ESBD_474639_1768509563292_EXHIBIT I - TJJD Evins Final Geotech Report.pdf

Report On: Geotechnical Engineering Report Submittal

Halff Associates Mr. John Clint 1075 Paredes Line Rd Ste. B Brownsville, TX 78521

Client:

Location: Edinburg, Hidalgo County, TX Report Date:

Sampled By:

Back-Up Generator Foundation at TJJD Evins Site

Project:

Project No: 01-24-29127

Sample Date:

Daniel Garcia

08/14/2024

08/14/2024

Acct. No.: Halff2020

Lab No:

Report No:

37614 1-1

Area Offices

TBPE FIRM No. F-3913 www.megengineers.com

956-702-8500 956-300-2500 956-552-8200

5804 N. Gumwood Ave.

30745 E. Exp 83 5918 McPherson Rd., Ste. 5

Pharr, Texas 78577 San Benito, Texas 78586 Laredo, Texas 78041

We are pleased to submit the attached geotechnical engineering report for the Back-Up Generator Foundation at TJJD Evins Site in Edinburg, Hidalgo County, TX. Please redistribute attached report as necessary. MEG appreciates your business and looks forward to continue working with you on upcoming projects. We emphasize that our report be reviewed to its fullest, and to arrange a conference call with one of our engineers for any questions about the report.

Remarks:

Respectfully Submitted, Millennium Engineers Group, Inc.

Raul Palma, P.E.

08/14/2024

REPORT CREATED BY ElmTree SYSTEM NOTED. THESE REPORTS ARE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE ADDRESSED CLIENT AND ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.

THE QUALITIES OF APPARENTLY IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS OR PROCEDURES, NOR DO THEY REPRESENT AN ONGOING QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM UNLESS SO THIS REPORT APPLIES ONLY TO THE STANDARDS OR PROCEDURES INDICATED AND TO THE SAMPLE(S) TESTED AND/OR OBSERVED AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF

MEG GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Proposed Back-up Generator Foundation at TJJD Evins Site

Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas

Millennium Engineers Group, Inc.

5804 N Gumwood Ave, Pharr, TX 78577, USA www.megengineers.com Tel:+19567028500

MEG Project No.: 01-24-29127 Page II

Geotechnical Engineering ■ Construction Material Testing ■ Consulting ■ Forensics

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Foundation Recommendations Proposed Back-up Generator Foundation at TJJD Evins Site

Prepared For

Mr. Gabriel Benavides, PE Halff

MEG Report No. 01-24-29127

August 08, 2024

Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Materials Engineering & Testing Environmental • Consulting • Forensics http://www.megengineers.com/

5804 N Gumwood Ave, Pharr, TX 78577, USA www.megengineers.com Tel:+19567028500

Page II

Geotechnical Engineering ■ Construction Material Testing ■ Consulting ■ Forensics

Halff 5000 W Military Hwy, McAllen, TX 78503, USA +19566640286 gbenavides@halff.com

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Foundation Recommendations

Dear Mr. Gabriel Benavides, PE:

Millennium Engineers Group, Inc. is pleased to submit the enclosed geotechnical engineering report that was prepared for the above subject project. This report addresses the procedures and findings of our geotechnical engineering study. Our recommendations should be incorporated into the design and construction documents for the proposed development.

We want to emphasize the importance that all our recommendations presented in this report and/or addendums to this report be followed. We look forward to continuing our involvement in the project by providing construction monitoring in accordance with the report recommendations and materials testing services during construction. We strongly recommend that we be a part of the preconstruction meeting to address any specific issues that are pertinent to this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you in this phase of the project and we would like the opportunity to assist you in the upcoming phases of the project. If you have any questions, please contact our office at the address, telephone, fax or electronic address listed below.

Amos Emerson, P.E.

Geotechnical Department Manager

Cordially, TBPE Firm No. F-3913

Quyet Thang Pham, Ph.D., P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

The seal appearing on this document was authorized by Quyet Thang Pham, P.E. 131836 on August 08, 2024.

Alteration of a sealed document without proper notification to the responsible engineer is an offence under the Texas Engineering Practice Act http://www.megengineers.com/ mailto:CLIENT@EMAIL.com

Geotechnical Engineering Report

MEG Page 4 of 28

Table of Contents Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Site Description

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

Table 5.1 Approximate Subsurface Stratigraphy Depths

5.3 Groundwater Conditions

Table 5.2 Approximate Subsurface Stratigraphy Depths

6.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.2 Soil-Related Movements

Table 6.1 Subgrade Modifications

6.3 Conventional Shallow Slab-on-Grade Foundation Design Criteria

Table 6.1 Bearing Criteria

6.4 BRAB Design Criteria for Slab-on-Grade Foundations

Table 6.2 BRAB Values

7.0 CONSIDERATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION

7.1 Site Grading Recommendations

7.2 Site Drainage Recommendations

7.3 Site Preparation Recommendations

7.4 Select Fill Recommendations

Table 7.1 Type E, Grade 4 Requirements

7.5 Site Fill Recommendations

7.6 Back Fill Recommendations

7.7 Utility Considerations

7.8 Utility Trench Recommendations

7.9 Excavation, Sloping and Benching Considerations

8.0 Shallow Foundation Excavation Considerations

MEG Page 5 of 28

8.1 Landscaping Considerations

8.2 Perimeter Foundation Cap

Table 7.2 Gradation Requirements Table 7.3 Atterberg Limits Requirements

8.0 PROJECT REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL

Laboratory and Field Test Procedures

MEG Page 6 of 28

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Millennium Engineers Group, Inc. (MEG) has completed and is pleased to submit this document that presents our findings as a result of a geotechnical engineering study of this project to our client. The project site is located at 3801 E Monte Cristo Rd Edinburg, TX 78542. The project location is shown on the Project Location Map, found in the Appendix section of this report. This report briefly describes the procedures utilized during this study and presents our findings along with our recommendation, for foundation design and construction considerations.

Our scope of services for the project was outlined in MEG proposal No. 01-24-133G, dated August 08, 2024 and approved by Mr. Gabriel Benavides, PE with Halff on August 08, 2024.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

It is our understanding that the proposed Back-up Generator Foundation at TJJD Evins Site will accommodate the construction of a new slab on grade. It is also our understanding that the proposed construction for the approximately 900 square foot slab on grade is proposed to be a one story structure. The site construction for the proposed structure is anticipated to be on a slab-on-grade or on-fill foundation provided expansive, soil-related movements will not impair the performance of the structure.

3.0 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

This engineering report has been prepared in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices currently exercised by geotechnical engineers in this area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended. This report is intended for the exclusive use by the client and client’s authorized project team for use in preparing design and construction documents for this project only. This report may only be reproduced in its entirety for inclusion in construction documents. This report in its entirety shall not be reproduced or used for any other purposes without the written consent of our firm. This report may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses and is not intended for use in determining construction means and methods.

The recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the soil borings drilled at this site and our understanding of the project information provided to us by our client and other project team members, and the assumption that site grading will result in only minor changes in the existing topography. Subsurface soil conditions have been observed and interpreted at the boring locations only.

MEG Page 7 of 28

This report may not reflect the actual variations of the subsurface conditions across the subject site. It is important to understand that variations may occur due to real geologic conditions or previous uses of the site. The nature and extent of variations across the subject site may not become evident until specific design locations are identified and/or construction commences. The construction process itself may also alter subsurface conditions. If variations appear evident at the time during the design phase and/or construction phase, we should be notified immediately to determine if our opinions, conclusions and recommendations need to be reevaluated. It may be necessary to perform additional field and laboratory tests and engineering analyses to establish the engineering impact of such variations. These services are additional and are not a part of our project scope.

The engineering report was conducted for the proposed project site described in this report.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not valid for any other project sites. If the project information described in this report is incorrect, is altered, or if new information becomes available, we should be retained to review and modify our recommendations. These services are additional and are not a part of our project scope.

Our scope of services was limited to the proposed work described in this report, and did not address other items or areas. The scope of our geotechnical engineering study does not include environmental assessment of the air, soil, rock or water conditions on or adjacent to the site. No environmental opinions are presented in this report. If the client is concerned with environmental risk at this project site, the client should perform an environmental site assessment.

If final grade elevations are significantly different from existing grades at the time of our field activities (more than plus or minus one (1) foot), our office should be informed about these changes. If desired, we will reexamine our analyses and make supplemental recommendations.

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Subsurface conditions at the subject site were evaluated by one (1) 25-foot soil boring for the slab on grade. The Borings were drilled at the locations shown on the Borings Location Map, found in the Appendix section of this report. This location is approximate and distances were measured using a measuring wheel, tape, angles, and/or pacing from existing references.

The structural soil borings were drilled in general accordance with American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) D 420 procedures.

As part of our sampling procedures, the samples were collected in general conformance with ASTM D 1586 procedures. Representative portions of the samples were sealed in containers to reduce moisture loss, identified, packaged, and transported to our laboratory for subsequent testing. In the laboratory, each sample was evaluated and visually classified by

MEG Page 8 of 28 a member of our Geotechnical Engineering staff. The geotechnical engineering properties of the strata were evaluated by a series of laboratory tests. The results of the laboratory and field-testing are tabulated on the boring logs and Summary of Soil Sample Analyses which are found in the Attachments section of this report.

Standard penetration test results are noted on the boring logs as blows per 12 inches of penetration. Three 6 inch increments are performed for each standard penetration test. The sum of the blows for the final two 6 inch increments is considered the “standard penetration resistance value” or “N-value.” Where hard or very dense materials were encountered, the tests are terminated as follows: (1) when a total of 50 blows have been applied in any of the 6 inch increments, or (2) when a total of 100 blows have been applied, or (3) when there is no observed advance of the sampler in the application of 10 successive blows. The boring logs in the case of hard or very dense materials will be noted as follows: 50/3”, where 50 is the number of blows applied in 3 inches of penetration, or 100/7½” where 100 is the number of blows applied in a total of 7 ½ inches of penetration, or 10/0”, where 10 is the number of blows applied in 0 inches of penetration.

Samples will be retained in our laboratory for 30 days after submittal of this report. Other arrangements may be provided at the request of the Client.

5.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Site Description

The project site is located at 3801 E Monte Cristo Rd Edinburg, TX 78542. The project location is shown on the Project Location Map, found in the Appendix section of this report.

At the time of our field operations, the subject site can be described as a developed tract of land. The general topography of the site is Relatively flat with a visually estimated vertical relief of less than one (1) feet. Surface drainage is visually estimated to be poor to fair.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

On the basis of our borings, two (2) generalized strata that possess similar physical and engineering characteristics can describe the subsurface stratigraphy at this site. Table 5.1 Approximate Subsurface Stratigraphy Depths summarizes the approximate strata range in our boring logs. These were prepared by visual classification and were aided by laboratory analyses of selected soil samples. The lines designating the interfaces between strata on the boring logs represent approximate boundaries. Transitions between strata may be gradual details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in the appendix of this report.

MEG Page 9 of 28

Table 5.1 Approximate Subsurface Stratigraphy Depths

Stratum Range in Depth, ft Stratum Description

1 0.0 - 8.0 Sandy LEAN clay, light brown to dark brown, Dry, Stiff

2 8.0 - 25.0 Sandy FAT clay, light brown, Dry to Wet, Very Stiff

5.3 Groundwater Conditions

The dry auger drilling technique was used to complete the soil borings in an attempt to observe the presence of subsurface water. During our drilling operations we encountered the groundwater table to be at approximately twenty (20) feet below natural ground elevation for short term conditions. Moisture content test exhibited high moisture content at a depth of twenty feet below natural ground elevation. Table 5.2 Approximate Subsurface Stratigraphy Depths summarizes the approximate groundwater and cave in depths measured in our explorations. It should be noted that the groundwater level measurements recorded are accurate only for the specific dates on which measurement were obtained and does not show fluctuations throughout the year.

Fluctuations in Groundwater levels are influenced by variations in rainfall and surface water run-off from season to season. The construction process itself may also cause variations in the groundwater level. If the subsurface water elevation is critical to the construction process the contractor should check the subsurface water conditions just prior to construction excavation activities.

Table 5.2 Approximate Subsurface Stratigraphy Depths

Boring No. Depth to Cave-In, (Ft) Depth to Subsurface Water, (Ft)

Time of Drilling Time of Drilling B1 None 20

Based on the findings in our borings and on our experience in this region, we believe that groundwater seepage may be encountered during site earthwork activities. If groundwater seepage is encountered during site earthwork activities, it may be controlled using temporary earthen berms and/or conventional sump-and-pump dewatering methods.

MEG Page 10 of 28

6.0 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are applicable specifically to the proposed foundation structure. The data gathered from both the field and laboratory testing programs on soil samples obtained from the borings was utilized to establish geotechnical engineering parameters to develop recommendations for the proposed structure. The foundation system(s) considered in this report to provide support for the proposed structure must meet two independent criteria. One of the criteria is that the movement below the foundation structure due to compression (consolidation) or expansion (swell) of the underlying soils must be within tolerable limits. This criterion is addressed in the Soil Related Movements section of this report. The other criterion is that the dead and live loads must be distributed appropriately and the foundation structure designed with an acceptable factor of safety to minimize the potential for bearing capacity failure of the underlying soils.

Geotechnical and structural engineers in this general area consider soil movements or Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) of approximately one (1) inch or less to be within acceptable structural design tolerances for most structures but may be different depending on structure use and the desired performance of the foundation. Therefore, movements of the underlying soils are not eliminated and thus one should expect a slab foundation structure to exhibit differential vertical movements. However, structural engineers design slab foundations for the expected magnitude of soil movements without failure of the structure. More stringent soil movement criteria may be established but the owner should consider the exponential increase in cost required to design and construct a structure for such soil movements. Data obtained in this study indicate that the soils at this site have strength characteristics capable of supporting the foundation and structure if designed appropriately. Stratum one (1) is composed of Coarse Grained soil classification not applicable yet and has a low potential to exhibit volumetric changes (contraction and expansion). Stratum two (2) is composed of Sandy fat clay and has a high potential to exhibit volumetric changes. Stratum three (3) is composed of Sandy Lean clay and has a moderate potential to exhibit volumetric changes.

The potential for soil volumetric changes is dependent on variations in moisture contents of the underlying soils. Based on this data, this site is suitable for a slab foundation provided the subgrade is modified in accordance with the recommendations established in this report to reduce the potential for these soil volumetric changes.

6.2 Soil-Related Movements

The anticipated ground movements due to swelling of the underlying soils at this site were estimated for slab foundation construction using the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) procedures of test method TEX-124-E for determining Potential Vertical Rise (PVR).

A PVR value of one and a quarter (1 1/4) inches was estimated for the stratigraphic conditions encountered in our subsurface borings. A surcharge of 1 pound per square inch

MEG Page 11 of 28 for the concrete slab, an active zone of 15 feet, and dry subsurface moisture conditions were assumed in estimating the above PVR values.

The following methods are generally acceptable for use in modifying the subgrade to reduce the potential for soil movements and volumetric changes below the foundation structure.

Excavate expansive clay soils and replace with select fill.

Chemical injection of expansive clay soils A combination of methods 1 and 2.

The method to be used is dependent on specific site conditions. At this site the grade will most likely need to be raised to obtain the proposed Finished Floor Elevation (FFE). As of the date of this report the CLIENT/OWNER has not provided the proposed FFE. We recommend that the project civil engineer evaluate the proposed FFE with our recommendations to ensure that the subgrade modifications presented in the report are not diminished or compromised. Adding select fill is generally the most cost effective method for reducing the potential for soil related movements. Therefore, we only discuss this method in this report but we can provide details for the other methods if requested.

Based on the data obtained, the assumed FFE of two (2) feet above natural ground elevation, information provided by our client and our analysis of the site, we recommend the following modification (Table 6.1 Subgrade Modifications) of the subgrade at this area to accomplished finish floor elevation of the subgrade at this site. This method will maintain the potential for soil related movements to an approximate PVR value of less than one (1) inch, which is generally desired for projects of this type.

Table 6.1 Subgrade Modifications

Item Description

Item 1 See and adhere to the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report.

Item

Excavate existing soils to a depth of three (3) feet below natural ground elevation in accordance with the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report.

Item

Condition and compact twelve (12) inches of subgrade below excavated soils in accordance with the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report.

Item

Place select fill, (a minimum of two (2) feet above natural ground, for a total of five (5) feet select fill) condition and compact up to the proposed FFE in accordance with the Select Fill Recommendations section of this report.

MEG Page 12 of 28

The PVR method of estimating expansive, soil-related movements is based on empirical correlations utilizing the measured plasticity indices and assuming typical seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. If desired, other methods of estimating expansive, soil-related movements are available, such as estimations based on swell tests and/or soil-suction analyses. However, the performance of these tests and the detailed analyses of expansive, soil-related movements were beyond the scope of the current study. It should also be noted that actual movements can exceed the calculated PVR values as a result of isolated changes in moisture content (such as leaks, landscape watering, etc.) or if water seeps into the soils to greater depths than the assumed active zone depth due to deep trenching and/or excavations.

6.3 Conventional Shallow Slab-on-Grade Foundation Design Criteria

As indicated previously a slab foundation may be used at this site in conjunction with the subgrade modifications listed under the Soils Related Movements section. We recommend the following soil bearing pressures, and dimensional criteria for the slab grade beams.

These recommendations ensure proper utilization of soil bearing capacity of continuous beam sections in the slab-on-grade foundation and reduce the potential of water migration from the outside to beneath the slab foundation. For structural considerations the beams may need to be greater and should be evaluated and designed by the structural engineer.

Where concentrated load areas are present the grade beams or slab may be thickened and widened to serve as spread footings. Soil bearing pressures and beam dimensional criteria are as follows:

Table 6.1 Bearing Criteria

Grade Beams and Continuous Footings Minimum depth below finished grade: 24 inches Maximum depth below finished grade: 36 inches Maximum width: 30 inches Maximum allowable bearing pressure: 1800 (PSF)

Spread Footings (square)

Minimum depth below finished grade: 24 inches Maximum depth below finished grade: 36 inches Maximum width: 60 inches Maximum allowable bearing pressure: 2100 (PSF)

MEG Page 13 of 28

The above-presented maximum allowable bearing pressures will provide a factor of safety of 3 with respect to the design soil strengths. For a slab foundation structure designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, it is anticipated that total settlements will be in the order of one (1) inch or less. If lower anticipated total settlements are required for this project further mitigation may be required and MEG must be consulted for further recommendations.

Furthermore, the above design parameters are contingent upon the fill materials (if utilized) being selected and placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Select Fill Recommendations section of this report. Should select fill selection and placement differ from the recommendations presented herein, MEG should be informed of the deviations in order to reevaluate our recommendations and design criteria.

Excavations for slab on grade and spread footing foundations should be performed relatively clean and with an undisturbed bearing area. The bottom 6 inches of the excavation should be performed using a flat plate excavation bucket. The excavations should be neatly excavated. No foreign debris or undisturbed soil should be left in the footing bottom. Should there be any abundance of foreign debris or disturbed soil found, it may be necessary to re-assess the fill site of its bearing capacity suitability. If the bearing area is found to be disturbed, the bearing area will require preparation and compaction for the entire depth of the disturbance in accordance with the Site Preparation and/or the Select Fill sections of this report.

The bearing surface of the grade beams and spread footings should be evaluated after excavation and immediately prior to concrete placement. We recommend that footing inspections be performed by a representative of MEG. The required inspections shall include inspecting for clean, dry (The moisture content should be within limits specified by the appropriate section in this report.) and undisturbed footing bottom, depth of footing, clearances from sides and size and spacing of reinforcing steel. Test results shall comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical report and shall be verified by an on-site representative of MEG.

Over excavation, if necessary, for compacted backfill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of over excavation depth below footing base elevation. The over excavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation select fill placed in lifts of 8 inches or less in loose thickness and prepared and compacted in accordance with the Site Preparation and/or the Select Fill sections of this report. Equipment should not be operated and materials should not be placed or stockpiled within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth from the edge of the excavation. Excavations should not be placed next to existing structures or buried utilities/structures closer than a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth unless some form of protection for the facilities is provided.

MEG Page 14 of 28

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

Proper barriers such as berms or swales should be placed to divert any surface runoff away from 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, properly prepared and cleaned. Excavations should not be left open overnight.

6.4 BRAB Design Criteria for Slab-on-Grade Foundations

Table 6.2 BRAB Values list the values for criteria developed by the Building Research Advisory Board (BRAB) for the design of shallow slab-on-grade foundations. On the basis of stratigraphy encountered and the anticipated site modifications discussed earlier, the design criteria are as follows:

Table 6.2 BRAB Values

Climactic Rating Effective PI Soil Support Index Existing Conditions 15.0 24.0 0.9 Proposed Conditions 15.0 20.0 0.95

7.0 CONSIDERATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION

7.1 Site Grading Recommendations

Site grading plans can result in changes in almost all aspects of foundation recommendations. We have prepared the foundation recommendations based on the existing ground surface; there is a two (2) foot surcharge addition for the stratigraphic conditions encountered at the time of our study. If site grading plans differ from existing grades by more than plus or minus 1 foot, we must be retained to review the site grading plans prior to bidding the project for construction. This will enable us to provide input for any changes in our original recommendations that may be required as a result of site grading operations or other considerations.

7.2 Site Drainage Recommendations

Drainage is one of the most important aspects to be addressed to ensure the successful performance of any foundation. Positive surface drainage should be implemented prior to, during and maintained after construction to prevent water ponding at or adjacent to the building facilities. It is recommended that the building and site design include rain gutters, downspouts and concrete gutters to channel runoff to paving or storm drains.

MEG Page 15 of 28

7.3 Site Preparation Recommendations

Building areas and all area to support select fill should be stripped of all vegetation and organic topsoil up to a minimum of 5 ft. beyond the building perimeters. After stripping, remove at least six (6) inches of on-site soil as measured from existing grade when excavation of existing subgrade is not recommended in other sections of this report. The excavated material, if free of organic and/or deleterious material, may be stockpiled for use in the non-structural areas of the site. Where excavation of the subgrade is recommended in this report, the bottom of the excavation will extend at least five (5) feet beyond the limits of the planned building perimeter including canopies and sidewalks. Exposed subgrades should be thoroughly proof rolled in order to locate and compact any weak, compressible and soft spots. Proof rolling shall be in accordance with TxDOT 2014 Specification Item 216.

Proof rolling operations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative to document subgrade condition and preparation. Weak or soft areas identified during proof rolling or areas where large tree roots have been removed within the limits of excavation should be removed and replaced with a suitable, compacted select fill in accordance with the recommendations presented under the Select Fill Recommendations section of this report. Proof rolling operations and any excavation/backfill activities should be observed by MEG representatives to document subgrade preparation.

Prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade shall be prepared based on what option is selected from the foundation recommendations. The exposed subgrade should be prepared, moisture-conditioned by scarifying to a minimum depth as recommended in the foundation recommendations and recompacting to a minimum ninety-eight (98) percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698, moisture-density relationship.

The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained within the range of minus two (-

2) percentage points below optimum to plus two (2) percentage points above the optimum moisture content until the fill is permanently covered. The soil should be properly compacted in accordance with these recommendations and tested by MEG personnel for compaction as specified.

7.4 Select Fill Recommendations

Materials used for select fill shall meet the following requirements:

1. Material shall conform to TxDOT 2014 Specification Item 247, Flexible Base; Type A, Grades 1 through 3.

2. Material shall conform to TxDOT 2014 Specification Item 247, Flexible Base, Types B or C, Grades 1 through 5 with a minimum plasticity index of 7.

3. Material shall conform to TxDOT 2014 Specification Item 247, Flexible Base, Type E, Grade 4 with a plasticity index between and inclusive of 7 and 15. Type E material shall be defined as Caliche (argillaceous limestone, calcareous or calcareous clay particles) and may contain stone, conglomerate, gravel, sand or granular materials when these materials are in situ with the caliche. Flexible Base (Type E, Grade 4) shall conform to the following requirements:

MEG Page 16 of 28

Table 7.1 Type E, Grade 4 Requirements Retained on Sq. Sieve Percent Retained

2” 0 ½” 20-60

No. 4 40-75 No. 40 70-90

Max. PI: 15 Max. Wet Ball PI: 15

Wet Ball Mill Max Amount: 50 Wet Ball Increase, Max Passing No. 40 sieve 20

4. Soils classified according to USCS as SM, SC, GM, GC, CL, ML and combinations of these soils. The soils shall be relatively free of organic matter. In addition to the USCS classification, select materials shall have a liquid limit of less than 40 and a plasticity index between and inclusive of 10 and 17.

5. Soils classified, as CH, MH, OH, OL and PT, under the USCS are not considered suitable for use as select fill materials at this site.

Select fill shall be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (6 inches compacted) and compacted to a minimum ninety-eight (98) percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. The moisture content of the fill shall be maintained within the range of minus two (-2) percentage points below optimum to plus two

(2) percentage points above the optimum moisture content until the fill is permanently covered. The select fill should be properly compacted in accordance with these recommendations and tested by MEG personnel for compaction as specified.

7.5 Site Fill Recommendations

Site fill shall be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (6 inches compacted) and compacted to a minimum ninety-eight (98) percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. The moisture content of the fill shall be maintained within the range of minus two (-2) percentage points below optimum to plus two

(2) percentage points above the optimum moisture content until the fill is permanently covered. The site fill should be properly compacted in accordance with these recommendations and tested by MEG personnel for compaction as specified.

7.6 Back Fill Recommendations

MEG Page 17 of 28

Back fill shall be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (6 inches compacted) and compacted to a minimum ninety-eight (98) percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. The moisture content of the fill shall be maintained within the range of minus two (-2) percentage points below optimum to plus two

(2) percentage points above the optimum moisture content until the fill is permanently covered. The back fill should be properly compacted in accordance with these recommendations and tested by MEG personnel for compaction as specified.

7.7 Utility Considerations

Utilities that project through the slab-on-grade, slab-on-fill, floating floor slabs, or any other rigid unit should be designed with some degree of flexibility or with sleeves. Such features will help reduce the risk of damage to utility facilities from soil movements related to shrinkage and expansion.

7.8 Utility Trench Recommendations

Bedding and initial backfill are buried around utility lines to support and protect the utility. The secondary backfill above the initial backfill also helps protect and support the foundation and/or pavement above. To ensure that settlement is not excessive in this secondary backfill we recommend the following:

Material shall conform to TxDOT 2014 Specification Item 247, Flexible Base; Type A, Grades 1 through 3.

Place, moisture condition and compact the secondary backfill in accordance with the pertinent project requirements. Within the footprint of a building pad the secondary backfill should meet the same compaction requirements for select fill. Within the footprint of a pavement structure the secondary backfill should meet the same compaction requirements for the subgrade. When compaction of the subgrade is not specified it should meet the same compaction level of the adjacent natural ground. An alternative to compaction of secondary backfill is the use of flowable fill where secondary backfill is to be placed. If properly designed, the flowable fill can be excavated easily at a later date if necessary. No compaction and no testing is required when properly designed flowable fill is used.

7.9 Excavation, Sloping and Benching Considerations

If trenches are to extend to or below a depth of five (5) ft., the contractor or persons doing the trenching should adhere to the current Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) guidelines on trench excavation safety and protection measures. Other industry standards may be applicable. The collection of specific geotechnical data and development of a plan for trench safety, sloping, benching or various types of temporary shoring, is beyond the scope of this study.

MEG Page 18 of 28

8.0 Shallow Foundation Excavation Considerations

The Geotechnical Engineer or his representative prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete should observe shallow foundation excavations. This is necessary to verify that the bearing soils at the bottom of the excavations are similar to those encountered during the subsurface soil exploration phase and that excessive loose materials and water are not present in the excavations. If soft pockets of soil are encountered in the foundation excavations, they should be removed and replaced with a compacted non-expansive fill material or lean concrete up to the design foundation bearing elevation.

8.1 Landscaping Considerations

Even though landscaping is a vital aesthetic component of any project, the owner, client and design team should be aware that placing trees or large bushes adjacent to any structure may distress the structure in the future. It is recommended that if any landscaping is to be placed adjacent to the structure in this project, it should be limited to small plants and shrubs.

Trees and large bushes should be placed at a distance such that at their mature height, their canopy or “drip line” does not extend over the structures. The owner, client and design team should also be aware that if any watering is to be done in connection with the landscaping for this project it should be controlled, consistent and timely. Excessive or prolonged watering is not recommended. If watering is part of the landscaping plan, termination of watering for any extended period of time may also be detrimental to the structure. It is important that the moisture level in the subsurface soils remain constant so that shrinking and swelling of soils may be mitigated.

8.2 Perimeter Foundation Cap

We recommend that a cap of impervious fill be placed around the perimeter of the foundation to mitigate the intrusion of moisture into the soils surrounding the foundation. The top eighteen inches of fill around the foundation structure should be a low permeance clay cap to keep surface water away from the foundation. The low permeance clay cap should be sloped away from the foundation at a minimum slope of 2% and the surrounding areas should have positive drainage. The low permeance clay shall meet the USCS classification of CL and meeting the requirements in Table 7.2 Gradation Requirements and Table 7.3 Atterberg Limits Requirements. The low permeance clay shall be compacted to minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. The moisture content of the subgrade should be maintained within the range of optimum to four (4) percentage points above the optimum moisture. If plantings are intended, add 4 to 6 inches of loam on top of the clay cap.

MEG Page 19 of 28

Table 7.2 Gradation Requirements

Sieve Size Percent Passing(by dry weight) 1/2 inch 100

No 4 70-100 No. 200 50-100

Table 7.3 Atterberg Limits Requirements

Test / ASTM Requirement Atterberg Limits

D4318

LL ≤ 45

20 ≤ PI ≤ 30

8.0 PROJECT REVIEW AND QUALITY CONTROL

Each project site is unique and it is important that the appropriate design data, construction drawings, specifications, change orders and related documents be reviewed by the respective design and construction professionals participating in this project. The performance of foundations, construction building pads and/or parking areas for this project will depend on correct interpretation of our geotechnical engineering report and proper compliance of and adherence to our geotechnical recommendations and to the construction drawings and specifications.

It is important that MEG be provided the opportunity to review the final design and construction documents to check that our geotechnical recommendations are properly interpreted and incorporated in the design and construction documents. We cannot be responsible for misinterpretations of our geotechnical recommendations if we have not had the opportunity to review these documents. This review is an additional service and not part of our project scope.

MEG should be retained to provide construction materials testing and observation services during all phases of the construction process of this project. As the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, it is important to let our technical personnel provide these services to make certain that our recommendations are interpreted properly and to ensure that actual field conditions are those described in our geotechnical report. Since our personnel are familiar with this project, MEG’s participation during the construction phase of this project would help mitigate any problems resulting from variations or anomalies in subsurface conditions, which are among the most prevalent on construction projects and often lead to delays, changes, costs overruns, and disputes. If the client does not follow all of our recommendations presented in this report and/or addendums to this report, the client assumes the responsibility and liability

MEG Page 20 of 28 of such actions and will hold our firm harmless and without responsibility and liability for client’s actions.

A construction testing frequency plan and budget needs to be developed for the required construction materials engineering and testing services for this project. Before construction, we recommend that MEG, the project design team members and the project general contractor meet and jointly develop the testing plan and budget, as well as review the testing specifications as it pertains to this project. A failure to implement a complete testing plan will negate the recommendations provided in this report.

MEG looks forward to the opportunity to provide continued support on this project.

MEG Page 21 of 28

APPENDIX A

CUSTOM SOIL RESOURCE REPORT

Soil Map—Hidalgo County, Texas (01-24-29127 Proposed TJJD Evings Regional Juvenile Center)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

8/8/2024

588236 588244 588252 588260 588268 588276 588284

588236 588244 588252 588260 588268 588276 588284

26° 20' 7'' N

' 5 7'

' W 26° 20' 7'' N

' 5 5'

' W

26° 20' 5'' N

' 5 7'

' W

26° 20' 5'' N

' 5 5'

' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 14N WGS84 0 15 30 60 90

Feet 0 4 9 18 27

Meters Map Scale: 1:328 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons

Soil Map Unit Lines

Soil Map Unit Points

Special Point Features Blowout

Borrow Pit

Clay Spot

Closed Depression

Gravel Pit

Gravelly Spot

Landfill

Lava Flow

Marsh or swamp

Mine or Quarry

Miscellaneous Water

Perennial Water

Rock Outcrop

Saline Spot

Sandy Spot

Severely Eroded Spot

Sinkhole

Slide or Slip

Sodic Spot

Spoil Area

Stony Spot

Very Stony Spot

Wet Spot

Other

Special Line Features

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Hidalgo County, Texas Survey Area Data: Version 22, Sep 5, 2023

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 7, 2021—Jan 14, The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Soil Map—Hidalgo County, Texas (01-24-29127 Proposed TJJD Evings Regional Juvenile Center)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

8/8/2024

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

25 Hidalgo fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

0.4 100.0%

Totals for Area of Interest 0.4 100.0%

Soil Map—Hidalgo County, Texas 01-24-29127 Proposed TJJD Evings Regional Juvenile Center

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

8/8/2024

MEG Page 22 of 28

APPENDIX B

PROJECT LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOREHOLE

LOCATION MAPS

PROPOSED

TJJD EVINS REGIONAL JUVENILE CENTER

EDINBURG, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

M

EG

P

RO

JE

C

T:

1-

-2

D A

TE

: 8

/8 /2

A

PP

RO

V

ED

B

Y:

A

. P A

LM

D

RA

W N

B Y:

D . G

A

RC

IA

NOT TO SCALE

N

APPROXIMATE

PROJECT LOCATION

MILLENNIUM ENGINEERS GROUP, INC.

5804 N. GUMWOOD AVENUE

PHARR, TEXAS 78577

WWW.MEGENGINEERS.COM

TEL: 956-702-8500

FAX: 956-702-8140

PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP

EDINBURG, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

M

EG

P

RO

JE

C

T:

1-

-2

D A

TE

: 8

/8 /2

RO

V

ED

B

Y:

A

. P A

RA

W N

B Y:

D . G

A

RC

IA

NOT TO SCALE

N

APPROXIMATE

PROJECT LOCATION

MILLENNIUM ENGINEERS GROUP, INC.

5804 N. GUMWOOD AVENUE

PHARR, TEXAS 78577

WWW.MEGENGINEERS.COM

TEL: 956-702-8500

FAX: 956-702-8140

PROJECT TOPOGRAPHY MAP

EDINBURG, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

M

EG

P

RO

JE

C

T:

1-

-2

D A

TE

: 8

/8 /2

RO

V

ED

B

Y:

A

. P A

RA

W N

B Y:

D . G

A

RC

IA

NOT TO SCALE

BOREHOLE DEPTH

N

= 25'

MILLENNIUM ENGINEERS GROUP, INC.

5804 N. GUMWOOD AVENUE

PHARR, TEXAS 78577

WWW.MEGENGINEERS.COM

TEL: 956-702-8500

FAX: 956-702-8140

PROJECT BOREHOLE LOCATION MAP

B-1

MEG Page 23 of 28

APPENDIX C

PROJECT BORING LOGS AND PROFILE

Project:

Proposed Back-up Generator Foundation at TJJD Evins Site

Project Location: Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas

Project Number: 01-24-29127

Log of Boring B-1

Date(s) Drilled 7/19/2024

Drilling Method Straight Flight

Drill Rig Type Simco 2800

Groundwater Level and Date Measured 20 feet ATD

Borehole Backfill Subgrade Cuttings

Logged By Ayme Guerrero

Drill Bit Size/Type 4" soil bit

Drilling Contractor MEG Drilling

Sampling Method(s) SPT

Location See Boring Location Map

Checked By Raul Palma

Total Depth of Borehole 25 feet bgs

Approximate Surface Elevation

Hammer Data 140 lb., 30 in. drop, auto trip

M at er ia l T yp e

CL

CH

LL

P I, P er ce nt

F in es

REMARKS AND

OTHER TESTS

ATD

G ra ph ic

L og

W at er C on te nt

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Sandy LEAN CLAY, light brown to dark brown, dry, stiff

Sandy FAT CLAY, light brown, dry to wet, very stiff

D ep th fe et

S am pl e

N um be r

S am pl e

T yp e

S am pl in g R es is ta nc e, bl ow s/ ft

E le va tio n (f ee t)

Sheet 1 of 1

Project:

Proposed Back-up Generator Foundation at TJJD Evins Site

Project Location: Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas

Project Number: 01-24-29127

Key to Log of Boring

M at er ia l T yp e

LL

P I, P er ce nt

F in es

REMARKS AND

OTHER TESTSG

ra ph ic L og

W at er C on te nt

MATERIAL DESCRIPTIOND

ep th fe et

S am pl e

N um be r

S am pl e

T yp e

S am pl in g R es is ta nc e, bl ow s/ ft

E le va tio n (f ee t)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS

1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet).

2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface.

3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown.

4 Sample Number: Sample identification number.

5 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft: Number of blows to advance driven sampler one foot (or distance shown) beyond seating interval using the hammer identified on the boring log.

6 Material Type: Type of material encountered.

7 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered.

8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered.

May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text.

9 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample, expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample.

10 LL, %: Liquid Limit, expressed as a water content.

11 PI, %: Plasticity Index, expressed as a water content.

12 Percent Fines: The percent fines (soil passing the No. 200 Sieve) in the sample. WA indicates a Wash Sieve, SA indicates a Sieve Analysis.

13 REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel.

FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS

CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity COMP: Compaction test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test LL: Liquid Limit, percent

PI: Plasticity Index, percent SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)

MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

Fat CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CH) Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL)

TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

Auger sampler

Bulk Sample

3-inch-OD California w/ brass rings

CME Sampler

Grab Sample

2.5-inch-OD Modified California w/ brass liners

Pitcher Sample

2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT)

Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, fixed head)

OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

Water level (at time of drilling, ATD)

Water level (after waiting)

Minor change in material properties within a stratum

Inferred/gradational contact between strata

? Queried contact between strata

GENERAL NOTES

1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests.

2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the…