ESBD_File_326190_808-23-231390 Addendum 2 Questions and Answers.pdf

Date: June 20, 2023

ADDENDUM #2

To the solicitation documents for:

Request for Competitive Sealed Proposals for a General Contractor for Landmark Inn Dam Preservation Repairs at the Landmark Inn State Historic Site, RFP # 808-23-231390.

RFP Submittal Deadline: June 29, 2023, 2:00 P.M. CST.

Addendum Descriptor: Questions and Answers

1. QUESTION: Do you know where I can find a Geotech Report for this?

ANSWER: Please see the attached Geotech Report.

This addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents. Respondent shall acknowledge receipt of this addendum by returning a signed copy of each addendum with the submitted Proposal; failure to do so may subject the Respondent to disqualification.

This Addendum consists of 53 pages including this sheet.

Bidder acknowledges receipt of the following addenda: Addendum #1 (initial)

WARNING: BIDDER’S FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDA MAY

RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL.

End of Addendum #1

Geotechnical Data Report

Landmark Inn Dam Medina River Bridge

Castroville, Texas

Arias Job No. 2020-1185

Prepared For

Freese and Nichols, Inc.

March 30, 2021

ARIAS

GEOPROFESSIONALS

142 Chula Vista, San Antonio, Texas 78232• Phone: (210) 308-5884• Fax: (210) 308-5886

March 30, 2021 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

Via Email: Hande.Gerkus(~freese.com Ms. Hande Gerkus Harris, Ph.D., P.E.

Freese and Nichols, Inc.

10431 Morado Circle, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78759.

RE: Geotechnical Data Report Landmark Inn Dam Medina River Bridge Castroville, Texas

Dear Ms. Harris:

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. (Arias) is pleased to submit the Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) for the Landmark Inn Dam Project. This project was authorized via a fully executed Subconsultant Agreement dated February 2, 2021. Our scope of work was performed in general accordance with the services outlined in the Revised Proposal dated December 1, 2020.

This GDR presents the results of soil borings, photographs of core samples, results of laboratory testing, and boring logs. We understand that the geotechnical data will be used by Freese and Nichols, Inc. for their evaluation of Landmark Inn Dam and development of repair recommendations.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve you during this phase of design. If we may be of further service, please call.

Sincerely, ARIAS GEOPROFESSIONALS

TBPE Registration No: F-32

Golam Kibria, Ph.D., P.E. Timothy J. Fox, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineerc~/~o/zozI

Austin • Corpus Christi • Eagle Pass • Fort Worth • San Antonio

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Arias Geoprofessionals i Arias Job No. 2020-1185

INTRODUCTION

SCOPE OF SERVICES

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

FIELD EXPLORATION

LABORATORY TESTING

Corrosivity Testing

Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Geology and Groundwater Conditions

Site Stratigraphy and Engineering Properties

Groundwater Encountered in the Borings

GENERAL COMMENTS

Subsurface Variations

Standard of Care

APPENDIX A: FIGURES AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ................................................. A-1

APPENDIX B: SOIL BORING LOGS AND KEY TO TERMS ......................................... B-1

APPENDIX C: FIELD AND LABORATORY EXPLORATION ......................................... C-1

APPENDIX D: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES ................................................. D-1

APPENDIX E: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ROCK SAMPLES .............................. E-1

APPENDIX F: GBA INFORMATION – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT .............................. F-1

Table

Table 1: Boring Locations and Depths

Table 2: Analytical Test Results

Table 3: Unconfined Compression Strength Test Results for Rock Core Samples

Table 4: Generalized Subsurface Conditions

Table 5: Groundwater Level Observations

Figures

1 Vicinity Map

2 Bore Location Plan

3 Geologic Map

4 Site Photos

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. 1 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

INTRODUCTION

We understand that Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) is assisting the Texas Historical

Commission (THC) to evaluate the stability, and develop repair recommendations, of the

150-year-old Landmark Inn Dam on the Medina River in Castroville, Texas. The

Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) presented herein will be used by FNI for their evaluation and development of repair recommendations for Landmark Inn Dam.

This project was authorized by FNI via a fully executed Subconsultant Agreement dated

February 2, 2021. Our scope of work was performed in general accordance with the services outlined in the Revised Proposal dated December 1, 2020.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of services for this phase of the Project was to:

• perform geotechnical borings to obtain soil and rock samples and evaluate groundwater conditions at the locations selected by FNI;

• perform laboratory testing on recovered soil and rock samples to evaluate engineering properties as well as for subsurface characterization; and,

• present the results of the field and laboratory test data in this GDR.

Our authorized scope of services for this project did not include:

• geotechnical engineering evaluations, analyses, and design recommendations, and

• environmental studies of any kind.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The 150-year-old Landmark Inn Dam is located on the Medina River in Castroville, Texas.

The location of the Landmark Inn Dam is presented in the Vicinity Map included as Figure 1 in Appendix A. The dam consists of a masonry wall structure approximately 230-foot long and 8-foot-tall. We understand that design and/or as-built construction documents are not available for the dam.

The Medina River Bridge, constructed in 1940 and subsequently widened in 1978, is located about 85 feet upstream of the dam. Based on the bridge construction drawings, the top elevation (El.) of the dam was estimated as 730.45 feet. The high-water elevations of the river were reported at that time as 741.68 feet and 743.59 feet for the 50 and 100-year floods, respectively.

Based on the information provided by FNI, we understand that local scour has been observed at several locations along the downstream toe of the dam and several leaks were detected along the downstream face of the dam during low water conditions. A concrete

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. 2 Arias Job No. 2020-1185 splash pad was constructed along the downstream toe of the dam in 2016 and repairs were attempted to stop the leaks along the face of the dam.

FIELD EXPLORATION

Two (2) borings (B-1 and B-2) were drilled between February 5 and February 8, 2021 at the locations selected by FNI. The proposed boring locations were staked by Arias personnel using a hand-held GPS unit so that underground utility locations could be identified and marked prior to the start of drilling. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan included as Figure 2 in Appendix A. After completion of drilling, as-drilled GPS coordinates were provided to FNI. The as-drilled GPS coordinates, State Plane coordinates (i.e., northing and easting) and surface elevations were provided by FNI which are included in the boring logs and given in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Boring Locations and Depths

Boring No.

GPS Coordinates of AS-DRILLED Boring Locations

Surveyed State Plane Surface Coordinates

Surveyed Surface

Elevation, (feet)

Approximate Boring

Depth (feet) Latitude Latitude Northing Easting

B-1 N 29°21'18.57" W 98°52'25.84" 13676690.8 2008711.0 736.05 60

B-2 N 29°21'18.91" W 98°52'20.64" 13676724.4 2009137.0 757.30 70

Notes:

1. GPS coordinates were taken using hand-held GPS unit during drilling.

2. Surface elevations and State Plane Coordinates at the as-drilled borings locations were provided to

Arias by FNI.

Borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled to depths of 60 and 70 feet below the existing ground surface, respectively. A drill rig equipped with continuous flight augers (ASTM D1452) was used to drill through and sample the soil. Samples of the soils encountered were obtained by either using a split-barrel sampler while performing the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D

1586) or by pushing a thin-walled tube sampler (ASTM D 1587) as described in Appendix C.

When rock was encountered, coring was performed using a NX size, double tube coring technique with the aid of water in general accordance with ASTM D2113.

The sample depth interval and type of sampler used are included on the boring logs. Arias’ field Geologist, working under the supervision of the Project Geotechnical Engineer, visually logged each recovered sample. Soil samples were placed in zip-lock plastic bags for transport to our laboratory.

Rock core samples were placed in sturdy core boxes in the field and were photographed in

Arias’ laboratory within a few days of receipt of core boxes. The photographs depict the core samples oriented in a horizontal direction with the depths increasing from top left to bottom right. Core photographs are presented immediately following each corresponding boring log in Appendix B.

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. 3 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

Final classifications, as seen on the attached boring logs, were determined by the project

Geotechnical Engineer based on laboratory and field test results and applicable ASTM procedures.

After completion, the boreholes were backfilled with cement bentonite grout placed from the bottom of the hole using tremie pipe and drill rig pump to the top. Select site photographs taken at the time of drilling are included in Appendix A of this report.

LABORATORY TESTING

As a supplement to the field exploration, laboratory testing was conducted to determine water content, Atterberg Limits, percent passing the US Standard No. 200 sieve, and grain size distribution on the soil samples. Unconfined compressive strength was determined for rock specimens.

The laboratory results are reported in the boring logs included in Appendix B. A key to the terms and symbols used on the logs is also included in Appendix B. The laboratory testing for this project was done in general accordance with applicable ASTM procedures with the specifications and definitions for these tests listed in Appendix C. Grain size distribution curves are included in Appendix D.

Corrosivity Testing

Corrosivity tests were performed on two (2) selected samples that included pH, electrical resistivity, and sulfate and chloride content. The tests were conducted in accordance with

ASTM 4972, ASTM G187, Tex-145-E and Tex-620J standard methods, respectively, and the test results are presented in Table 2 given below:

Table 2: Analytical Test Results

Boring No.

Depth, feet

Elevation, feet pH Electrical

Resistivity, Ohm-cm

Sulfate, ppm

Chloride, mg/Kg

B-1 10 - 11 726.1 - 725.1 7.6 -- 1,180 20

B-2 23 - 25 734.3 - 732.3 7.9 3,640 620 20

Note: Sample was not available to perform Electrical Resistivity testing for the Boring B-1: 10-11 feet.

Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens

Unconfined compression (Uc) tests were performed on rock core specimens in accordance with ASTM D7012, Method A. The test results are reported on the boring logs and are presented below in Table 3:

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. 4 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

Table 3: Unconfined Compression Strength Test Results for Rock Core Samples

Boring No.

Sample Depth Interval, feet

Sample Elevation

Interval, feet

Moisture Content, %

Dry Density, pcf

Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf

(psi)

B-1 15 - 20 721.1 - 716.1 2.1 140 186.6 (2,590)

B-1 20 - 25 716.1 - 711.1 0.5 141 186.6 (2,590)

B-1 25 - 30 711.1 - 706.1 1.1 150 261.5 (3,630)

B-1 30 - 35 706.1 - 701.1 1.1 151 398.4 (5,530)

B-1 35 - 40 701.1 - 696.1 2.2 132 104.0 (1,440)

B-2 30 - 35 727.3 - 722.3 1.1 148 256.8 (3,570)

B-2 35 - 40 722.3 - 717.3 0.6 138 178.4 (2,480)

B-2 40 - 45 717.3 - 712.3 0.8 141 188.5 (2,620)

B-2 45 - 50 712.3 - 707.3 0.3 149 316.4 (4,390)

B-2 50 - 55 707.3 - 702.3 2.3 137 112.4 (1,560)

As requested by FNI, the remaining soil and rock samples recovered from the borings will be stored until bidding of the dam rehabilitation so that bidders can view the samples if they so desire. After the bidding is completed, we will notify FNI to determine whether: (1) FNI would like to take possession of the samples, or (2) the samples can be properly disposed by Arias.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Geology, generalized stratigraphy and groundwater conditions at the boring locations are discussed in the following sections. The subsurface and groundwater conditions are based on the conditions encountered at the boring locations to the depths explored.

Geology and Groundwater Conditions

A Geologic Map, prepared for the Landmark Inn Dam site, is included in Appendix A as

Figure 3. Our desktop review indicates that the geologic formations at the site consist of

Fluviatile Terrance Deposits and the Leona Formation underlain by the Escondido

Formation.

Fluviatile Terrace Deposits (Qt) consist primarily of clays containing various amounts of silt, sand, and gravel. Localized zones of Terrace deposits (Qt) may consist of significant gravel deposits. Because of the potential for increased permeability within the gravels relative to the much lower permeabilities of the underlying formational soils, a “perched” water zone could be encountered at the contact between the gravels and the underlying clay or rock formation. Such deposits can contain point bars, cutbanks, oxbows, and abandoned channel segments associated with variations in stream bed activity. As a result, soil profiles in terrace deposit areas may vary greatly over relatively short distances. The soil and groundwater conditions within the Leona Formation are typically similar to Quaternary

Terrace deposits (Qt) Formation.

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. 5 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

The Escondido formation is comprised of shales, siltstone and sandstone. In the western part of the Medina County, this formation consists of flaggy, calcareous to argillaceous, fine-grained sandstone, thin-bedded siltstone, shale and layers or lenses of sandy marl and limestone. In the eastern part of the County, it is more strongly lithified, shaly clay.

Site Stratigraphy and Engineering Properties

The general stratigraphic conditions at the boring locations are provided in Table 4 given subsequently. The presence and thickness of the various subsurface materials can be expected to vary away from and between the exploration locations.

Table 4: Generalized Subsurface Conditions

Elevation (feet)

Material Type

PI

Range

No.

Range

PP

Range

SPT

Range

RQD

Range

Uc, tsf (psi)

(757.3 -736.1) to

(746.3 - 734.0)

LEAN CLAY (CL), SANDY

LEAN CLAY (CL),

GRAVELLY FAT CLAY (CH),

SILTY LEAN CLAY with Sand

(CL-ML); hard; dark brown and tan

20* 78* 4.5+ 31 -- --

(746.3 - 734.0) to

(729.3 - 722.5)

CLAYEY SAND (SC),

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC),

CLAYEY SAND with Gravel (SC), and POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with Clay and Sand

(GP-GC), POORLY GRADED

GRAVEL (GP), very loose to dense, dark brown, brown and tan

10* 10 - 40 4.5+ 1 - 43 -- --

(729.3 - 722.5) to

(687.3 - 676.0)

SANDSTONE, light gray, gray and dark gray -- -- --

**50/3”

**25/2” 30 - 100

104.0 - 398.4 (1,440 - 5,530)

Where: Elevation - Surveyed elevation provided by FNI, feet PI - Plasticity Index, % No. 200 - Percent passing #200 sieve, % PP - Pocket Penetration Value, tsf SPT - Standard Penetration Test, blows per foot RQD - Rock Quality Designation (%) Uc - Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf (psi)

* - Only one test conducted

Groundwater Encountered in the Borings

The borings were observed for subsurface water while advancing the holes using dry drilling and sampling techniques through the localized fill, terrace deposits, and/or Leona Formation.

Drilling fluid was introduced to facilitate rock coring, which prevented making further groundwater observations.

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. 6 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-1 only during our drilling operation. Groundwater depths observed in the boring are presented subsequently in Table 5.

Table 5: Groundwater Level Observations

Boring No.

Elevation, feet

Depth Drilled, feet

Groundwater First Encountered

Groundwater After 15 min. upon Initial

Encounter

Groundwater After Completion of

Drilling

Depth, feet

Elevation, feet

Depth, feet

Elevation, feet

Depth, feet

Elevation, feet

B-1 736.1 60 13.0 723.1 9.0 727.1 14.0 722.1

B-2 757.3 70 Not Encountered

Notes:

1. Depth is measured from existing ground surface at the time of the geotechnical field exploration.

2. Groundwater depth during drilling is where groundwater was first observed. Groundwater levels were measured after completion of the borings as noted above.

Water levels in open boreholes may require several hours to several days to stabilize depending on the permeability of the soils.

Groundwater levels at this site may differ during construction because fluctuations in groundwater levels can result from seasonal conditions, rainfall, drought, or temperature effects. Pockets or seams of gravels, sands, silts or open fractures and joints can store and transmit “perched” groundwater flow or seepage.

Groundwater levels will often change significantly over time; accordingly, they should be verified immediately prior to construction. Should dewatering become necessary, it is considered “means and methods” and is solely the responsibility of the Contractor.

GENERAL COMMENTS

This report was prepared as an instrument of service for this project exclusively for the use of

FNI, THC and the project design team. Important information about this geotechnical report is provided in the GBA publication included in Appendix F.

Subsurface Variations

Soil, rock and groundwater conditions may vary between and away from the sample boring locations. Transition boundaries or contacts, noted on the boring logs to separate soil and rock types, are approximate. Actual contacts may be gradual and vary at different locations.

If different subsurface conditions or highly variable subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified in writing in order to evaluate the significance of the changed conditions.

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. 7 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

Standard of Care

Subject to the limitations inherent in the agreed scope of services as to the degree of care and amount of time and expenses to be incurred, and subject to any other limitations contained in the agreement for this work, Arias has performed its services consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional engineers practicing in the same locale and under similar circumstances at the time the services were performed.

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. A-1 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

APPENDIX A: FIGURES AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

142 Chula Vista, San Antonio, Texas 78232 Phone: (210) 308-5884 • Fax: (210) 308-5886

VICINITY MAP

Castroville, Texas

Date: March 24, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185 Figure 1

Drawn By: RWL Checked By: GK Approved By: GK Scale: N.T.S.

Approximate Site Location

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Castroville, Texas

Date: March 24, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185 REVISIONS: Drawn By: RWL Checked By: GK No.: Date: Description: Approved By: GK Scale: N.T.S.

Figure 2

LEGEND

Symbol Name Age Qle Leona Formation Quaternary Period Qt Fluviatile Terrace Deposits Quaternary Period Kes Escondido Formation Cretaceous Period

142 Chula Vista, San Antonio, Texas 78232 Phone: (210) 308-5884 • Fax: (210) 308-5886

GEOLOGIC MAP

Landmark Inn Dam Medina River Bridge

Castroville, Texas Date: October 12, 2020 Job No.: 2020-1185 Figure 3

Drawn By: GK Checked By: GK Approved By: SAH Scale: N.T.S.

Approximate Site Location

Qle

Qt

Kes

Photo 1 – View looking at Boring B-1 drilling operations.

Photo 2 – View looking at Boring B-2 drilling operations.

142 Chula Vista, San Antonio, Texas 78232 Phone: (210) 308-5884 • Fax: (210) 308-5886

Site Photos

Landmark Inn Dam Medina River Bridge

Castroville, Texas

Date: March 24, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185 Figure 4

Drawn By: RWL Checked By: GK Approved By: GK Scale: N.T.S.

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. B-1 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

APPENDIX B: SOIL BORING LOGS AND KEY TO TERMS

**50/3"

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

0.8

LEAN CLAY (CL), hard, dark brown

- sandy below 0.8'

CLAYEY SAND (SC), dense, dark brown to brown

- interbedded gravel seam at 5.2'

CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC), medium dense, brown, gravel up to 0.2"

CLAYEY SAND (SC), very loose, brown, with trace gravel

SANDSTONE, weakly cemented, very hard, weathered, gray, with calcite lenses, weak HCL reaction

- fractured from 15' to 20'

- gypsum crystals at 18'

- weathered seams from 18.6' to 18.9'

- weathered seams at 20.25'

- becomes dark gray from 22' to 23'

T

T

T

SS

SS

T

SS

RC

RC

(30)

(47)

0.5

(734.0)

(729.5)

(727.5)

(722.5)

186.6

186.6

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

WC = Water Content (%) PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit PI = Plasticity Index

PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

N = SPT Blow Count ** = Blow Counts During Seating

Penetration -200 = % Passing #200 Sieve DD = Dry Density (pcf)

Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf) REC = Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%) UW = Unit Weight (pcf)

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

(ELEVATION)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Location: See Boring Location Plan

Coordinates: N29o21'18.57'' W98o52'25.84''

Nomenclature Used on Boring LogGroundwater Data:

First encountered during drilling: 13-ft depth After 15 minutes: 9-ft depth Field Drilling Data:

Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: A. Avolio Driller: Texas Geo Bore Drilling, LLC Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig

Backfill: Cement-bentonite grout

Water encountered during drilling

Elevation: 736.05 ft (By survey)

Thin-walled tube (T) Split Spoon (SS)

Rock Core (RC)

Job No.: 2020-1185

Project: Landmark Inn Dam Castroville, Texas

Delayed water reading

Sampling Date: 2/5/21

Arias Geoprofessionals

Boring Log No. B-1 D

E P

T H

(f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Single flight auger: 0 - 15 ft Rock core: 15 - 60 ft

S A

N D

C O

N T

E N

T

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

-1

5.

G

P J

3/

/2

(T U

N N

E L

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B

A

A R

IA

S

S A

-0

2.

G

D T

,A R

IA

S

-A R

W A

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

SANDSTONE, weakly cemented, very hard, weathered, gray, with calcite lenses, weak HCL reaction (continued)

- with interbedded clay layer from 27.6' to 27.75'

- with interbedded clay layer from 29.75' to 30' and 30.7' tp 32.1'

- angular fracture at 31'

- intact from 32.1' to 34.5'

- weathered at 32.3'

- with interbedded clay layer from 34.5' to 34.75'

- moderate HCL reaction below 35'

- weathered seams from 38' to 38.6'

- fractured from 38.5' to 38.7'

- brown, with higher sand and clay seams at 43'

- weathered seams from 46.5' to 47'

RC

RC

RC

RC

RC

(93)

(77)

(100)

(92)

(100)

261.5

398.4

104.0

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

WC = Water Content (%) PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit PI = Plasticity Index

PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

N = SPT Blow Count ** = Blow Counts During Seating

Penetration -200 = % Passing #200 Sieve DD = Dry Density (pcf)

Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf) REC = Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%) UW = Unit Weight (pcf)

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

(ELEVATION)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Location: See Boring Location Plan

Nomenclature Used on Boring LogGroundwater Data:

First encountered during drilling: 13-ft depth After 15 minutes: 9-ft depth Field Drilling Data:

Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: A. Avolio Driller: Texas Geo Bore Drilling, LLC Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig

Water encountered during drillingThin-walled tube (T) Split Spoon (SS)

Rock Core (RC)

Job No.: 2020-1185

Project: Landmark Inn Dam Castroville, Texas

Delayed water reading

Sampling Date: 2/5/21

Elevation: 736.05 ft (By survey) Coordinates: N29o21'18.57'' W98o52'25.84'' Backfill: Cement-bentonite grout

Arias Geoprofessionals

Boring Log No. B-1 (continued) D

E P

T H

(f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Single flight auger: 0 - 15 ft Rock core: 15 - 60 ft

S A

N D

C O

N T

E N

T

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

-1

5.

G

P J

3/

/2

(T U

N N

E L

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B

A

A R

IA

S

S A

-0

2.

G

D T

,A R

IA

S

-A R

W A

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

SANDSTONE, weakly cemented, very hard, weathered, gray, with calcite lenses, weak HCL reaction (continued)

- glauconite crystals from 54' to 54.5'

Bottom of hole at 60.0 feet.

RC

RC

(90)

(85)

(676.0)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

WC = Water Content (%) PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit PI = Plasticity Index

PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

N = SPT Blow Count ** = Blow Counts During Seating

Penetration -200 = % Passing #200 Sieve DD = Dry Density (pcf)

Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf) REC = Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%) UW = Unit Weight (pcf)

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

(ELEVATION)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Location: See Boring Location Plan

Nomenclature Used on Boring LogGroundwater Data:

First encountered during drilling: 13-ft depth After 15 minutes: 9-ft depth Field Drilling Data:

Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: A. Avolio Driller: Texas Geo Bore Drilling, LLC Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig

Water encountered during drillingThin-walled tube (T) Split Spoon (SS)

Rock Core (RC)

Job No.: 2020-1185

Project: Landmark Inn Dam Castroville, Texas

Delayed water reading

Sampling Date: 2/5/21

Elevation: 736.05 ft (By survey) Coordinates: N29o21'18.57'' W98o52'25.84'' Backfill: Cement-bentonite grout

Arias Geoprofessionals

Boring Log No. B-1 (continued) D

E P

T H

(f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Single flight auger: 0 - 15 ft Rock core: 15 - 60 ft

S A

N D

C O

N T

E N

T

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

-1

5.

G

P J

3/

/2

(T U

N N

E L

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B

A

A R

IA

S

S A

-0

2.

G

D T

,A R

IA

S

-A R

W A

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

CORE PHOTOS

BORING B-1

at Landmark Inn Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185 REVISIONS: Drawn By: ADA Checked By: AM No.: Date: Description: Approved By: GK Scale: N.T.S.

Appendix B

15-ft

25-ft

25-ft

30-ft at Landmark Inn Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185

30-ft

35-ft

40-ft at Landmark Inn Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185

45-ft

50-ft at Landmark Inn Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185

55-ft

60-ft

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

4.5+

GRAVELLY FAT CLAY with Sand (CH), hard, brown to tan

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), hard, tan

SILTY LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL-ML), hard, tan, with sand and ferrous staining

Poorly-graded GRAVEL with Clay and Sand (GP-GC), dense, tan, up to 1.5'' gravel size

CLAYEY SAND with Gravel (SC), medium dense, brown

Poorly-graded GRAVEL (GP), dense, tan

T

T

T

T

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

(753.3)

(748.8)

(746.3)

(739.3)

(734.3)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

WC = Water Content (%) PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

N = SPT Blow Count ** = Blow Counts During Seating

Penetration

-200 = % Passing #200 Sieve DD = Dry Density (pcf) Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf)

REC = Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)

UW = Unit Weight (pcf)

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

(ELEVATION)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Location: See Boring Location Plan

Coordinates: N29o21'18.91'' W98o52'20.64''

Nomenclature Used on Boring LogGroundwater Data:

During drilling: Not encountered

Field Drilling Data:

Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: A. Avolio Driller: Texas Geo Bore Drilling, LLC Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig

Backfill: Cement-bentonite grout

Elevation: 757.30 ft (By survey)

Thin-walled tube (T) Split Spoon (SS)

Rock Core (RC)

Job No.: 2020-1185

Project: Landmark Inn Dam Castroville, Texas

Sampling Date: 2/8/21

Arias Geoprofessionals

Boring Log No. B-2 D

E P

T H

(f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Single flight auger: 0 - 28.3 ft Rock core: 28.3 - 70 ft

S A

N D

C O

N T

E N

T

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

-1

5.

G

P J

3/

/2

(T U

N N

E L

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B

A

A R

IA

S

S A

-0

2.

G

D T

,A R

IA

S

-A R

W A

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

**25/2"

Poorly-graded GRAVEL (GP), dense, tan (continued)

SANDSTONE, weakly cemented, very hard, weathered, gray to light gray, moderate HCL reaction

- several thin embedded shell fossils from 28' to 35'

- weathered seams from 32.25' to 32.5'

- fractured and intensely weathered with ferrous staining from 35' to 40'

- tan from 36' to 37'

- with gypsum at 37' to 39'

- several thin embedded shell fossils from 40' to 45'

- with interbedded clay layer from 46.1' to 46.3'

- with interbedded clay layer from 48' to 49.3'

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

(88)

(30)

(90)

(97)

0.3

(729.3)

256.8

178.4

188.5

316.4

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

WC = Water Content (%) PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

N = SPT Blow Count ** = Blow Counts During Seating

Penetration

-200 = % Passing #200 Sieve DD = Dry Density (pcf) Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf)

REC = Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)

UW = Unit Weight (pcf)

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

(ELEVATION)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Location: See Boring Location Plan

Coordinates: N29o21'18.91'' W98o52'20.64''

Nomenclature Used on Boring LogGroundwater Data:

During drilling: Not encountered

Field Drilling Data:

Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: A. Avolio Driller: Texas Geo Bore Drilling, LLC Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig

Backfill: Cement-bentonite grout

Elevation: 757.30 ft (By survey)

Thin-walled tube (T) Split Spoon (SS)

Rock Core (RC)

Job No.: 2020-1185

Project: Landmark Inn Dam Castroville, Texas

Sampling Date: 2/8/21

Arias Geoprofessionals

Boring Log No. B-2 (continued) D

E P

T H

(f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Single flight auger: 0 - 28.3 ft Rock core: 28.3 - 70 ft

S A

N D

C O

N T

E N

T

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

-1

5.

G

P J

3/

/2

(T U

N N

E L

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B

A

A R

IA

S

S A

-0

2.

G

D T

,A R

IA

S

-A R

W A

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

SANDSTONE, weakly cemented, very hard, weathered, gray to light gray, moderate HCL reaction (continued)

- interbedded clay seams from 51.5' to 53'

- weathered seams from 52.5' to 52.7'

- sandy below 52.6'

- porous at 53'

- gypsum at 55'

- intensely weathered from 57.5' to 57.7'

- glauconite crystals from 58.5' to 59'

- several thin embedded shell fossils from 60' to 64'

- with interbedded clay seams from 60' to 62'

- several thin embedded shell fossils from 65' to 70'

Bottom of hole at 70.0 feet.

RC

RC

RC

RC

(67)

(100)

(90)

(97)

(687.3)

112.4

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

WC = Water Content (%) PP = Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

N = SPT Blow Count ** = Blow Counts During Seating

Penetration

-200 = % Passing #200 Sieve DD = Dry Density (pcf) Uc = Compressive Strength (tsf)

REC = Recovery (%) RQD = Rock Quality Designation (%)

UW = Unit Weight (pcf)

B

LO

W C

O U

N T

S (N

V A

LU

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

F

IN

E S

C O

N T

E N

T

(ELEVATION)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Location: See Boring Location Plan

Nomenclature Used on Boring LogGroundwater Data:

During drilling: Not encountered

Field Drilling Data:

Coordinates: Hand-held GPS Unit Logged By: A. Avolio Driller: Texas Geo Bore Drilling, LLC Equipment: Truck-mounted drill rig

Thin-walled tube (T) Split Spoon (SS)

Rock Core (RC)

Job No.: 2020-1185

Project: Landmark Inn Dam Castroville, Texas

Sampling Date: 2/8/21

Elevation: 757.30 ft (By survey) Coordinates: N29o21'18.91'' W98o52'20.64'' Backfill: Cement-bentonite grout

Arias Geoprofessionals

Boring Log No. B-2 (continued) D

E P

T H

(f t)

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E N

U M

B E

R

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

Single flight auger: 0 - 28.3 ft Rock core: 28.3 - 70 ft

S A

N D

C O

N T

E N

T

U N

C O

N F

IN

E

D S

T R

E N

G T

H ts f)

-1

5.

G

P J

3/

/2

(T U

N N

E L

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

B

A

A R

IA

S

S A

-0

2.

G

D T

,A R

IA

S

-A R

W A

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

BORING B-2

at Alsatian Haus Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185

28-ft at Alsatian Haus Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185 at Alsatian Haus Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185 at Alsatian Haus Castroville, Texas

Date: February 12, 2021 Job No.: 2020-1185

65-ft

65-ft

70-ft

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

MH

CH

Massive or Weakly Bedded Limestones

M o re t h a n h a lf o f m a te ri a l S

M A

L L E

R th a n N o S ie v e s iz e

F O

R M

A T

IO

N

A L

M A

T E

R

IA

L S

GROUP

SYMBOLS

KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS

C O

A R

S E

-G R

A

IN

E D

S O

IL

S

G R

A V

E L

S S

A N

D S

M o re t h a n H a lf o f C o a rs e f ra c ti o n i s

L A

R G

E R t h a n N o S ie v e s iz e

M o re t h a n h a lf o f m a te ri a l L A

R G

E R t h a n N o S ie v e s iz e

MAJOR DIVISIONS

Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures

Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures, Little or no Fines

Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Mixtures, Little or no Fines

DESCRIPTIONS

Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures

Silty Sands, Sand-Silt Mixtures

Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or no Fines

Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or no Fines C le a n G ra v e ls

(l it tl e o r n o F in e s

G ra v e ls w h

F in

(A p p re c ia b le m o u n t o f F in e s

C le a n S a n d

(l tl e o r n o F in e s

S a n d s w it h F in

(A p p re c ia b le m o u n t o f F in e s

L iq u id

L im it l e th n

L iq u id

L im g re a te r th a n

LIMESTONE

MARLSTONE

SANDSTONE

Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mixtures

Massive Sandstones, Sandstones with Gravel Clasts

Inorganic Clays of High Plasticity, Fat Clays

Inorganic Silts, Micaceous or Diatomaceous Fine Sand or Silty Soils, Elastic Silts

Inorganic Clays of Low to Medium Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Clays

Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour, Silty or Clayey Fine Sands or Clayey Silts with Slight

Plasticity

Indurated Argillaceous Limestones

Indicates Final Observed Groundwater Level

Indicates Initial Observed Groundwater Location

Cretaceous Clay Deposits

Massive or Poorly Bedded Chalk Deposits

Mudstone or Massive Claystones

F

IN

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

O

IL

S

M o re t h a n h a lf o f C o a rs e f ra c ti o n i

S M

A L L E

R t h a n N o S ie v e s iz e

S

IL

T

C

A Y

S

S

IL

T

C

A Y

S

GROUNDWATER

MARINE CLAYS

CHALK

CLAYSTONE

Very Dense

30 - 50

Over 50

10 - 30

Consistency and Strength of Cohesive Soils

Number of Blows per ft., N

Unconfined

Compressive

Strength, qᵤ (tsf)

Consistency

Density of Granular Soils

Relative Density

Very Loose

Number of

Blows per ft., N

0 - 4

4 - 10 Loose

Medium

Dense

Below 2

2 - 4 Soft

Very Soft

Stiff

Less than 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

Medium (Firm)

Very Stiff

Hard

4 - 8

8 - 15

15 - 30

Over 30 Over 4.0

2.0 - 4.0

Arias Geoprofessionals

Group

Symbol

GW

(Less than 5% fines C

Cu < 4 and/or GP

[Cc < 1 or Cc > 3] D

Gravels with Fines GM

(More than 12% fines C

GC

Sands Clean Sands SW

(Less than 5% fines H

) Cu < 6 and/or SP

[Cc < 1 or Cc > 3] D

Sands with Fines SM

(More than 12% fines H

SC

Silts and Clays inorganic CL

ML

organic OL

Silts and Clays inorganic CH

MH

organic OH

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT

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

Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

E If soil contains ≥ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name F If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM G If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name H Sand 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 I If soil contains ≥ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay K If soil contains 15% to < 30% 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

TERMINOLOGY

Boulders Over 12-inches (300mm) Parting Inclusion < 1/8-inch thick extending through samples

Cobbles 12-inches to 3-inches (300mm to 75mm) Seam Inclusion 1/8-inch to 3-inches thick extending through sample

Gravel 3-inches to No. 4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm) Layer Inclusion > 3-inches thick extending through sample

Sand No. 4 sieve to No. 200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)

Silt or Clay Passing No. 200 sieve (0.075mm)

Calcareous Containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate, generally nodular

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 6mm thick

Laminated Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layers less than 6mm thick

Fissured Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing

Slickensided Fracture planes appear polished or glossy sometimes striated

Blocky Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown

Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout

(D30)

D10 x D60

KEY TO TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON BORING LOGS

TABLE 1 Soil Classification Chart (ASTM D 2487-11)

Group Name B

Organic Clay K,L,M,N

Organi Silt K,L,M,O

Fat Clay K,L,M

Clayey Gravel E,F,G

Well-Graded Sand I

Poorly-Graded Sand I

Silty Sand F,G,I

Clayey Sand F,G,I

Well-Graded Gravel E

Poorly-Graded Gravel E

Silty Gravel E,F,G

Soil Classification

Criteria of Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

More than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

Liquid limit less than 50

Liquid limit 50 or more

PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line J

PI < 4 or plots below "A" line J

PI plots on or above "A" line

PI plots on or below "A" line

Fines classify as CL or

CH

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

50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 DGravels Clean Gravels

Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic Clay K,L,M,P

Organic Silt K,L,M,Q

Peat

Lean Clay K,L,M

Silt K,L,M

Fines classify as CL or

CH

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 D

Fines classify as ML or

MH

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

Fines classify as ML or

MH

<0.75

<0.75

Liquid limit - oven dried

Liquid limit - not dried

Liquid limit - oven dried

Liquid limit - not dried

Arias Geoprofessionals

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. C-1 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

APPENDIX C: FIELD AND LABORATORY EXPLORATION

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. C-2 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

FIELD AND LABORATORY EXPLORATION

The field exploration program included drilling at selected locations within the site and intermittently sampling the encountered materials. Samples of encountered materials were obtained using a split-barrel sampler while performing the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM

D 1586) or ASTM D1587 for a thin-walled tube sampler technique. Rock coring was performed using a NX size, double tube coring technique upon encounter with the aid of water in general accordance with ASTM D2113. The sample depth interval and type of sampler used is included on the soil boring log. Arias’ field representative visually logged each recovered sample and placed a portion of the recovered sampled into a plastic bag for transport to our laboratory. Rock core samples were placed in sturdy core boxes in the field and were photographed in Arias’ laboratory within a few days of receipt of core boxes.

SPT N-values and blow counts for those intervals where the sampler could not be advanced for the required 18-inch penetration are shown on the soil boring log. If the test was terminated during the 6-inch seating interval or after 10 hammer blows were applied used and no advancement of the sampler was noted, the log denotes this condition as blow count during seating penetration.

Arias performed laboratory tests on selected samples to aid in soil classification and to determine engineering properties. Tests commonly used in geotechnical exploration, the method used to perform the test, and the column designation on the boring log where data are reported are summarized as follows:

Test Name Test Method Log Designation

Water (moisture) content of soil and rock by mass ASTM D2216

MOISTURE

CONTENT (%)

Liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils ASTM D4318

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

Amount of material in soils finer than the No. 200 sieve ASTM D1140

SAND CONTENT

(%), FINES

CONTENT (%)

Particle Size Distribution using Sieve Analysis and Hydrometer Analysis

ASTM 6913 &

ASTM 7928

SAND CONTENT

(%), FINES

CONTENT (%)

Unconfined Strength of Rock ASTM 7012

UNCONFINED

STRENGTH (tsf)

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. D-1 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

APPENDIX D: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

0.0010.010.1110100

Depth

1.5 medium

6 810 14

Classification

503/4 1/23/8

Boring

Boring Depth

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

COBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

PI Cc

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

D100 D60

CuLL PL

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T coarse

%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay

100 1403 2

D10 fine coarse

SILT OR CLAY

D30

4.0

8.5

8.5

18.0

B- 1

B- 1

B- 2

B- 2

20016 20 30 4016 60 fine

Elev

B- 1

B- 1

B- 2

B- 2

CLAYEY SAND (SC) 24 14 10

0.158

0.226

0.025

4.372

0.067

0.003

0.509 0.009

0.0

4.0

0.9

37.8

39.9

Silt and clay fractions were determined using 0.002 mm as the maximum particle size for clay.

6.38 470.20

4.0

8.5

8.5

18.0

4.75

60.1

56.2

21.0

44.3

26.7

55.6

12.8

13.2

22.5

5.1

Arias Geoprofessionals

Project: Landmark Inn Dam

Location: See Boring Location Plan

Job No.: 2020-1185

-1

5.

G

P J

3/ 8/

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E A

R

IA

S ,U

S _L

A B

.G D

T ,L

IB

R

A R

Y

-0

1.

G

LB

142 Chula Vista San Antonio, Texas 78232 Phone: (210) 308-5884 Fax: (210) 308-5886

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

SILTY LEAN CLAY with SAND (CL-ML) CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. E-1 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

APPENDIX E: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ROCK SAMPLES

Arias & Associates, Inc.

Sample: B-1, 15'-20' Water Content: 2.1 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 140.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

St re ss (t sf

Strain (%)

Stress Vs. Strain

Sample: B-1, 20'-25' Water Content: 0.5 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 141.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-1, 25'-30' Water Content: 1.1 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 150.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-1, 30'-35' Water Content: 1.1 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 151.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-1, 35'-40' Water Content: 2.2 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 132.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-2, 30'-35' Water Content: 1.1 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 148.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-2, 35'-40' Water Content: 0.6 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 138.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-2, 40'-45' Water Content: 0.8 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 141.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-2, 45'-50' Water Content: 0.3 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 149.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

St re ss (t sf

Sample: B-2, 50'-55' Water Content: 2.3 % Test Method: ASTM D 7012 Dry Unit Weight: 137.0 pcf

Material: SANDSTONE

STRESS STRAIN CURVE & ROCK CORE PHOTO

LANDMARK INN DAM

CASTROVILLE

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

St re ss (t sf

Arias Geoprofessionals, Inc. F-1 Arias Job No. 2020-1185

APPENDIX F: GBA INFORMATION – GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

– not even you – should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include:

• the client’s goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk-management preferences;

• the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria;

• the structure’s location and orientation on the site; and

• other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:

• the site’s size or shape;

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:

• for a different client;

• for a different project;

• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or

• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an “apply-by” date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.

Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to:

• confer with other design-team members,

• help develop…