TX FW TECH MULTI(1) Final Pavement Report.pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

5900 W 38th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80212

(303) 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

TX FW TECH MULTI(1)

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

CHAMBERS COUNTY, TEXAS

June 2024

Shannon & Wilson No: 105603-001

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR DOUBLE-SIDED PRINTING

Pavement Design Report 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 Roadway Assessment

5 Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

5.1 Regional Geology

5.2 Subgrade Conditions

5.3 Groundwater

6 Pavement Recommendations

6.1 Design Methodology

6.2 Traffic Loading

6.3 Subgrade Soils

6.4 Recommended Pavement Sections

7 Additional Considerations

7.1 Expansive Subgrade Potential

7.2 Skillern Tract Road

7.3 Corrosion

8 Construction and Materials Specification

8.1 Site Preparation

8.2 Earthwork

8.2.1 General

8.2.2 Subgrade Preparation

8.2.3 Fill Placement

8.2.4 Proof‐Rolling

8.3 Lime Treated Subgrade (LTS)

8.4 Paving Materials

9 Closure iii

C O

N

TE

N

10 References

Exhibits Exhibit 2‐1: Roadway Condition Assessment Exhibit 2‐2: Anahuac NWR roadways and proposed improvements Exhibit 4‐1: FWS Rating System Exhibit 4‐2: Roadway Condition Assessment Exhibit 4‐3: Typical ACP pavement, Shovelerʹs Pond Road Exhibit 4‐4: Typical aggregate road surfacing, West Line Road Exhibit 8‐1: 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: Drilling Photographs

Appendix D: Pavement Design Calculations

Important Information

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 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 improvements to the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in

Anahuac, Texas for this Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) project. Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No.

023/1000100056532 and 006/1000100070691 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), dated

November 30, 2020 and February 22, 2022. 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 reconstruction. 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

The Project is located in Chambers County, Texas (Figure 1) and the ANWR is accessed via

Whites Ranch Road which runs east‐west on the north side of the refuge. The Project includes new asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) on Crossover Road, Westline Road, and portions of Wind Mill Road. In addition, chipseal surface treatments will be placed on the

Entrance Road, Shovelerʹs Pond Road, Shovelerʹs Loop, and portions of Wind Mill Road.

The Entrance Road (RTE 010) alignment travels in a north‐south direction providing access to the refuge, including Crossover Road (RTE 101), Wind Mill Road (RTE 011), and other facility areas. Westline Road (RTE 102) provides access to the East Bay Boat Ramp and is accessed from Crossover Road. Skillern Tract Road is also accessed via Whites Ranch Road, approximately 7 miles east of the Entrance Road.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

All roadways throughout the Project area are relatively flat surrounded by coastal marsh, prairie, and unnamed bayous. Additional details on existing conditions of each segment of roadway are described in Exhibit 2‐1.

Exhibit 2-1: Roadway Condition Assessment

Road Name Roadway Surface Type

Notes

Entrance Road

RT#010

ACP - Prairie grassland on both sides of the roadway

Crossover Road

RT#101

Aggregate - Built on an approximately 2- to 3-foot high embankment with adjacent bayou water on both sides of the roadway

Westline Road

RT#102

Aggregate - Bayou on east side of road

- Marsh area west of roadway

- Slopes down to canal on east approximately 3 feet above water.

Wind Mill Road

RT#010

ACP - Up to approximately 3-foot high embankment

- Surrounding marsh waters and prairie grassland

Wind Mill Road

RT#011

(0.25 miles south of Crossover Road to Crabber's Corner)

Aggregate - Up to 2-foot embankment with surrounding prairie grassland

- A bayou runs along the east side of the roadway for the last 0.7 miles to Crabber's Corner.

Wind Mill Road

RT#011 (2)

(Crabber's Corner to East Bay Parking Area [~ 2.4 miles])

Aggregate - Up to approximately 3-foot high embankment

- Surrounding marsh waters and prairie grassland

Wind Mill Road

RT#011 (3)

(East Bay Parking Area to Frozen Point)

ACP - Up to 3-foot embankment

- Prairie grassland to the northeast

- East Bay to the southwest

Shoveler's Pond Road

RT#012

(Entrance)

ACP - Up to approximate 5-foot-high embankment

- Bayou water to south

- Prairie grassland and trees adjacent to roadway to north

Shoveler's Pond Road

RT#012

(Loop)

ACP - Up to approximate 5-foot-high embankment

- Bayou water on outside of loop

- Marsh water inside of loop

Skillern Tract ACP - Adjacent to the East Bay Bayou to the south

- Marsh water and prairie to the north.

Refer to Exhibit 2‐2 for a site map with roadways and proposed improvements.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

We understand that the existing aggregate surfacing (AS) may be left in place and included as part of the new pavement section. In addition, we understand that some minor widening will be included as part of the new pavement.

Exhibit 2-2: Anahuac NWR roadways and proposed improvements.

Crabber's Corner

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY

TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Shannon & Wilson conducted a field exploration program on December 15, 2020, to explore subsurface conditions along the proposed roadway alignment. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling ten borings (designated SW‐01 through SW‐10) along the Crossover Road, Wind Mill Road, Westline Road, and Skillern Tract Road, as shown in Figure 2. The borings were advanced to depths of 5 to 15 feet below the existing site grades.

Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used to complete the 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 C.

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, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included corrosion testing, moisture density relationship (Proctor test) and California Bearing Ratio

(CBR). 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 ROADWAY ASSESSMENT

To evaluate the condition of the existing roadway pavement for potential rehabilitation options, we performed a windshield pavement survey to assess the overall pavement condition and to identify areas of distress and typical crack patterns. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Services (FWS) has developed a rating system to quantify levels of distress and to describe roadway conditions of asphalt and gravel pavements. Their five levels of asphalt pavement condition and five levels of gravel pavement summarized in Exhibit 4‐1:

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

Exhibit 4-1: FWS Rating System

Roadway Surface Type

Roadway Condition 1

Description

Asphalt Excellent Recently constructed or overlaid road where construction or overlay was performed correctly. No maintenance required.

Good Low extent longitudinal and transverse cracks. All cracks are ¼ inch or less with little or no crack erosion. Patches are in good condition and applied correctly.

Routine maintenance recommended.

Fair Roads are in good structural condition with little or no fatigue cracking.

Longitudinal, transverse, and edge cracking is at medium extent and severity.

Block cracking is extensive. Any patches are in good condition. Preventative maintenance recommended.

Poor Road beginning to show signs of structural distress. Fatigue cracking is medium to high extent and medium severity. Cracking will be severe. Surface may have severe block cracking and show. Patches are in fair to poor condition. There is moderate distortion or rutting and occasional potholes. Rehabilitation recommended.

Failed Road is severely deteriorated. Signs of structural failure appear along with severe and extensive fatigue cracking, distortion, potholes, or extensive patches in poor condition. Reconstruction recommended.

Gravel Excellent Newly constructed road that has been constructed properly with proper crown, drainage and gravel layer. Little or no distress. No maintenance recommended.

Good Crown, Drainage provisions, and gravel layer are in good condition. Distress limited to traffic effects such as dust, loose aggregate, and low severity corrugations (wash boarding).

Fair Adequate drainage and crown through majority of roadway. Crown repair, ditch improvement may be necessary. Road has more severe corrugations and potholes. Preventative maintenance recommended.

Poor Travel at slow speeds is necessary. Additional gravel layer needed to carry traffic. Poor crown. Ditching is inadequate and rutting is extensive and severe.

Rehabilitation recommended.

Failed Travel is difficult, and road may be closed at times. Rutting and corrugations are very severe. Total reconstruction of the road is recommended.

Using the FWS visual rating system, we conducted our assessment survey on December 10, 2021. The age of the existing pavement and AS is unknown. Refer to Exhibit 4‐2 for a summary table of our roadway assessment. Exhibits 4‐3 and 4‐4 provide typical pavement condition photographs.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

Exhibit 4-2: Roadway Condition Assessment

Road Name Roadway Surface Type

Roadway Condition 1

Notes

Entrance Road

RT#010

ACP Good - Occasional longitudinal cracking along shoulder of road

- No patching or potholes observed

Crossover Road

RT#101

Aggregate Good - Visible crown and drainage on both sides of road

- Limited loose aggregate on shoulder of road

- No potholes or wash boarding visible

Westline Road

RT#102

Aggregate Good to Fair - Visible crown and drainage on both sides of road

- Loose aggregate on shoulder and center of road

- Few potholes and early signs of wash boarding appearing

- Southern approximate 1000 ft looks to have been recently graded

Wind Mill Road

RT#010

ACP Good - Low severity longitudinal cracking

- No patching or potholes observed

Wind Mill Road

RT#011

Aggregate Fair to Poor - Little to no crown

- Loose aggregate on shoulder and center of road

- Numerous potholes

- Water puddling in drive lanes

Wind Mill Road

RT#011 (2)

Aggregate Fair to Poor - Little to no crown

- Loose aggregate on shoulder and center of road

- Numerous potholes

- Water puddling in drive lanes

- More frequent potholes to the southern end of road

Wind Mill Road

RT#011 (3)

ACP Fair - Longitudinal cracking along shoulder of road

- No patching or potholes observed

Shoveler's Pond Road

RT#012

(Entrance)

ACP Fair - Longitudinal cracking along shoulder

- No patching or potholes observed

- Puddling in shoulder and drive areas

Shoveler's Pond Road

RT#012

(Loop)

ACP Fair - Longitudinal cracking along shoulder and center of road

- No patching or potholes observed

East Bay Boat Ramp

RT102

(Parking area)

Aggregate Fair to Poor - No crown

- Weeds growing through gravel

- Potholes throughout

Skillern Tract ACP Poor - Longitudinal cracking, with horizontal separation of up to one inch across the cracks with no vertical offset.

Note:

Based on FWS rating system.

Pavement Design Report

Exhibit 4-3: Typical ACP pavement, Shoveler's Pond Road.

Exhibit 4-4: Typical aggregate road surfacing, West Line Road.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

5 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

A regional geologic map of the area (Barnes and others, 1968) indicates that the near surface geology consists of alluvium clay, sand, and silt overlying the Beaumont Formation. The geologic mapping by Barnes is consistent with the findings from our subsurface explorations. Subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations are discussed in more detail below.

5.2 Subgrade Conditions

The ACP pavement thickness was measured in boring SW‐10 at 2.5 inches. Below the pavement 4 inches of base course was encountered. Below the base course material, stiff fat clay with varying percentages of sand (American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A‐7‐6) were encountered to the final boring depth of 15.5 feet.

The aggregate road surfacing was measured in borings SW‐01 through SW‐09. The aggregate road surfacing ranged in thickness from 4.5 to 7 inches. Below the aggregate road surfacing, very soft to stiff lean clay to fat clay with varying percentages of sand and gravel

(AASHTO A‐7‐6 soil) were encountered to 4 feet or the termination of the boring (5.5 feet).

In boring SW‐05, very loose silty sand (AASHTO A‐4) was encountered below the lean clay

(AASHTO A‐6) at a depth of 4 feet and extended to the termination of the boring (5.5 feet).

In most of the borings varying amounts of organics and roots were encountered beneath the

ACP and aggregate road surfacing.

Our observations are specific to the locations, depths, and dates noted on the exploration logs in Appendix A 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.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was only encountered in boring SW‐05 at a depth of 4.5 feet below ground surface. 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.

6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Performance of a pavement system depends on the pavement material and thicknesses, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetitions, design life, and subgrade drainage characteristics. The following sections discuss each of these aspects as they relate to the

Project.

6.1 Design Methodology

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

1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures 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 April 2017.

Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix D.

6.2 Traffic Loading

Based on discussions with HDR, traffic counts are not available for the roadways and the roadways are classified as a low volume roads with less than 500 vehicles per day. For design of the roadway, we assumed an equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) of 50,000 based on the minimum recommend ESAL in the PDDM.

6.3 Subgrade Soils

As discussed in Section 5.0, the subsurface explorations completed along the roadway primarily consisted of clays with varying percentages of sand (A‐7‐6 soils). To estimate the strength of the subgrade materials, a CBR test was completed on a bulk sample from boring

SW‐02 and SW‐08 resulting in a CBR of 0.7% and 3.3%, respectively. For the design subgrade strength, we used a TxDOT (2017) correlation between an average design CBR of

2.0% and resilient modulus, which calculates a resilient modulus value of 3,974 pounds per square inch.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

6.4 Recommended Pavement Sections

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

Alternative 1A: 4.0 inches ACP over 4 inches Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) over 5 inches of existing AS, Alternative 1B: 4.0 inches ACP over 7 inches CAB over geotextile separator, Alternative 2: 5.5 inches ACP over 5 inches of existing AS, Alternative 3: 6.5 inches Full Depth ACP, Alternative 4: 4.5 inches ACP over 8 inches Lime Treated Subgrade (LTS), Alternative 5: 5.0 inches ACP over 4 inches CAB over geotextile separator.

Based on typical sections provided by HDR, dated July 5, 2023 (HDR, 2023), we understand that Alternatives 1A and 1B are the preferred pavement sections. For widening areas, we recommend continuing the 4.0 inches of ACP over a minimum 7 inches of CAB over geotextile separator to allow for drainage of the CAB layer. Because of the expansive nature of the native clay subgrade, we recommend any new CAB layers be daylighted beyond the pavement section or into a drainage system (such as an edge drain). If the CAB layer is terminated at the edge of the pavement, there will be an increased risk of localized subgrade saturation and subsequent subgrade swelling.

7 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Expansive Subgrade Potential

Many of the soil formations in Texas are susceptible to volume change by swelling/shrinking. This geologic phenomenon has the potential to cause substantial damage to lightly loaded structures, such as pavements, when exposed to water. To reduce long‐term swell potential, and to mitigate for potential constructability issues (pumping subgrade and difficulty achieving compaction of subgrade), Section 11.3.2.1.3 of the PDDM indicates the following subgrade treatment:

2 feet of subexcavation (overexcavation and removal of excavated material from the site) for subgrades with a PI ranging from 15 to 25, 2 to 4 feet of subexcavation for subgrades with a PI ranging from 25 to 35 or a LL ranging from 50 to 60, and

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

4 to 6 feet of subexcavation for subgrades with a PI greater than 35 or a LL greater than

60.

Based on our laboratory test results, the Plasticity Index (PI) ranged from 21 to 60, and the

Liquid Limit (LL) ranged from 37 to 78. Using the above guidance would suggest a subexcavation depth between 4 and 6 feet.

The PDDM notes that the subexcavation requirements should account for the traffic volume and project significance when selecting a subexcavation depth. Based on our experience on past, similar CFLHD projects, we understand CFLHD believes these subexcavation depths are cost prohibitive.

Although the PI is a good indication of potential volume change, as discussed in Section

6.1.1, it does not consider the current moisture regime of the existing subgrade that has been in place for a number of years. In our experience, another indication of swell potential is to compare the in‐situ moisture content to the plastic limit (PL) in each test. Often, for clayey soils (AASHTO A‐6 and A‐7‐6 soils), if the in‐situ moisture content is near or greater than the PL, the subgrade has a lower swell susceptibility. Moisture contents tested on samples obtained throughout the alignment were higher than the plastic limit for all samples tested, indicating an elevated moisture regime and suggesting lower swell potential.

Provided that CFLHD is willing to accept some risk of swell‐related movement and elects to forgo the subexcavation indicated by the PDDM, we recommend the following mitigation options:

If an alternative is selected where the existing aggregate will remain in place, scarify the existing aggregate surfacing in place with no subgrade excavation.

If the existing aggregate will be removed, or in widening areas, we recommend:

- Scarifying to a depth of 8 inches below final top of subgrade, moisture conditioning, recompacting, proof rolling, and placing the new pavement section, or

- Selecting the LTS alternative.

7.2 Skillern Tract Road

Roadway distress along Skillern Tract Road adjacent to the East Bay Bayou includes longitudinal cracking, with horizontal separation of up to one inch across the cracks with no vertical offset. Subsurface conditions encountered in boring SW‐10, completed through the existing pavement, consisted of 2.5 inches of asphalt over 4 inches of base course.

Underlying the pavement section, stiff fat clay was encountered to the termination depth of the boring at 15.5 feet. Based on discussions with Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) staff located at the Anahuac NWR, the Project area has experienced a few years with major rain

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024 events and wetter than normal seasons followed by a current drying weather cycle. Based on our site visits, the field directly north of the roadway appears to flood with standing water, in addition to running water in the bayou to the south. As a result, it appears that the asphalt cracking may be related to shrink/swell of the underlying subgrade.

A potential mitigation option for the Skillern Tract roadway distress would consist of overexcavating the upper portion of the embankment material to a depth of at least 3 feet and replacing it with a low plasticity or granular fill. If granular material is used, drainage measures should be installed or it should be daylighted out of the slope, to avoid creating a bathtub effect below the roadway.

Alternatively, if an LTS pavement section is considered, then the replacement fill should consist of clayey fill where the upper portion will be subsequently treated with lime.

7.3 Corrosion

The soil encountered at the Project site can be corrosive to substructure elements. To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, two samples were each tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are presented in Table B‐1 in

Appendix B.

The resistivity measured in the samples was 212 to 629 ohm‐centimeters. Based on correlations developed by Roberge (2012), these values suggest extremely corrosive subsurface conditions for metal in contact with subsurface materials across the site.

The concentration of water‐soluble sulfates measured in the samples were measured as 0.4 and 0.1% by weight. Based on classifications as defined by the American Concrete

Association (2019), these test results suggest an exposure class S0 on concrete exposed to site soils.

The test results and the above discussion are provided to assist the designer in the selection of project materials, concrete type, or other features with respect to corrosion.

8 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATION

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 6 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 Federal Standard Specifications for

Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP‐14 (FP‐14) (U.S.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

Department of Transportation [USDOT] and FHWA, 2014) construction standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

8.1 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‐14 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.

8.2 Earthwork

8.2.1 General

Earthwork, including placement of fill and subgrade preparation, should conform to the requirements provided in the FP‐14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) and the recommendations provided in the following sections.

8.2.2 Subgrade Preparation

If the existing AS will be incorporated into the pavement section, we recommend compacting the exposed AS in accordance with FP‐14 Section 303.06 for roadbed reconditioning. The existing AS was measured as approximately 4.5 to 7 inches in our borings; however, there may be variable depths across the Project and the depth of scarification may need to be adjusted to avoid fouling the AS with the underlying clays.

We recommend including a contingency for over‐excavation of soft subgrades in the Project budget assuming 5% of the AS area and up to 20% of exposed subgrade (widening areas) requires over‐excavation. We recommend that the Project contract supplements provide language indicating that the subgrade is sensitive and that the Contractor will be responsible to repair any subgrade degradation caused by movement of equipment around the site. 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.

8.2.3 Fill Placement

All exposed subgrade material and fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition. On‐site subgrade and fill materials should be compacted to at least 95%

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024 maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T 180 or T 99, as presented in FP‐14 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 as well as the moisture content and quality of the fill material.

8.2.4 Proof-Rolling

Any AS that will remain in place as part of the new pavement section should be proof‐ rolled. In addition, we recommend proof‐rolling, or probing excavation areas in widenings, to determine suitability of the subgrade. The clays encountered throughout the Project area can be difficult to pass a proof‐roll. In areas that are identified as being loose, soft, or yielding during proof‐rolling or probing, we recommend:

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

2. Placing a separation geotextile (FP‐14 714.01 Class 1 Type C or E).

3. Backfilling with (a) Crushed Aggregate (FP‐14 703.06), (b) Structural Backfill, (FP‐14

704.04), (c) Select Granular Backfill (FP‐14 704.08), or (d) Unclassified Borrow (FP‐14

704.06) with the additional requirement of a maximum particle size of 3 inches.

8.3 Lime Treated Subgrade (LTS)

Based on subgrade conditions indicated by the borings, lime treatment is a suitable option for treating subgrades at the Project site. Lime is typically placed during construction, after the site is graded. The subgrade is then disked, lime added, mixed, and compacted prior to the lime setting up. A chemical reaction occurs between the lime, clay, and water resulting in a low plasticity, stiff layer. If the LTS pavement option is selected, a mix design should be completed on the proposed import material and/or native soils that will be treated to ensure that the materials are compatible with lime treatment.

Soils containing high sulfate concentrations can result in a deleterious reaction between the sulfate ions, soil, and water, resulting in long‐term heaving in the subgrade soil. For sulfate content greater than 0.3%, TxDOT (2005) Guidelines for Treatment of Sulfate‐Rich Soils and

Bases in Pavement Structures requires modified or alternative treatments. Two samples from the pavement subgrade soils was tested for water soluble sulfates and indicated 0.04% and 0.01% sulfate content. Based on these results, treatment for sulfate‐rich soils does not appear necessary. However, if lime is used, the mix design should include additional sulfate testing to confirm sulfate concentrations less than 0.3%.

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

8.4 Paving Materials

The following exhibit summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection using the FP‐14 specifications. Based on the Project estimated paving quantities, we understand that the ACP material will utilize FP‐14 Section 403, which uses the local department of transportation mix design. Exhibit 8‐1 below reflects a TXDOT (2014) mix design for the ACP.

Exhibit 8-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

CAB Section 302 Use Gradation C, D, or E

LTS Section 213 Average 28-day Unconfined Compressive Strength must meet a minimum of 100 pounds per square inch, Material 725.03

ACP Section 403 (FP-14)

TXDOT Item 341 (2014)

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

PG Binder: PG 64-22

Gyratory Number (N): 50 or 75

Subgrade Stabilization and Separator Geotextile

Section 714.01 Either Class 1 or 2 Separation and Stabilization Geotextile

Maximum AOS 0.3 mm

NOTE:

AOS = Apparent Opening Size; CAB = Crushed Aggregate Base; ACP = Asphalt Concrete Pavement; LTS = Lime Treated Subgrade;

mm = Millimeters; NMAS = Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size; PG = Performance Grade; TXDOT = Texas Department of Transportation

Based on our experience on past similar CFLHD projects, we assume that one ACP mix will be used for the Project. To determine the recommended SuperPave Binder, we used the long term pavement performance (LTPP) Bind Version 3.1Beta (2005) and guidance from the

TxDOT Pavement Manual (2017). We recommend using a performance grade (PG) 64‐22 binder for the ACP, based on availability in the Project area. Recommended lift thicknesses for the ½‐inch nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) ACP are between 1.5 and 3.0 inches. Using criteria provided by TxDOT, the proposed 4‐inch thick pavement section can be paved two lifts of the ½‐inch NMAS. A tack coat should be placed between subsequent lifts if more than 24 hours has occurred between paving.

9 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

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge project. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Pavement Design Report

105603-001 June 2024

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

105603-001 June 2024

10 REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2019, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, Farmington Hills, Mich., ACI 318‐19.

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., Arnow, Saul, LeBlanc, R.J., Evans, F.G., Hinds, G.W., Holland, W.C., Van

Siclen, D.C., Macon, J.W., and Hartmann, B., 1968, Geologic atlas of Texas, Houston sheet (revised 1982), Geologic Atlas of Texas, 18, University of Texas at

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Scale 1:250,000.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), LTPP InfoPave: Tools: LTPPBind, Version 3.1

Beta, September 15, 2005.

HDR Engineering, Inc., 2023, Typical Sections, TX FWS ANAH Various Routes, Routes 010, 011, 012, 101, & 102, July 5, 10 sheets.

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of corrosion engineering, Second Edition: McGraw‐Hill, New York, New York.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2005, Guidelines for Treatment of Sulfate‐

Rich Soils and Bases in Pavement Structures.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2017, Pavement Manual, revised April 2017.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2014, Standard Specifications for

Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. November 1, 2014.

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, 2014, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal

Highway projects, FP‐14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and

Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), undated, Road Inventory Program Rating System.

VICINITY MAP

FIG. 1

TX FW TECH MULTI(1)

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge Chambers County, Texas

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTE

June 2024 105603-001

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

C

F L

T

X

A n a h u a c D r a f t i n g

F i g d w g

D a t e o g i n

B

W V

MT

Amarillo

Dallas

HoustonSan Antonio

El Paso

Project

Location

Texas

0 3 6

Approximate Scale in Miles

Winnie

T o H o u s to n

PROJECT

LOCATIONS

Main Anahuac

(See Fig. 2 Sht. 1)

Skillern

(See Fig. 2 Sht. 2)

Whites Ranch Road

Entrance Road

FIG. 2

Sheet 1 of 2

2000 4000

Scale in Feet

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

C

A n a h u a c D r a f t i n g

F i d t e g i n

B

W V

105603-001June 2024Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced with permission granted by Google Earth Mapping Service.

NOTE

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

TX FW TECH MULTI(1)

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge Chambers County, Texas

TM

LEGEND

SW-01

Boring Designation and Approximate

Location

MT

SW-06

SW-09

SW-05

SW-04

SW-02

SW-07

SW-03

SW-01

SW-08

Crossover Road

Windmill Road

Westline Road

Windmill Road

East Bay

FIG. 2

Sheet 2 of 2

200 400

Scale in Feet

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

C

A n a h u a c D r a f t i n g

F i d t e g i n

B

W V

105603-001June 2024Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced with permission granted by Google Earth Mapping Service.

NOTE

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

TTX FW TECH MULTI(1)

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

Chambers County, Texas

TM

LEGEND

SW-10

Boring Designation and Approximate

Location

MT

SW-10

Skillern Tract Road

East Bay Bayou

6/10/2024-105603-001_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 Classification System ........................................................................................ A‐1

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ............................................................................ A‐1

A.2.3 Pocket Penetrometer ................................................................................................ A‐2

A.2.4 Bulk Sampling .......................................................................................................... A‐2

Figures Figure A‐1: Soil Description and Log Key

Figure A‐2 through A‐11: Log of Borings SW‐01 through SW‐10

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’s field exploration program was conducted on December 15, 2020 and consisted of drilling ten borings, designated as SW‐01 through SW‐10 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Appendix C. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figure A‐2. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by Envirotech Drilling Services, Inc.

(Envirotech) of Houston, Texas (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a track‐ mounted Geoprobe 7822 DT drill rig. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from

5.5 to 15.5 feet. The borings were advanced using 4‐inch diameter solid‐stem‐auger techniques. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with cuttings. Repairs to the existing pavement at SW‐10 were made with quikcrete concrete.

A.2.1 Soil 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 Figure A‐1.

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

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 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 Figure A‐1). 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 a screw‐top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Pocket Penetrometer

Select cohesive soil samples were tested in the field using a pocket penetrometer. The penetrometer estimates the unconfined compressive strength of a clay soil by shearing the clay with a one‐quarter‐inch‐diameter penetrometer and measuring the resistance (in units of tons per square foot) with a calibrated spring. Where taken, the field measurements from the pocket penetrometer are shown on the individual boring logs.

A.2.4 Bulk Sampling

A bulk soil sample was obtained by collecting the drill cuttings from the upper 5 feet of borings SW‐02 and SW‐08. Approximately 20 to 30 pounds of cuttings were placed in a 5‐ gallon bucket, sealed with a lid, and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

Anahuac, Texas

105603-001June 2024

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

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

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND LOG KEY

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

A N

A H

U A

C .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/2

2/

105603-001

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

Anahuac, Texas

June 2024

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

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

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

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

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

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

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

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve) 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

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

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

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

FIG. A-1

OL

(less than 5% fines)

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

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

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

AND LOG KEY

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

3-

A N

A H

U A

C .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/2

2/

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge

Anahuac, Texas

June 2024

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

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/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

Weak

Moderate

Strong

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled 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 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 take 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.

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular:

lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;

sometimes striated.

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

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

Same color and appearance throughout.

At Time of Drilling Diameter Elevation Feet Iron Oxide Gallons Horizontal Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter Inches Pounds Magnesium Oxide Millimeter Manganese Oxide Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic Outside Diameter Observation Well Pounds per Cubic Foot Photo-Ionization Detector Pressuremeter Test Parts per Million Pounds per Square Inch Polyvinyl Chloride Rotations per Minute Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification System Unconfined Compressive Strength Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vertical Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Weight

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

STRUCTURE TERMS1

1Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr…