6, where b is the foundation width). This requirement is intended to keep the entire foundation area in compression during the extreme lateral/overturning load event.

Foundation oversizing may be required to satisfy this condition.

Uplift resistance of spread footings can be developed from the effective weight of the footing and the overlying soils with consideration to the IBC basic load combinations.

Shallow Footings Construction Considerations

The footing excavations should be evaluated under the observation of the Geotechnical

Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

Soils exposed at the surface of footing excavations may require surficial compaction with hand-held dynamic compaction equipment prior to placing select fill, steel, and/or

Item Description

Soil Moist Unit Weight 120 pcf

Soil Effective Unit Weight 1 58 pcf

Soil weight included in uplift resistance

Soil included within the prism extending up from the top perimeter of the footing at an angle of 20 degrees from vertical to ground surface.

1. Effective (or buoyant) unit weight should be used for soil above the foundation level and below the recommended groundwater level. We recommend for this project that the ground water level should be assumed to reach the ground surface for the calculation of resistance of uplift pressures.

concrete. Should surficial compaction not be adequate, construction of a working surface consisting of either crushed stone or a lean concrete mud mat may be required prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and construction of foundations.

Water should not be allowed to accumulate at the bottom of the foundation excavations.

To reduce the potential for groundwater seepage into the excavations and to minimize disturbance to the bearing area, we recommend that steel and concrete be placed as soon as possible after the excavations are completed and properly cleaned. Excavations should not be left open for more than 24 hours. The bearing surface of the foundations should be evaluated immediately prior to placing concrete.

A thin seal slab (approximately 2 to 4 inches thick) should be placed at the bottom of the footing excavation to protect the bearing surface of the footing from disturbance if the footing cannot be poured within 24 hours following excavation.

Deep Foundations

Drilled Straight Shaft Design Parameters

Allowable skin friction and end bearing values are provided in the following table for the design of drilled straight shaft foundations. These design parameters were computed based on generalized soil profile and engineering properties of the subsurface soils observed within the depths explored at this site.

Drilled Shaft Design Summary 1, 4

Depth Below

(feet)

Allowable Skin Friction

(psf)

Allowable End Bearing

Pressure

2, 3

0 to 4 Disregard Disregard

4 to 8 400 Disregard

8 to 13 275 Disregard

13 to 25 275 3,000

1. Design capacities are dependent upon the method of installation and quality control parameters. The values provided are estimates and should be verified when installation protocol have been finalized. No adjustment has been made for grade raising.

2. The allowable skin friction includes a factor of safety of 2 and the allowable end bearing pressure includes a factor of safety of 3.

Drilled Shaft Design Summary 1, 4

Depth Below

(feet)

Allowable Skin Friction

Allowable End Bearing

Pressure

2, 3

3. Shafts should extend a minimum of 2 feet into the desired bearing stratum with a minimum 2 feet of the selected bearing stratum below the bottom for the end bearing values to be considered.

4. Groundwater level assumed at a depth of about 4.2 feet.

There are numerous factors which contribute to the behavior of groups subjected to axial load. Several of these factors are foundation type, size and length, spacing, overall group size, loading conditions, installation procedures and soil type and strength. We recommend a minimum spacing of three diameters, center-to-center, for shafts placed in groups beneath square or rectangular caps. However, for shafts placed in a linear pattern beneath load bearing walls, a minimum spacing of two diameters, center-to-center, would generally be acceptable. Closer spacing than three diameters in groups or two diameters in rows could result in increased group settlement and a reduction of load-carrying capacity of individual foundation elements.

Settlement of a single, isolated shaft will depend on the elastic properties of the foundation, the applied load, and the interaction of the soil and foundation. Settlement is anticipated to be primarily elastic and will occur relatively soon as load is applied.

Significant consolidation settlement due to applied load is not anticipated for the allowable capacities. Our experience indicates that a single, isolated foundation loaded to about one-half of its ultimate capacity will result in settlements of about 1 inch or less. Groups generally undergo more settlement than single, isolated foundation elements for the same applied load. Based on the above recommended spacing, we anticipate that settlement of a group will be on the order of 1 inch under working loads with differential settlement between foundations to be about ½ inch of the total settlement.

Drilled shaft foundations will provide resistance to structural uplift loads through the mobilization of the skin friction acting at the interface of the shaft sidewall and the adjacent soils. The allowable skin friction values provided in the previous table may be used to calculate the uplift resistance for the shafts.

Drilled Shaft Lateral Loading

The following table lists input values for use in LPILE analyses for. Modern versions of

LPILE provide estimated default values of kh and E50 based on strength and are recommended for the project. Since deflection or a service limit criterion will most likely control lateral capacity design, no safety/resistance factor is included with the parameters.

We recommend that fill used for grade raising be neglected in analysis of lateral resistance.

Bottom

Soil layer

(feet)

LPILE Soil Model Su

(pcf) ε50

K (pci)

Static Cyclic

4 Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 800 --- 125 Use Default Value

8 Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 1,500 --- 68 Use Default Value

13 Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 1,000 --- 63 Use Default Value

25 Stiff Clay w/o Free Water 1,000 --- 63 Use Default Value

1. Depth below existing grade at the time of our field program.

2. Definition of Terms:

Su: Undrained shear strength

: Internal friction angle

’: Effective unit weight

Drilled Shaft Construction Considerations

The drilling contractor should be experienced in the subsurface conditions observed at the site, and the excavations should be performed with equipment capable of providing a relatively clean bearing area. The drilled straight shaft foundations should be installed in general accordance with the procedures presented in "Standard Specification for the

Construction of Drilled Piers", ACI Publication No. 336.1-01.

The successful completion of drilled shafts will depend to a large extent on the suitability of the equipment and the operator’s skills. The operation sequence should be scheduled so that the shaft excavations can be completed, reinforcing steel placed, and the concrete poured in a continuous, rapid, and orderly manner to minimize the time the excavations are open. Concrete should be placed as soon as practical and should be placed within the same day. Concrete should be poured with a tremie.

Based on the subsurface conditions observed, the installation of drilled shafts may require the use of the Slurry Displacement Method and/or temporary steel casing due to the presence of ferrous nodules and silty soils. If drilled shaft installation is attempted without utilizing Slurry Displacement Method or temporary casing, zones of sloughing soils and/or groundwater inflow may occur during construction. Therefore, we recommend that provisions be incorporated into the plans and specifications to utilize slurry or casing to control sloughing and/or groundwater seepage during shaft construction.

The need for casing or slurry will depend on the depth of the drilled shaft and the groundwater conditions at the time of construction. If casing is used and seepage persists, water accumulating in the foundation excavation should be pumped out. The condition of the bearing surface should be evaluated immediately prior to placing concrete, if casing is used in lieu of slurry. If groundwater inflow is too severe to be controlled by the use of casing and pumping or significant sloughing of the sidewalls occurs, the slurry method of construction should be utilized to complete the foundation installation.

Where casing is used, removal of the casing should be performed with extreme care and under proper supervision to minimize mixing of the surrounding soil and water with the fresh concrete. Rapid withdrawal of the casing may develop a suction that could cause the soil and water to flow into the excavation. An insufficient head of concrete in the casing during withdrawal could also allow the water to intrude into the wet concrete. Under no circumstances should loose soil be placed in the annulus between the casing and the drilled shaft sidewalls. The casing must be removed in order to utilize the skin friction values previously provided.

During slurry displacement, the foundation excavation is filled with a slurry mixture. The level of slurry should be maintained above the groundwater level to maintain a positive head in the foundation excavation. Therefore, the slurry tends to seep out of the excavation, rather than the groundwater seeping into the open excavation. The slurry must be maintained in the foundation excavation until design termination depth is achieved and should be removed only as concreting proceeds. The properties of the slurry including the density, viscosity, and pH must be carefully controlled and should be in accordance with Item 416 of Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) Standard

Specifications for Construction of Highways, Streets, and Bridges.

Slurry left in place for long periods of time will build up on the sides of the shaft causing a reduction in skin friction.

The following procedures and equipment are recommended for installation of drilled shafts by the Slurry Displacement Method:

■ The bottom of the drilled straight shaft should be cleaned as well as practical just prior to concreting to remove cuttings.

■ The concrete should be placed by means of a tremie with a one-way valve to prevent slurry from entering the pipe. The tremie should extend to the bottom of the drilled shaft to allow displacement of the slurry during concrete placement.

■ During concrete placement, the end of the tremie should remain several feet within the concrete mass to reduce the entrapment of slurry. A tremie embedment of 5 to 10 feet is generally considered acceptable.

■ The concrete should be relatively fluid to reduce the entrapment of slurry.

■ The upper few feet of concrete should be expunged from the shaft excavation if found to be contaminated with slurry or soil.

Production shaft installation should be closely monitored by a qualified technician experienced in drilled shaft installation techniques. Quality control testing including crosshole sonic logging (CSL) or thermal integrity profiling (TIP) is conducted to assess shaft sidewall integrity and indicate that casing withdrawal or problems with the slurry displacement method have not resulted in sidewall collapse. At a minimum, the technician should observe shaft excavation, note any unusual installation occurrences, observe slurry properties and/or casing installation and removal, observe concrete placement and generally evaluate if shaft installation is being performed in accordance with project specifications.

General Comments

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration.

Variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical

Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly effect excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing. Site safety and cost estimating including excavation support and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. Construction and site development have the potential to affect adjacent properties. Such impacts can include damages due to vibration, modification of groundwater/surface water flow during construction, foundation movement due to undermining or subsidence from excavation, as well as noise or air quality concerns. Evaluation of these items on nearby properties are commonly associated with contractor means and methods and are not addressed in this report. The owner and contractor should consider a preconstruction/precondition survey of surrounding development. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Figures

Contents:

GeoModel

-20

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

E L E

V A

T

IO

N

M S

L

(f e e t)

Layering shown on this figure has been developed by the geotechnical engineer for purposes of modeling the subsurface conditions as required for the subsequent geotechnical engineering for this project.

Numbers adjacent to soil column indicate depth below ground surface.

NOTES:

B-01

B-02

Legend

This is not a cross section. This is intended to display the Geotechnical Model only. See individual logs for more detailed conditions.

GeoModel

Green Avenue and 4th Street | Orange, Texas

Terracon Project No. CF255020

LSCO Joe Welch Student Center Building

101 Highway 365 Ste 600

Port Arthur, TX

Third Water Observation Second Water Observation First Water Observation

Groundwater levels are temporal. The levels shown are representative of the date and time of our exploration. Significant changes are possible over time.

Water levels shown are as measured during and/or after drilling. In some cases, boring advancement methods mask the presence/absence of groundwater. See individual logs for details.

Concrete Fill

Lean Clay Lean Clay with Sand

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 about 3 inches of asphalt overlying about 8 inches of crushed aggregate with sand and fines gray, light gray, tan and light gray, very soft to very stiff, with sand pockets and seams, slickensides and ferrous nodules

2 dark gray, with scattered roots, sand pockets and calcareous nodules

Pavement

Lean Clay

Fill - silty sand and lean clay

10.5

0.9

5.5

Attachments

Exploration and Testing Procedures

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Approximate Boring

Depth (feet) Location

2 (B-01 and B-02) 25 North and South entrance of existing building

Boring Layout: Terracon personnel provided the boring layout using handheld GPS equipment (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±25 feet) along with referencing existing site features.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: Surface concrete was augered to access the underlying subgrade for boring B-01. We advanced the borings with a ATV-mounted using continuous solid stem flight augers. Samples were obtained continuously every 2 feet in the upper 10 feet and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the open tube sampling procedure, seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge was pushed hydraulically into the soil to obtain a relatively undisturbed sample. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after their completion. Boring B-01 surface is patched with asphalt.

We also observed the boreholes while drilling for the presence of groundwater. The groundwater levels are shown on the attached boring logs.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials observed during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests. The laboratory testing program included the following types of tests:

■ Water content

■ Atterberg limits

■ Percent finer than No.200 Sieve

■ Unconfined compressive strength

Based on the results of our field and laboratory programs, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Samples not tested in the laboratory will be stored for a period of 30 days subsequent to submittal of this report and will be discarded after this period, unless we are notified otherwise.

Site Location and Exploration Plans

Site Location

Exploration Plan

Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.

When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.

The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.

Site Location

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

Exploration Plan

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

Exploration and Laboratory Results

Boring Logs (B-01 and B-02)

6.8

5.7

-17.3

PAVEMENT, about 3 inches of asphalt overlying about 8 inches of crushed aggregate with sand and fines FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray

LEAN CLAY (CL), tan and light gray, very soft to very stiff, with ferrous nodules

- with slickensides 8 to 18 feet

- with silt seams 8 to 18 feet

Boring Terminated at 25 Feet

Boring Log No. B-01

W at er L ev el

O bs er va tio ns

D ep th

Ft

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

G ra p h ic

L o g

M o d el

L ay er

Elevations estimated from google earth.

18.8

19.6

28.1

4.1

4.1

2.98

0.87

0.23

UC

UC

UC

49-15-34

37-16-21

32-17-15

0.9

2.0

25.0

2.0 (HP)

3.0 (HP)

2.5 (HP)

2.5 (HP)

1.0 (HP)

2.0 (HP)

2.0 (HP)

Green Avenue and 4th Street | Orange, Texas

Terracon Project No. CF255020 Port Arthur, TX

101 Highway 365 Ste 600

Drill Rig

DR - 949

Hammer Type Automatic

Driller M.Tobey

Logged by T.Roth

Boring Started 08-18-2025

Boring Completed 08-18-2025

Abandonment Method Boring backfilled with soil cuttings Surface capped with asphalt

Advancement Method Dry augered to the depth of about 25 feet.

Notes

Water Level Observations

After 15 minutes

After 5 minutes

While drilling

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

LSCO Joe Welch Student Center Building

S am pl e

T yp e

Pe rc en t

Fi n es

W at er C o n te n t

D ry

U n it

W ei g h t

(p cf

S tr ai n

C o m p re ss iv e S tr en g th

(t sf

T es t T yp e

Elevation.: 7.7 (Ft.)

Atterberg Limits

LL-PL-PI

See Exploration PlanLocation:

Latitude: 30.9306° Longitude: -93.7324°

Depth (Ft.)

Strength Test

Fi el d T es t

R e su lt s

4.6

-1.4

-6.4

-18.4

FILL - LEAN CLAY (CL), dark gray, with scattered roots, sand pockets and calcareous nodules

LEAN CLAY (CL), gray, stiff to very stiff, with ferrous nodules

- light gray 4 to 8 feet

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), light gray, stiff, with sand seams

LEAN CLAY (CL), tan and light gray, stiff to very stiff, with sand pockets

Boring Terminated at 25 Feet

Boring Log No. B-02

W at er L ev el

O bs er va tio ns

D ep th

Ft

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

G ra p h ic

L o g

M o d el

L ay er

Elevations estimated from google earth.

19.5

19.9

29.7

8.3

5.5

1.04

1.72

UC

UC

39-13-26

34-15-19

36-17-19

2.0

8.0

13.0

25.0

4.5+ (HP)

1.5 (HP)

2.5 (HP)

4.0 (HP)

4.0 (HP)

2.0 (HP)

2.5 (HP)

3-5-6 N=11

Green Avenue and 4th Street | Orange, Texas

Terracon Project No. CF255020 Port Arthur, TX

101 Highway 365 Ste 600

Drill Rig

DR - 949

Hammer Type Automatic

Driller M.Tobey

Logged by T.Roth

Boring Started 08-18-2025

Boring Completed 08-18-2025

Abandonment Method Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

Advancement Method Dry augered to the depth of about 25 feet.

Notes

Water Level Observations

After 15 minutes

After 5 minutes

While drilling

See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a description of field and laboratory procedures used and additional data (If any).

See Supporting Information for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

LSCO Joe Welch Student Center Building

S am pl e

T yp e

Pe rc en t

Fi n es

W at er C o n te n t

D ry

U n it

W ei g h t

(p cf

S tr ai n

C o m p re ss iv e S tr en g th

(t sf

T es t T yp e

Elevation.: 6.6 (Ft.)

Atterberg Limits

LL-PL-PI

See Exploration PlanLocation:

Latitude: 30.0925° Longitude: -93.7325°

Depth (Ft.)

Strength Test

Fi el d T es t

R e su lt s

Supporting Information

General Notes

Unified Soil Classification System

Auger Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Standard Penetration Test

Facilities | Environmental | Geotechnical | Materials

> 4.00

2.00 to 4.00

1.00 to 2.00

0.50 to 1.00

0.25 to 0.50 less than 0.25

Unconfined Compressive Strength Qu (tsf)

LSCO Joe Welch Student Center Building

Green Avenue and 4th Street | Orange, Texas

Terracon Project No. CF255020 101 Highway 365 Ste 600

Port Arthur, TX

N

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration Test Resistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Cave In Encountered

Water Level Field Tests

Water Initially Encountered

Sampling

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated.

Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations.

General Notes

Location And Elevation Notes

Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and Longitude are approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the exploration points for this project. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.

Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used. ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of

Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification, coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.

Exploration/field results and/or laboratory test data contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this document. Use of such exploration/field results and/or laboratory test data should not be used independently of this document.

Relevance of Exploration and Laboratory Test Results

Descriptive Soil Classification

> 30

15 - 30

8 - 15

4 - 8

2 - 4

Hard

> 50 Very Stiff

Stiff

Medium Stiff

Soft

Very Soft

30 - 50

10 - 29

4 - 9

0 - 3Very Loose

Loose

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

Relative Density of Coarse-Grained Soils

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)

Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

Consistency of Fine-Grained Soils

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)

Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

0 - 1

Relative Density Consistency Standard Penetration or

N-Value (Blows/Ft.)

Standard Penetration or N-Value

(Blows/Ft.)

Strength Terms

Unified Soil Classification System

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using

Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name

B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu≥4 and 1≤Cc≤3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu<4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu≥6 and 1≤Cc≤3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu<6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the

No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than

Inorganic:

PI > 7 and plots above “A” line J CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic:

𝐿𝐿 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑

𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑

< 0.75 OL

Organic clay K, L, M, N

Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic silt K, L, M

Organic:

𝐿𝐿 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑

𝐿𝐿 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑

< 0.75 OH

Organic clay K, L, M, P

Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

F If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or

“with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

DxD

)(D