20.100 FINAL PVMT Report.pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

5900 W. 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80212

(303) 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

TX FLAP UV CR203(1)

Fish Hatchery Road

UVALDE, TEXAS

October 2024

Shannon & Wilson No: 110938-001

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024 ii

C O

N

TE

N

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Project and Site Description

3 Subsurface Explorations and Laboratory Testing

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

4 Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

4.1 Regional Geology

4.2 Ground Conditions

4.3 Groundwater

5 Pavement Analysis & Recommendations

5.1 Expansive Soil Mitigation

5.2 Traffic Loading

5.3 Subgrade Soils

5.4 Recommended Pavement Sections

5.5 Corrosive Soil

6 Construction and Materials Specifications

6.1 Site Preparation

6.2 Earthwork

6.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

6.2.2 Fill Placement

6.2.3 Low Permeable Fill

6.2.4 Proof‐Rolling

6.3 Paving Materials

7 Closure

8 References iii

C O

N

TE

TS

Exhibits Exhibit 2‐1: Existing Pavement Condition of CR 203

Exhibit 5‐1: PDDM Guidance on Subexcavation Depth of Expansive Soils

Exhibit 5‐1: Corrosion Testing Results

Exhibit 5‐2: Corrosivity Ratings Based on Soil Resistivity

Exhibit 5‐3: Corrosivity Ratings Based on Water Soluble Sulfate Exposure

Exhibit 6‐1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan

Appendices Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results

Appendix C: Pavement Design Calculations

Appendix D: Previous Investigation

Important Information

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and presents pavement design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed County Road (CR) 203 improvements (the Project) near the Uvalde

National Fish Hatchery (UNFH) in Uvalde, Texas (refer to Figure 1). Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No. 010/1000100099246 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) dated February 22, 2024. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

The limitations of our approved scope, schedule, and budget described in our contract;

Our understanding of the Project and information provided by HDR;

Subsurface conditions observed in the borings at the time our explorations were completed; and

The results of testing performed on samples collected from the explorations.

The objective of our geotechnical studies was to provide recommendations and construction considerations, as presented herein, for the proposed roadway improvements. The authorized scope of services was based on this objective and this report should not be used for other purposes without Shannon & Wilson’s review. If a service is not specifically indicated in this report, do not assume that it was performed.

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

We understand that the proposed project includes reconstruction and widening of CR 203 from Main St. (U.S. 90) to the entrance of the US Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Fish

Hatchery located 0.7 miles south. The land surrounding CR 203 is relatively flat and occupied by residential houses and farmland. The existing CR 203 is paved with asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) and consists of a narrow single‐lane road with grassy shoulders

(vehicles are unable to pass side by side). The existing pavement consists of severely fatigue

(alligator) cracked pavement (refer to Exhibit 2‐1). Based on discussions with HDR, we understand the Project improvements will include reconstruction of the existing ACP, widening the roadway from 17 feet to 24 feet, and adding associated drainage.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

Exhibit 2-1: Existing Pavement Condition of CR 203

We understand that the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), USFWS, and

Uvalde County are partnering to fund the proposed improvements to CR 203. The proposed improvements are a continuation of the reconstruction of CR 203 within the

USFWS Fish Hatchery. Shannon & Wilson previously performed subsurface explorations and prepared pavement design recommendations (Shannon & Wilson, 2019) for a 0.4‐mile segment from the Fish Hatchery entrance south to S. Old Eagle Pass Road. We understand the previous roadway segment was reconstructed with 3.0 inches of ACP overlying 8 inches of lime treated subgrade (LTS). Based on discussions with HDR, we understand the

Contractor had difficulties with the construction of the LTS, particularly lime treatment in the roadway shoulders. We understand a separate Contractor was brought in to repair the southern segment shoulders. Due to these difficulties, future subgrade treatment with lime will not be considered.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY

TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Prior to conducting our subsurface exploration program, we reviewed previous geotechnical data provided in our 2019 report. As indicated in Section 2, the exploration program for our 2019 report (borings completed in 2019) focused on the southern segment of CR 203 consisting of three borings (designated SW‐01 through SW‐03). Select logs and laboratory test data from our 2018 subsurface investigations are provided in Appendix D.

Our recent subsurface explorations were completed on the northern segment of CR 203. The subsurface explorations consisted of drilling and sampling three borings (designated SW‐04 through SW‐06). The borings were advanced to a depth of 5.5 to 6.0 feet below the ground surface. The approximate boring locations are shown in Figure 2.

Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used to complete the 2024 borings. Appendix A also presents the individual exploration logs and an explanation of the symbols and terminology used. Photographs of the drilling locations are included in Appendix A.

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory tests were completed on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. Index tests included natural water content, unit weight, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included corrosion and one‐dimensional swell/consolidation. Laboratory test results and a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in

Appendix A.

4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS

4.1 Regional Geology

Based on our review of the Geologic Atlas of Texas, the geology of the site consists of

Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Barnes and others, revised 1991). The Project area is mapped as Leona Formation, consisting of Pleistocene fluviatile terrace deposits.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

4.2 Ground Conditions

An ACP pavement thickness of 2‐½ ‐inches was measured at each of the Project boring locations. Below the pavement, the borings encountered approximately 3‐½ inches of crushed aggregate base (CAB). Underlying the CAB, the subsurface primarily consisted of stiff to very stiff clays with varying percentages of sand (American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A‐7‐6).

The subgrade soils were consistent with our previous exploration performed on CR 203 in

2018, which consisted of clays with varying percentages of sands (AASHTO A‐7‐6).

Our observations are specific to the locations, depths, and dates noted on the exploration logs in Appendix A and Appendix D and may not be applicable to all areas of the site.

There is no amount of explorations or laboratory testing that can precisely predict the characteristics, quality, or distribution of subsurface conditions at every location throughout the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions may occur between and below the borings.

Also, the passage of time or intervening causes (natural and manmade) may result in changes to the conditions of the site and subsurface conditions.

4.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in our borings; however, fluctuations of groundwater levels at the site are likely and will depend on many factors, including seasonal variations, local precipitation, and flood events. Groundwater is not anticipated to affect the design or construction of the Project.

5 PAVEMENT ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Our pavement design and results are based on the design procedures presented in the

1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures (GDPS) with guidance from the

U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal

Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), dated March 2008, and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Pavement Manual, dated June 2021.

Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix C. For our pavement design, we assumed the reconstruction of CR 203 is a 4R project as defined by the PDDM.

5.1 Expansive Soil Mitigation

Formations in Texas are susceptible to volume change by swelling/shrinking if the moisture regime changes. This geologic phenomenon has the potential to cause substantial damage

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024 to lightly‐loaded structures, such as pavements. To evaluate this potential concern, we performed a one‐dimensional swell/consolidation test and Atterberg limits testing on soil samples encountered in our explorations. Below is a summary of our test results:

2018 Explorations (southern segment of CR 203), o Plastic index (PI) ranged from 42 to 53, and the liquid limit (LL) ranged from

58 to 71.

2024 Explorations (northern segment of CR 203), o Swell of 7.0% under inundation pressure of 200 pounds per square foot (psf)

(boring SW‐05), o PI ranged from 27 to 42, and the LL ranged from 44 to 64.

PI testing provides an indication of expansive characteristics for clays. Generally, the higher the PI, the more volume change can occur with changes in the subgrade moisture content.

In addition, high PI soils can have constructability issues (pumping subgrade and difficulty achieving compaction). Therefore, the PDDM discusses subexcavation (removal and replacement) with the guidance provided in Exhibit 5‐1.

Exhibit 5-1: PDDM Guidance on Subexcavation Depth of Expansive Soils

Plasticity Index (PI) Liquid Limit (LL) Depth of Subexcavation

15 – 25 < 50 2 feet

25 – 35 50 – 60 2 – 4 feet

> 35 > 60 4 – 6 feet

NOTE:

The above guidance is reproduced from Exhibit 11.3-C of the PDDM.

Based on the above testing, the PDDM suggest up to 6 feet of subexcavation. This deep subexcavation and replacement offers the least risk of expansive‐soil‐related damage to the pavement; however, it will be expensive and difficult to construct. Section 11.3.2.1.3 of the

PDDM suggests considering the traffic volume when considering subexcavation. As such, CFLHD and Uvalde County could consider reducing this depth of subexcavation based on the low traffic volume and slow speeds expected on the roadway and accept a higher risk of damage to pavement (and additional future maintenance) and/or reduced performance. On past projects with high swell potential, CFLHD has utilized shallower subexcavation (24 inches) for the above reasons in roadway widening areas, where the risk of expansion is usually higher because of lower moisture contents compared to below existing pavement

(see below).

Further, under the existing pavement, on past projects with high swell potential CFLHD has agreed with only nominal scarification or no treatment (in the case when FDR is used for the

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024 pavement system) because the pavement surface has reduced the degree of evapotranspiration that occurs, which can result in higher moisture content and lower likelihood of expansion compared to unpaved areas. Any subgrade moisture treatment below the FDR layer would involve double‐working the FDR layer (stockpiling the FDR, moisture treating the subgrade, and placing and compacting the FDR material) adding additional costs.

If chemical subgrade stabilization will be considered (such as CTS or FDR with cement), the total subgrade treatment thickness should consist of the thickness of the stabilized layer thickness plus the thickness of the moisture treatment.

Regardless of how much subexcavation is chosen, care should be taken so subgrade soils are not exposed and allowed to dry during construction. Refer to Section 6.2.2 for compaction requirements and Section 6.2.4 for discussion on proof rolling. Areas of failing proof rolls may require subexcavation and import of non‐swell susceptible, low permeable fill (refer to

Section 6.2.3). In addition, surface drainage should be carefully controlled such that ponding water is not allowed to seep into the subgrad soils.

5.2 Traffic Loading

HDR provided limited traffic data consisting of average daily traffic (ADT) (approximately

250 vehicles per day (VPD) currently and growing to 500 VPD after 20 years); a low volume, rural road classification; and indicated that CR 203 is not a commercial trucking route with traffic composed primarily of passenger cars. To estimate the design traffic loading, we made the following assumptions:

An annually compounded growth rate of 4% estimated from current and projected ADT volumes provided by HDR;

Current and projected ADT are directional (one‐way traffic volumes);

Traffic distribution consisting of 50% passenger vehicles (vehicle class 2), 49% pickups and vans (vehicle class. 3), and 1% buses and single‐unit trucks (vehicle classes. 4, 5, and

6); and

18‐kip equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) truck equivalency factors provided in the

PDDM.

Based on the above assumptions, we estimate the CR 203 ESAL loading of 44,000 for a 25‐ year design life. For our pavement analysis, we used the minimum design ESAL value of

50,000 in accordance with PDDM guidelines.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

5.3 Subgrade Soils

As discussed in Section 4.0, the subsurface explorations completed along the Project alignment consisted of clays with varying percentages of sands (A‐7‐6). The subgrade soils were consistent with our previous exploration performed on CR 203 in 2018. For design, we used the same design California bearing ratio (CBR) value of 3.6% for an AASHTO A‐7‐6 soil from boring SW‐03. (The CBR laboratory results are provided in Appendix D.) This design CBR was then applied to a TxDOT (2021) correlation between CBR and subgrade resilient modulus resulting in a design resilient modulus of 5,789 pounds per square inch.

5.4 Recommended Pavement Sections

Using the PDDM procedures and the parameters outlined in Appendix C, we recommend the following pavement sections for the Project.

5‐½ inches of full depth ACP, 3 inches of ACP overlying 6 inches of full depth reclamation (FDR) with cement treatment, 3 inches of ACP overlying 8 inches of cement‐treated subgrade (CTS).

FDR with cement treatment involves in‐place pulverization of the existing pavement section and mixing that material with water and cement. The mixture produces a stabilized base after it is graded and compacted. Typically, a new ACP pavement surface layer is then paved over the stabilized base which typically results in an overall raise to the roadway grades. A mix design should be prepared by the Contractor for the FDR with cement treatment alternative in accordance with FP‐24 U.S. Customary Units (U.S. Department of

Transportation [USDOT] and FHWA, 2014) Section 305.

The existing pavement is relatively thin, and the FDR process may not generate sufficient material for the entire roadway width. An import base course may be required if there is insufficient FDR material to accommodate the proposed roadway widening. Alternatively, treating the native subgrade with cement could be done, but the native fat clay subgrade

(AASHTO A‐7‐6 soils) will likely require higher percentages of cement than the FDR. Also, working in a narrower area (less than 12 ft wide) may be more difficult for the contractor and construction will require proper mixing/discing of the clay into the subgrade to achieve the required strength. If CTS is selected, we recommend onsite testing and construction observation to ensure that cement is thoroughly mixed/disced into the clay subgrade resulting in a homogenous mixture.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

5.5 Corrosive Soil

To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, a sample was tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are summarized below in

Exhibit 5‐1 and presented in Table B‐1 in Appendix B.

Exhibit 5-1: Corrosion Testing Results

Boring Depth (feet) Material pH

Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

Sulfate Content

Chloride Content

SW-06 0.5 to 2.0 CL 7.5 3,600 0.03 0.014

Based on correlations developed by Roberge (2012) as shown in Exhibit 5‐2, the measured resistivity suggests corrosive subsurface conditions for metals in contact with subsurface materials across the site.

Exhibit 5-2: Corrosivity Ratings Based on Soil Resistivity

Soil Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

Corrosivity Rating

>20,000 Essentially Noncorrosive

10,000-20,000 Mildly Corrosive

5,000-10,000 Moderately Corrosive

3,000-5,000 Corrosive

1,000-3,000 Highly Corrosive

<1,000 Extremely Corrosive

The concentration of water soluble sulfates are provided in Exhibit 5‐1. Based on classifications as defined by the American Concrete Institute ACI‐318‐19(22) (ACI, 2022) as shown in Exhibit 5‐3, the concentration of water soluble sulfates suggests a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

Exhibit 5-3: Corrosivity Ratings Based on Water Soluble Sulfate Exposure

Water Soluble Sulfate in Soil

(Percent by Weight)

Sulfate Severity

(Class)

<0.10 Negligible (S0)

0.10-<0.20 Moderate (S1)

0.20-2.00 Severe (S2)

>2.00 Very Severe (S3)

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

6 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 6.0 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assumed that this project is constructed according to FP‐24 (USDOT and FHWA, 2024) construction standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

6.1 Site Preparation

In widening areas, we recommend that brush and other vegetation be cleared and roots and stumps be removed from all areas to be graded in accordance with FP‐24 Sections 201 and

203. All surface and subsurface structures associated with current development of the site, including pavements, utility poles, fence poles, underground utilities and other deleterious material, should also be removed. Any existing surficial topsoil and soil containing visible organics should be stripped and removed from all areas.

6.2 Earthwork

6.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

Proper subgrade preparation is required for adequate pavement performance. The exposed subgrade should be treated to an appropriate depth as discussed in Section 5.1.

6.2.2 Fill Placement

The on‐site soils can be reused as part of the moisture treated subgrade or for fills associated with the widening. However, due to the potential expansive nature of the clay, it will be important to place overexcavated materials at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content to reduce the potential for swell. In this regard, cohesive soils (AASHTO

A‐6 and A‐7) should be moisture treated to 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content.

All subgrade material and fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition in accordance with FP‐24 Section 204.11. On‐site subgrade and fill materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by AASHTO

T180 or T99, as presented in FP‐24 Section 204. Fill should be placed in uniform, horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness for heavy, self‐propelled compactors, or

4 inches for hand‐operated mechanical compactors. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the Contractor’s equipment and the moisture content and quality of the fill material.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

Below pavements, clean granular soils are not recommended (as there will be no natural drainage and this can form a bathtub effect that can exacerbate swell). If imported fill is required, we recommend that the material consist of Low Permeable Fill (refer to Section

6.2.3)

The subgrade should not be allowed to dry out during overexcavation and placement or the potential for swell and the possible magnitude of swell will increase. This may require wetting and remixing exposed soil at the beginning of each day.

6.2.3 Low Permeable Fill

Low Permeable Fill should have the following characteristics:

Free organics, contaminants, debris, rock fragments larger than 3 inches, and contains 20 to 40% fines content;

PI value of 15 or less;

Free swell of less than 1% in accordance with ASTM D4546 with an inundation pressure of 200 psf when compacted to at least 95% maximum dry density of AASHTO T99 at optimum moisture content; and

Minimum CBR of 3.6%.

6.2.4 Proof-Rolling

As discussed above, the subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP‐24 Section

204.11, which includes the use of compression‐type rollers. While it is important to place clayey material above the optimum moisture content to control swell, material placed wet of optimum is prone to pumping and yielding from construction activities. This material can be difficult to pass a proof‐roll. The Contractor will need to carefully control the movement of equipment around the site and minimize the passage of equipment over the overexcavated area. Even with these precautions, compaction of the material will be difficult and extra working time should be anticipated. Placement and compaction testing should be monitored on a full‐time basis to assist in this process.

We recommend proof‐rolling the pavement subgrade to determine suitability of the subgrade prior to paving. The compacted surface should be proof‐rolled with a fully‐ loaded, tandem‐axle, 10‐yard dump truck or equivalent. In areas that are identified as being loose, soft, or yielding during proof‐rolling, we recommend:

1. Overexcavating the pavement section a depth of 24 inches below the pavement section.

2. Installing a geogrid at the base of the excavation (refer to FP‐24 Section 714.03 for the stabilization geogrid material specifications).

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

3. Backfilling and moisture treating 24 inches of either (a) removed and reconditioned on‐ site soil or (b) Low Permeable Fill (refer to Section 6.2.3).

6.3 Paving Materials

The following exhibit summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection using the FP‐24 specifications. Based on the Project estimated paving quantities, we understand that the ACP material will utilize FP‐24 Sections 403 which uses the local department of transportation mix design for the ACP. Exhibit 6‐1 below reflects a TxDOT

(2021) mix design for the ACP material and pavement subgrade.

Exhibit 6-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

CAB Section 302 -

CTS Section 213 Average 7-day Unconfined Compressive Strength must meet a minimum of 200 psi Material 701.01

FDR with Cement Section 305

Average 7-day Unconfined Compressive Strength must meet a minimum of 200 psi Material 701.01

ACP

Section 403 (FP-24)

TxDOT Item 341 (2021)

Top Lift Aggregate Gradation: D Fine Surface (1/2-inch NMAS)

Lower Lifts Aggregate Gradation: C Course Surface (3/4-inch NMAS) or D Course Surface

PG Binder: PG 70-22 (Top and Lower Lifts)

Gyratory Number (N): 50

NOTES:

ACP = Asphalt Concrete Pavement; CAB = Crushed Aggregate Base; CTS = Cement Treated Subgrade; FDR = Full Depth Reclamation;

NMAS = Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size; psi = pounds per square inch; TxDOT = Texas Department of Transportation

To determine an appropriate ACP binder for the site, we used software developed by the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Bind

(2008). The LTPP Bind software indicated a performance grade (PG) of PG 70‐22 for a 95% reliability for the site location and anticipated traffic loading. We recommend a gyratory number of 50 be used for the mix design. In addition, we recommend using a ½ ‐inch nominal maximum aggregate size for the ACP mix for at least the top lift. Lower lifts should consist of either a ½ inch NMAS or a ¾ inch NMAS. It may be more economical to use a single mix for the entire pavement section. Lift thickness for the ½ inch NMAS should be between 1.5 and 3 inches and between 2 and 4 inches for the ¾ inch NMAS (TxDOT, 2021). We recommend paving the roadway using at least two lifts. A tack coat should be placed between subsequent lifts.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

7 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and Central Federal Lands

Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the proposed CR 203 improvements near the UNFH in Uvalde, Texas. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

Project details change or new information becomes available such that our analyses and recommendations may be affected.

A substantial period of time has passed since the date of this report.

If any of these occur, we should be retained to review the applicability of our analyses and recommendations.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, the analyses, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical and geological principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has prepared “Important Information about Your Geotechnical

Report,” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports.

Pavement Design Report

110938-001 October 2024

8 REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2022, Building code requirements for structural concrete

(ACI 318‐19(22)); commentary on building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318R‐19): Farmington Hills, Mich., ACI, Code 318‐19, 623 p.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures: Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 2 v.

Barnes, V.E., Shell Development Co., Amerada Petroleum Corp., Brown, T.E., Waechter, N.B., and Dillon, R.L, 1974, rev. 1991, Geologic atlas of Texas, San Antonio sheet

(revised 1982): University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geologic Atlas of Texas 29, scale 1:250,000.

FHWA, 2008, LTPPBind Version 3.1 Beta, dated October 6, 2008; available:

https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Page/Index/LTPP_BIND.

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of Corrosion Engineering (2nd ed.): N.Y. McGraw‐Hill.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2017, Geologic Provinces of the United

States: Basin and Range Province. Accessed at:

https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/provice/basinrange.html.

Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2019, Revised Pavement Desing Report TX FTFW UVAL 10(1)

Uvalde National Fish Hatchery, Uvalde, Texas: Report prepared by Shannon &

Wilson, Inc., Denver, Colorado, 102200‐002 for HDR, Inc., June.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2021, Pavement Manual, revised June 2021.

Available from:

https://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/TxDOTOnlineManuals/TxDOTManuals/pdm/ind ex.htm.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2008, Federal Lands Highway project development and design manual (PDDM):

U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.

Available from: http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, 2024, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal

Highway projects, FP‐24 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and

Federal Highway Administration, available from https://highways.dot.gov/federal‐ lands/specs/fp‐24.

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

FIG. 2Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Fish Hatchery Road

TX FLAP UV CR203(1)

Uvalde, Texas

Approximate Scale in Feet

0 800 1600

October 2024 110938-001

Fi le na m e:

sh an w il.

ne t\E

F\ D

EN

\1

0s \1

C

FL

T

X U va ld e F\

G eo te ch ni ca l\D ra fti ng

\F ig

. 2 \1

Fi g 2.

dw g

D at e:

6-

-2

L og in

MT

SW-04

Fish Hatchery Rd.

(County Road 203)

SW-05

SW-06

Main St. (US Hwy 90)

1. Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTES

2024 Boring Designation and Approximate Location

LEGEND

SW-04

2018 Boring Designation and Approximate LocationSW-01

SW-03

Uvalde National Fish Hatchery

110983-001 October 2024 10/3/2024-110938-001_AA.docx A-i

A

PP

EN

D

IX

A

: S U

B

SU

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

A

TI

O N

S

Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

CONTENTS

A.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... A‐1

A.2 Explorations ........................................................................................................................... A‐1

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System ...................................................................... A‐1

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ............................................................................ A‐2

A.2.3 Shelby Tube Sampling ............................................................................................. A‐2

Attachments Log Key

Boring Logs ‐ SW‐04, SW‐05, and SW‐06

Figures Figure A‐1: Exploration Photographs

A-1

A

PP

EN

D

IX

A

: S U

B

SU

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

A

TI

O N

S

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson conducted two separate subsurface explorations on Fish Hatchery Road;

one in December 2018 and a subsequent exploration in March 2024. The 2018 exploration was completed on the southern portion of Fish Hatchery Road and consisted of drilling and sampling three borings (designated SW‐01 through SW‐03). Select exploration logs from

2018 are presented in Appendix D. Select boring locations from the 2018 subsurface exploration are shown in Figure 2.

The 2024 exploration was completed on the northern portion of Fish Hatchery Road, along the Project alignment. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling three borings (designated SW‐04 through SW‐06). Boring locations from the 2024 subsurface exploration are also shown in Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Figure A‐1. The methods used to conduct the 2024 field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination) and observed by

Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are attached. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing.

The utility locates and borings were drilled by Austin Geo‐logic of Austin, Texas (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a truck‐mounted CME 45B drill rig. The borings were advanced to a depth of 5.5 to 6.0 feet. Borings were advanced using 4‐inch diameter solid‐stem‐auger drilling techniques. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with cuttings and repairs to the existing pavement were made with cold‐patch asphalt.

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System

During exploration, our representative collected samples and prepared field logs of the explorations. Soil classification for this project was based on ASTM International (ASTM)

Designation: D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes

(Unified Soil Classification System), and ASTM Designation: D2488, Standard Practice for

Description and Identification of Soils (Visual‐Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil

Classification System is summarized in the attached Log Key. In addition, samples were classified based on American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) Designation M‐145, Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil‐

Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes.

A-2

A

PP

EN

D

IX

A

: S U

B

SU

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

A

TI

O N

S

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in the borings in general accordance with the Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2‐inch outside diameter, 1.375‐inch inside diameter split‐spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140‐pound hammer free‐falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6‐inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6‐inch increments. This sum is recorded as the penetration resistance number, or N‐value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count. The N‐values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine‐grained) soils (see attached Log Key). The raw N‐values are shown on the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split‐spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in an airtight container and transported to our office for laboratory testing.

A.2.3 Shelby Tube Sampling

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained using Shelby tube samplers in general accordance with ASTM D1587, Standard Practice for Thin‐Walled Tube Geotechnical

Sampling of Soils. The locations of these samples are shown on the individual boring logs.

These samples were collected by using the hydraulic ram of the drill rig to push the thin‐ walled tube sample into the soil/rock at the bottom of the borehole at the desired depth. The thin‐walled tube was connected to the drill rods via a rigid sampling head. After pushing, the drill rods were retracted, the tube was detached from the sampling head, both ends of the soil sample were sealed, and the samples were transported to our office for laboratory testing.

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Well-graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly, Lean Clay

Fi le

: 1

8-

1.

G P

J | L ib ra ry : S

W G

IN

T

LI

BR

A R

Y .G

LB

D at e:

/6 /2

Description

Term

LOG KEY

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Organic

Inorganic

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

Symbol / Graphic

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

<5 5 to 10 15 to 25 30 to 45

>50

Term

Well-graded Sand; Well-graded Sand with Gravel

Organic

Major Divisions

Gravel (< 5% fines3)

Silty or Clayey Gravel (> 12% fines3)

Sand (< 5% fines3)

Silty or Clayey Sand (> 12% fines3)

SILTS AND CLAYS

(liquid limit > 50)

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

Shannon & Wilson uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as described on this Key.

Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and available laboratory index test results (ASTM D2487).

SILTS AND CLAYS

(liquid limit < 50)

NOTE: For gravels and sands with 5 to 12% fines3, the following are added to the Group Name:

with Silt and/or Clay or Silty Clay.

Dual Symbols are used:

GW-GM, GP-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM

GW-GC, GP-GC, SW-SC, SP-SC

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly, Organic Silt or Clay

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly, Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly, Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly, Organic Silt or Clay

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(> 50% of soil is retained on the No. 200 sieve3)

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

(> 50% of soil passes the No. 200 sieve3)

Typical Identifications (USCS Group Names)2,4

Sum of the count of hammer blows to penetrate the second and third 6-inch increments in blows per foot (bpf).

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less or 10 blows for 0 inch.

Percent1

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure.

Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure.

Will not crumble or break with finger pressure.

Description

GRAVELS

(> 50% of coarse fraction retained on the No. 4 sieve3)

Inorganic

Peat or other Highly Organic Soils (see ASTM D4427)

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Dry

Moist

Wet

Term

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch.

Damp but no visible water.

Visible free water, from below water table.

Term140-pound weight with a 30-inch free fall. Hammer types vary (e.g., automatic, rope and cathead). If available, the hammer type and energy ratio (E-ratio) is noted on the boring log.

Description Term

Nonplastic

Low Plasticity

Medium Plasticity

Slickensided

Lensed

Laminated

Interbedded

Homogeneous

Fissured

Description

Barrel I.D. / O.D. = 1.5 inches / 2 inches (liner not used) Barrel Length = 30 inches; Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches

Blocky Cannot roll a 1/8-inch thread at any water content.

A thread can barely be rolled and a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

A thread is easy to roll and not much time in rolling is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

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

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Same color and appearance throughout.

Alternating layers at least 1/4 inch thick of varying material or color.

Singular: bed

Alternating layers less than 1/4 inch thick of varying material or color.

Singular: lamination

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

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

High Plasticity

Term

Sampler

N-Value (N)1

Term

Hammer Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense

N2 (bpf)

0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

TV3 (tsf)

0 - 0.12

0.12 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1 1 - 2 > 2

N2 (bpf)

0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

PP3 (tsf)

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 4 > 4

Description

Trace Few Little Some Mostly

Weak

Moderate

Strong

Term

SANDS

(> 50% of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve3)

Exhibit A: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)1

Exhibit G: Percentages

Exhibit E: Soil Moisture Content1

EXHIBIT A NOTES:

1. Adapted, with permission, from USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488.

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash) indicate that the soil characteristics are close to the defining boundary between two groups (e.g., CL/ML = Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM = Sand with Silt to Silty Sand).

3. No. 4 size = 4.75 millimeters (mm) = 0.187 inch; No. 200 sieve size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 inch. Particles smaller 0.075 mm are termed "fines".

4. Poorly graded indicates a narrow range or missing grain sizes. Well-graded indicates a full-range and even distribution of grain sizes.

5. If cobbles and/or boulders are observed, "with cobbles" or "with boulders" or "with cobbles and boulders" is added to the Group Name.

EXHIBIT E NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 (Figure 2).

EXHIBIT G NOTE:

1. Percent estimated by weight for sand and gravel, and by volume for cobbles, organics, and other non-soil material (e.g., rubble, debris).

EXHIBIT D NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Exhibit C: Soil Structure1 Exhibit D: Soil Plasticity1

EXHIBIT C NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Exhibit B-3: Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils

Exhibit B-1: Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

EXHIBIT B NOTES:

1. N-values shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer energy, overburden, or other factors. Where the hammer E-ratio is available, the N-value normalized to a ratio of 60% (N60) is listed.

2. Based on ASTM Standard D1586. Relative densities/consistencies noted on the boring logs are based on uncorrected N-values.

3. PP = pocket penetrometer; TV = torvane, tsf = tons per square foot. Correlations based on experience and multiple published references.

Exhibit B-2: Relative Consistency of Cohesive Soils

EXHIBIT F NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Exhibit F: Soil Cementation1

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

ATD

bpf dia, diam Elev.

ENV

ETR

FC

FeO ft or ' gal

GP

GWT

HSA

ID

in or " incl ksf lbs

LL

mm

N N60

NA, n/a

NE

NP

NR

NW

OC

OD

OW

pcf

PI

PID

PL

PMT

PP

ppm psi

PT

REC

REF

RQD

SC

SE

SPT

SW

TP

tsf

TV

UCS, qu

USCS

VST

VWP

WC

WOH

WOR

at time of drilling blows per foot diameter elevation environmental sample energy transfer ratio (hammer) fines content (< 0.075 mm) iron oxide foot or feet gallons geoprobe groundwater table hollow-stem auger inside diameter or identification inch inclinometer kips per square foot pounds liquid limit millimeter field (uncorrected) SPT N-value SPT N-value corrected for 60% ETR not applicable or not available northeast nonplastic no recovery northwest organic content outside diameter observation well pounds per cubic foot plasticity index photoionization detector plastic limit pressuremeter test pocket penetrometer reading parts per million pounds per square inch nonstandard penetration test N-value recovery refusal rock quality designation (ASTM D6032) sonic core southeast Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) southwest test pit tons per square foot tor vane reading unconfined compressive strength Unified Soil Classification System vane shear test vibrating wire piezometer natural water content weight of hammer weight of rods

REFERENCE: Brown, E. T., ed., 1981, Rock characterization, testing & monitoring: International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) suggested methods: Oxford, Pergamon Press, 211 p.

Fi le

: 1

8-

1.

G P

J | L ib ra ry : S

W G

IN

T

LI

BR

A R

Y .G

LB

D at e:

/6 /2

LOG KEY

Sample Number Sample Type

Water Level Measured at Date in Well or VWP

Well/VWP ID No.

Water Level During Drilling

Measurement Date (M-D-YY)

Blank pipe or instrument casing

Perforated or slotted pipe

VWP and electric lead

Environmental Sample Taken

Split spoon (SS) (diameters vary)

Modified California (MC) sampler

Sonic core (SC) run (typically soil)

Other

REFERENCE: Loehr, J. E.; Lutenegger, A.; Rosenblad, B.; and Boeckmann, A., 2016, Geotechnical site characterization: U.S. Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA NHI-16-072, Geotechnical Engineering Circular no. 5, 1 v.

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) in %

Core Recovery (REC) in %

ROCK CLASSIFICATION

Graphic Description

Description

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix.

Material brought to surface by drilling action.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width to thickness ratio > 3.

Width to thickness ratio < 3.

Term

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Term

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

Core run (typically rock)

Sheath (SH) (used for geoprobes)

Graphic Description

SYMBOLOGY AND GRAPHICS

Graphic Description Graphic Description

S-5

(SPT)

Description

Graphic Description Graphic Description

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Gray bar indicates percent of sample length recovered.

Bentonite-cement grout

Bentonite grout

Bentonite chips

Surface cement seal

Sand filter pack

Slough (hole caved)

Shannon & Wilson uses a rock classification system modified from the system recommended by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM).

Copyright limitations prevent us from reproducing summary tables from the ISRM system on this Key. General descriptions are provided in Exhibit M.

(continued)

Term

Strength

General Description

Weathering

Fabric

Ranges from extremely weak (qu = 36 to 135 psi) to extremely strong (qu > 36,250 psi), and is based on the ability to break the rock with a hammer or scrape the rock with a knife.

Ranges from fresh (no visible signs of weathering) to completely weathered, based on observed degree of discoloration, decomposition, and/or disintegration. When the rock material has completely converted to soil, it is termed a residual soil.

Describes the rock structure based on observed layering, tendency to break, and distribution of minerals (e.g., massive, bedded, foliated).

For discontinuities: Includes rough, smooth, and slickensided, and includes other descriptive terms (e.g., stepped, undular, irregular, planar).

For discontinuities: Ranges from extremely close (< 1 inch) to extremely wide (> 20 feet).

For discontinuities: Ranges from very low to very high.

Description of discontinuities (joints, fractures, bedding planes, etc.), observations of potential displacement, gouge, shear, etc.

Persistence

Roughness

Spacing

Term Equation

SPT split spoon (2-inch OD)

Grab (GB) from cuttings or excavation

Tube (TB) (e.g., Shelby, piston)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Length of Core in Pieces > 4 in Length of Core Run

100% x

100% x

Exhibit H: Particle Angularity and Shape1

EXHIBIT H NOTE:

1. Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488.

Length of Core Recovered Length of Core Run

No rock names defined for this Project

Exhibit I: Additional Descriptive Terms

SOIL CLASSIFICATION REFERENCES:

ASTM International, [current edition], Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, available:

www.astm.org.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1953, The unified soil classification system: Vicksburg, Miss., Waterways Experiment

Station, Technical Memorandum 3-357, 2 v., March.

See Page 1 for Soil Classification Exhibits A through G

Exhibit M: General Rock Descriptive Terms - ISRM

Exhibit L: Other Log Symbols

Exhibit J: Sample and Run Graphics

Exhibit K: Hole Backfill and Instrument Graphics

Exhibit N: Rock Name Graphics

Exhibit O: Recovery and RQD Equations1

0.2

0.5

5.5

S-0

(SPT)

S-1

(GB)

S-2

(TB)

S-3

(SPT)

5.5

N = 4,5,9

N = 5,9,10

DRILLING INFORMATION

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Hole Size:

Solid Stem Auger

Austin Geo-Logic

CME-45B

4 inch

EXPLORATION INFORMATION

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vertical Datum:

Latitude:

Longitude:

Horizontal Datum:

5.5 feet n/a n/a

WGS [GCS1984]

~ 29.1917 degrees

~ -99.8354 degrees

FINAL

Logged by:

Review by:

Version:

FED

BTM

= WC% = FC%

Uncorrected N-value, bpf Uncorrected, Penetration N-value, bpf

Liquid LimitPlastic Limit

NOTES:

- Refer to LOG KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

- Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

- Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing.

- Report text contains limitations and information needed to contextually understand this log.

Sample Number Sample Type

Symbols

(See separate LOG KEY for additional symbols, acronyms, and definitions)

Abbreviations

BASIC LEGEND

S-5

(SPT)

Water Level During Drilling

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Penetration test (not SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Blows per foot for penetration test Natural water content (%) Fines content (% grains smaller than 0.075 mm) Plasticity index (Atterberg Limits)

N

PT

bpf

WC

FC

PI

Gray bar indicates percent of sample length recovered.

NWJ 2.63 inch

140 lbs/30 inches n/a

Rod Type/Dia.:

Hammer Wt. / Drop:

Hammer ETR:Hole Start Date:

Hole Finish Date:

March 12, 2024

March 12, 2024

BORING LOG

D ep th (f ee t)

D ep th (f ee t)

Lab DataG ra ph ic

Field Data

Multiple Items Plotted (see bottom legend on Page 1)

500 100

Jo b#

: 1

8-

| T em pl at e Ve r:1

Fi le

: 1

8-

1.

G P

J | R pt : B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

Li br ar y:

S W

G

IN

T

LI

BR

A

R Y

.G

LB

D at e:

/2

0/

SHANNON & WILSON | 5900 WEST 38TH AVENUE | WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 80212 | 303-825-3800 | www.shannonwilson.com

TX FLAP UV CR203(1)

Uvalde, TX

WC=21%

FC=82%

LL/PI=54/37

WC=23%

WC=21%

N o

O bs er ve d G ro un dw at er

SW-04

ASPHALT; 2-1/2 inches.

Light brown, WELL-GRADED SAND (SW); moist;

crushed aggregate base, 3-1/2-inches.

Stiff to very stiff, brown to dark-brown, FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH); moist. [A-7-6]

BOTTOM OF HOLE AT 5.5 FEET

Material Description and Other Observations

S am pl es

D ep th (f ee t)

0.2

5.5

5.5

S-1

(SPT)

S-2

(TB)

S-3

(SPT)

5.5

N = 7,5,7

N = 5,9,10

DRILLING INFORMATION

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Hole Size:

Solid Stem Auger

Austin Geo-Logic

CME-45B

4 inch

EXPLORATION INFORMATION

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vertical Datum:

Latitude:

Longitude:

Horizontal Datum:

5.5 feet n/a n/a

WGS [GCS1984]

~ 29.1957 degrees

~ -99.8355 degrees

FINAL

Logged by:

Review by:

Version:

FED

BTM

= WC% = FC%

Uncorrected N-value, bpf Uncorrected, Penetration N-value, bpf

Liquid LimitPlastic Limit

NOTES:

- Refer to LOG KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations, and definitions.

- Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

- Group symbol is based on visual-manual identification and selected lab testing.

- Report text contains limitations and information needed to contextually understand this log.

Sample Number Sample Type

Symbols

(See separate LOG KEY for additional symbols, acronyms, and definitions)

Abbreviations

BASIC LEGEND

S-5

(SPT)

Water Level During Drilling

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Penetration test (not SPT) blows per 6-inch increment Blows per foot…