EPI - Final Concepts Report Rev_Redacted.pdf

Revised and Redacted 10-15-24

MARK

WOODS

Digitally signed by MARK WOODS Date: 2024.10.15 08:42:57 -05'00'

Concepts Report 2022 – Final

Eagle Pass I LPOE

Project No.

GSAR7_21LPOEEVAL

Cushing Terrell i

Table of Contents

1.0 STUDY INTRODUCTION

2.0 STUDY AREA

3.0 WORK PLAN SUMMARY

3.1 Traffic Camera Data Collection

3.2 Coring Operations

3.3 Data Analysis

4.0 CONCEPTS NARRATIVE

4.1 Recommended Concepts

4.2 Traffic Control Recommendations

4.3 Contract Development

5.0 BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE

6.0 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS

7.0 CONCEPTS SUMMARY

Appendices

APPENDIX 1: PAVEMENT SECTION MAP

APPENDIX 2: PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT (WITH CALCULATIONS)

APPENDIX 3: CONCEPTS DRAWINGS

Cushing Terrell 1

1.0 STUDY INTRODUCTION

Cushing Terrell has been retained by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to complete a three-part evaluation of the traffic and pavements at various Land Ports of Entry (LPOE) across the Greater Southwest Region. Each part of the evaluation has been identified as a separate

“Task” number. There are a total of eighteen (18) ports included in this study, with twelve (12) of those being listed under the Task 3 scope of work.

Task 3 of this study involves the production of a Concepts Report for select pavement reconstruction or rehabilitation. This Concepts Report contains recommendations for the pavement sections that will be applied to future pavement reconstruction or rehabilitation. In order to develop these recommendations, it was first necessary to acquire data on the existing conditions of the pavement and the typical site operations. This data was collected in the following ways:

1) Evaluating the volume of traffic through the use of traffic-counting video cameras

2) Sampling the existing pavement and subgrade material through coring and lab analysis

3) Reviewing as-built documents to assess the anticipated pavement and subgrade material

4) Obtaining custom NRCS Soil Resource Reports to understand the properties and limitations of the existing soils

5) Interviewing port personnel to better understand the typical operations of the site

This Concepts Report is the final deliverable associated with Task 3 for the Eagle Pass I LPOE.

Cushing Terrell 3

3.0 WORK PLAN SUMMARY

In preparation for developing the pavement section recommendations, it was necessary to collect data on the existing traffic volumes, operations, and pavement materials. This involved obtaining traffic counts and geotechnical corings. Once the lab analysis was complete, HVJ Associates then compiled a pavement design report.

3.1 Traffic Camera Data Collection

The traffic count operations were completed by Gram Traffic Counting, Inc. The focus of the collection was on the lanes exiting the port in order to capture all of the traffic moving through the port at a single location. The Eagle Pass I LPOE no longer accepts truck traffic (the dock areas are now used for Admin parking), so the focus was on the single route in & out of the port on the U.S. side. The planned location of this camera, as well as its approximate view angle, is included in Appendix D to HVJ’s report, which is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. The camera was positioned so that the designated inspection area and/or personnel stations were not included in the recorded view. Once set, the camera began recording at midnight and recorded continuously for the 24-hour analysis period. The position of the camera remained fixed throughout this period; it did not rotate or scan an area wider than its view angle.

According to the 24-hour sample data, this port averages 3,773 passenger vehicles per day.

Refer to Appendix D within Appendix 2 for all traffic data collected as part of this project.

3.2 Coring Operations

The coring operations were facilitated by HVJ Associates, Inc. The locations of the corings are shown in Appendix C to HVJ’s report, which is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. No underground utility investigation was performed. It was the responsibility of the coring crew to identify locations that would produce a representative sample of the surrounding area. For design purposes, the sample was directed to be taken from an area that is subject to the most concentrated traffic flow, yet is still stable enough to produce defined pavement layers. Upon completion of the coring, the hole was backfilled with soil cuttings, bentonite chips, and early strength non-shrink grout to match the existing paved surface elevation.

As stated in the Geotechnical Memo, the existing pavement “was observed to consist of 8 to 9 inches of concrete overlaying 13 inches of flexible base material.” Of the 3 cores performed, the base thickness was measured for only 1 location. According to anecdotal reports, this was due to the refusal of a light-duty drill rig. Depending on the area of proposed work, it is recommended that additional corings be taken prior to the development of Construction

Documents so that accurate measurements of the existing base can be obtained.

Refer to Appendix C within Appendix 2 for all geotechnical data collected as part of this project.

Cushing Terrell 4

3.3 Data Analysis

Once the cameras were retrieved and the coring was complete, the cores were sent to a

Geotechnical Laboratory for analysis and the team began their off-site analysis of the recovered data. The camera data provided a breakdown of the typical number and type of vehicles entering the U.S. through the port. This information was then used to calculate the Equivalent

Single Axle Load (ESAL) for the pavement, which is a cumulative traffic load summary statistic.

Similarly, the laboratory analysis of the soil samples determined moisture content, percentage of fines, sieve analysis, bar linear shrinkage, specific gravity, and Atterberg Limit. In combination, the ESAL value, soil analysis, and Dynamic Cone Penetration test from the field all contributed to the determination of a pavement section recommendation for future construction.

The analysis determined that the 3,773 vehicles per day equates to 1,593 ESALs per day for a flexible pavement and 1,625 ESALs per day for a rigid pavement. This assumes that on average the trucks are fully loaded but only to within both the allowed gross vehicle weight and the allowed axle grouping weight. Based on a 20-year design life and an annual traffic growth factor of 4%, the pavement design is developed for a total load of 13.9M ESALs for flexible pavement and 14.1M ESALs for rigid pavement.

As stated in HVJ's Pavement Design Report (refer to Appendix 2), "the true traffic load for most of the facility’s pavement is a fraction of the full load." For example, if 100% of the vehicles must cross a pavement section that is four lanes wide, then each of those lanes can be designed to carry 25% of the total load. Similarly, if the traffic is divided and only 60% of all vehicles must cross a pavement section that is only two lanes wide, then each of those lanes must be designed to carry only 30% of the total load. The table below summarizes the per-lane design loads for each section. It should be noted that the number of lanes may vary across the length of the section, which could impact the lane-load of the pavement. This should be closely evaluated during Design Development in order to determine if thinner pavement sections may be utilized where the traffic load is distributed over a wider number of lanes.

ESAL LANE LOADING

(% of daily load)

SECTIONS

20% ADMINPK-1, ADMINPK-2, POVPPK-1, POVSPK-1

25% POVPRD-1, POVSCNPY-1, POVSRD-1

Refer to Appendix 2 for the complete Pavement Design Report.

Cushing Terrell 5

4.0 CONCEPTS NARRATIVE

This study involves the select repair of approximately 250,000 sf of concrete pavements at the

Eagle Pass I LPOE. The repairs consist mostly of joint sealing, patching, and the select treatment of surface conditions through a plane and overlay process.

4.1 Recommended Concepts

At this time there are no known upcoming construction projects at the Eagle Pass I LPOE that would conflict with this scope of work. A description of the pavement sections and the work to be studied at Eagle Pass I is detailed below:

SECTION

TOTAL

AREA (sf)

MATERIAL RECOMMENDED CONCEPTS

ADMINPK-1 18,212 PCC

1% 4" JRCP patch

46% Joint seal

ADMINPK-2 117,632 PCC

1% 4" JRCP patch

99% Joint seal

ADMINPK-3 26,961 PCC 1% 4" JRCP patch

POVPPK-1 11,426 PCC 100% No work - Unused

POVPRD-1 19,347 PCC 100% Joint seal

POVSCNPY-1 38,286 PCC

67% 2.5” Plane & PCC overlay

0.03% 4" JRCP patch

33% Joint seal

POVSPK-1 11,458 PCC

1% 4" JRCP patch

40% Joint seal

POVSRD-1 8,007 PCC

100% Joint seal

3% Crack seal

The following field observations are also noteworthy:

• ADMINPK-3 was not originally within this scope of this project, according to the table in

Section 2.0 of this report. However, due to having an excess of funds and the observation that the joint deterioration in this section is a continuation of the deterioration from section ADMINPK-2, it is recommended that this work area be added to the scope. (Note that ADMINPK-4 was coned off, did not appear to be used frequently, and did not have any significant deterioration that merited adding it to the scope as well.)

• POVPPK-1 is a parking lot that is no longer used, except for port storage. The decision was made to close this lot due to vehicles being left long-tern while pedestrians crossed into the U.S. The pavement is in good condition, but it is recommended that no work be done to this area at this time, so that the funds may be diverted elsewhere.

• POVSCNPY-1 was originally identified for full-depth replacement due to its low PCI rating. However, upon field verification, it was observed that this low PCI was mostly due to polishing and shrinkage cracks, both of which can be repaired through a process of planing, applying a concrete overlay, and retexturing at much less cost. It should also be

Cushing Terrell 6 note that this pavement section contains a large curbed island that should be removed from the section's evaluation area prior to further pavement condition assessments.

• POVSPK-1 contains two small parking lots on either side of a driveway. The eastern lot is not used for vehicles, but as a pedestrian waiting area instead. The southern portion of the driveway (past the intersection with the parking lot drive aisles) is also not used, as the gate remains closed. Therefore, it is recommended that no work be done to these areas of pavement at this time, so that the funds may be diverted elsewhere.

Based upon the field investigations and research described in Section 3.0 of this report, the following pavement improvements are recommended:

WORK SECTIONS (quantity)

2.5" Plane & PCC Overlay

Plane & texture surface

Concrete Overlay

POVSCNPY-1

Refer to Appendix 3 for concepts drawings that further detail these recommendations.

4.2 Traffic Control Recommendations

Also included on the concepts drawings are preliminary narratives on the traffic control plan

(TCP). The following strategies are recommended:

• Remove one or more lanes from service, while keeping adjacent lanes open along the same route

• Close a portion of a parking lot for that day’s maintenance work

In order to approximate the cost of traffic delays associated with lane closures, the following table has been developed using the Road User Costs established by the Texas Department of

Transportation (TxDOT). This table utilizes the daily vehicle count established in section 3.0, Refer to Appendix 2, sub–Appendix F for TXDOT standard drawing details.

Complete Reconstruction - 8.5" CPCD Saw cut - concrete Remove existing concrete & base material Install dowel bars; Install 8.5" CPCD Install 4" HMAC base (TY-B, PG 70-22) Treat 8" of subgrade (5% cement)

Complete Reconstruction - 8.5" CPCD Saw cut - concrete Remove existing concrete & base material Install dowel bars; Install 8.5" CPCD Install 6" Flexible Base: Item 247, Ty A or D, Gr-1-2 or 3 Install 6" Compacted Subgrade

(25,600 SF)

POVSCNPY-1 ( 25,600 SF ) or see below

POVPRD-1 ( 19,347 SF )

POVSPK-1 ( 5,729 SF )

POVSPK-1 ( 5,729 SF )

ADMINPK-1 ( 18,212 SF )

ADMINPK-3 ( 26,961 SF )

ADMINPK-2 ( 39,210 SF )

ADMINPK-2 ( 39,211 SF )

ADMINPK-2 ( 39,211 SF )

Cushing Terrell 11

7.0 CONCEPTS SUMMARY

This Concepts Report is produced with the intent of compiling all of the data necessary to proceed to Design Development and/or Construction Documents.

Traffic: The current volume of 3,773 vehicles per day equates to 1,625 ESALs per day for a rigid pavement. Based on a 20-year design life and an annual traffic growth factor of 4%, the rigid pavement design is developed for a total load of 14.1M

ESALs.

Coring: The existing pavement “was observed to consist of 8 to 9 inches of concrete overlaying 13 inches of flexible base material.” Three cores were taken at the

Eagle Pass I LPOE, but only one was full depth. Considering the scope of the recommended concepts made herein, additional coring work is not anticipated.

However, if the pavement should deteriorate significantly beyond existing conditions or the scope of repair is revised, then additional coring data may be required.

Design: The repairs consist mostly of joint sealing, patching, and the select treatment of surface conditions through a plane and overlay process.

TCP: Conceptually, the complete scope of work could be completed in a single stage.

The following strategies are recommended:

• Remove one or more lanes from service, while keeping adjacent lanes open along the same route

• Close a portion of a parking lot for that day’s maintenance work

The cost of delays within the POV lanes is estimated to be $62,000 per day. If this is beyond the acceptable threshold at the time of construction, then night-work would be required to keep all lanes open during the port's operating hours.

Cost:

Contract:

APPENDIX 1: PAVEMENT SECTION MAP

ADMINPK-2

POVSCNPY-1

ADMINPK-3

ADMINPK-4

POVPRD-1

ADMINPK-1

POVSPK-1

POVPPK-1

POVSRD-1

Pavement Section Summary Table

Pavement Section Map Eagle Pass-I LPOE

Surface

Asphalt

Jointed Concrete

0 200100 Feet

Section ID Section Area (sf) Current Surface

ADMINPK-1 18,212 PCC

ADMINPK-2 117,632 PCC

ADMINPK-3 26,961 PCC

ADMINPK-4 22,058 PCC

POVPPK-1 11,426 PCC

POVPRD-1 19,347 PCC

POVSCNPY-1 38,286 PCC

POVSPK-1 11,458 PCC

POVSRD-1 8,007 PCC

APPENDIX 2: PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

(WITH CALCULATIONS)

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

Eagle Pass I Land Port of Entry

Eagle Pass, Texas

FINAL

SUBMITTED TO

CUSHING TERRELL

BY

HVJ, INC.

Austin, Texas July 8, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

2 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

3 TRAFFIC DATA

4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

5 RECOMMENDED DESIGNS

6 LIMITATIONS

APPENDICES

USDA SOIL MAPS ......................................................................................................................................... A

SOILS DATA ................................................................................................................................................... B

CORING AND LAB REPORT .................................................................................................................... C

TRAFFIC DATA AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... D

PAVEMENT DESIGN SOFTWARE OUTPUT ..................................................................................... E

CPCD and CRCP DETAIL ............................................................................................................................. F

1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION

HVJ Associates, Inc.® (HVJ) was retained by the Cushing Terrell to provide pavement design services for several Land Ports of Entry (LPOEs) managed by the U.S General Services Administration (GSA). This report includes designs for reconstruction of 3 sections of the Eagle Pass I LPOE, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1. Eagle Pass I Sections and Pavement Types

Section ID Pavement Type

ADMINPK-1 Portland Cement Concrete

ADMINPK-2 Portland Cement Concrete

POVPPK-1 Portland Cement Concrete

POVPRD-1 Portland Cement Concrete

POVSCNPY-1 Portland Cement Concrete

POVSPK-1 Portland Cement Concrete

POVSRD-1 Portland Cement Concrete

2 GEOTECHICAL DATA

A local map of gypsum content and Plasticity Index (PI) was generated from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and is included in Appendix A. A basic summary and analysis of the soils is included in Appendix B.

The soil types encountered within the project limits are Lagloria Very Fine Sandy Loam and Rio Grande and Zalla Soils as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Predominant Soil Types Within Project Area

Soil Symbol

Soil Type Sulfates (ppm)

Total Area

Plasticity Index (PI)

LgA Lagloria Very Fine Sandy Loam 0 66.1 4.5

Rz Rio Grande and Zalla Soils 0 33.9 8.0

The soil map shows that the soils underlying this project are of generally low plasticity which does not exceed 8 for any soil. Sulfates are not found in this area at the depths likely to be incorporated into a pavement design. Due to the lack of sulfates and generally low plasticity, Portland cement will be the stabilizing agent for these soils.

3 TRAFFIC DATA

Traffic data was collected and classified by Gram Traffic Counting, Inc. The traffic count was conducted at an exit of the facility such that all trucks entering the U.S were counted. The counts were summarized for each FWHA class of vehicle. The contribution of daily Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs) was calculated and summarized for each FHWA class, assuming legally-loaded trucks. The number ESALs induced by each vehicle type were found using American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials methodology (the AASHTO formula).

Approximately 3,800 vehicles enter the U.S. through the port per day. Projections of ESALs over 20 years (for both asphalt and rigid pavements) are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Traffic Data.

Count Location 24 hours Count

VPD (2022)

Projected VPD

(2042)* Full Traffic Load

(20 Year Flex ESALs) Full Traffic Load

(20 Year Rigid ESALs)

Port Exit to U.S. 3,773 7,949 13,851,111 14,127,057

*Annual growth of 4% is assumed: Traffic2022 x 1.04^(20-1) = Traffic2042

The true traffic load for most of the facility’s pavement is a fraction of the full load. By those fractions, pavement sections are expected to bear 20% to 100% of the measured facility traffic, depending on the section’s purpose. Parking lots and roads designed to be trafficked only privately owned vehicles (e.g. non-commercial passenger cars) are limited to reasonable design traffic, regardless of the overall port traffic.

For the sections of Eagle Pass I under consideration, the following factors and design traffic applies.

Table 4. Traffic Data by Section.

Section Traffic Factor Calculated

Section Traffic Design Section

Traffic (ESALs)**

ADMINPK-1 0.2 2,825,411 2,000,000

ADMINPK-2 0.2 2,825,411 2,000,000

POVPPK-1 0.2 2,825,411 2,000,000

POVPRD-1 0.25 3,531,764 2,500,000

POVSCNPY-1 0.25 3,531,764 2,500,000

POVSPK-1 0.2 2,825,411 2,000,000

POVSRD-1 0.25 3,531,764 2,500,000

**Includes caps of 2.5M ESALs for rigid pavement light vehicle roadways, 2.0M ESALs for light vehicle parking.

4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN

The jointed Concrete Pavement Contraction Design (CPCD) designs were prepared using the AASHTO DARWin program based on the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design procedure. The TxDOT Pavement Design Manual (June 2021) was used to determine concrete pavement design parameters.

The design and performance constraints include reliability level and overall standard deviation, performance period, initial serviceability index after construction, terminal serviceability index, 28 day mean PCC modulus of rupture and Modulus of Elasticity, drainage coefficient, and load transfer. A 20-year performance period was used for all rigid pavement designs.

Drainage

A drainage coefficient (Cd) of 1.03 was selected based on the TxDOT recommended range (1.01 < Cd <1.05) for annual rainfall between 30-38”.

Properties of the concrete are also in accordance with TxDOT recommendations:

28-day Concrete Modulus of Rupture = 620 psi

28-day Mean Elastic Modulus of Slab= 5,000,000 psi

Reliability Level and Overall Standard Deviation

A reliability level (R) of 95% was selected for the pavement design performance. A mean value of the overall standard deviation (So) is 0.39.

Initial and Terminal Serviceability

The serviceability of a pavement is defined as its ability to serve the type of traffic that uses the facility.

The condition of the pavement after the performance period is characterized by a Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt), which is a function of the pavement structure. A Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt) of 2.5 was used for PCC pavement design. The initial serviceability (Po) value was selected as 4.5.

Load Transfer

The load transfer coefficient (J) is a factor used in rigid pavement design to account for the ability of a concrete pavement structure to transfer load across discontinuities (i.e., joints and cracks) and selected according to the AASHTO suggestion for pavement types based on design condition (i.e., jointed reinforced versus plain jointed). A mean value of the load transfer coefficient of 3.2 was selected for the design of CPCD based on the assumed use of dowel bars for joint load transfer at all joints. Although TxDOT recommends a lower load transfer coefficient of 2.9, the more conservative J-value of 3.2 was selected for the design.

Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K-value)

Based on the estimated subgrade resilient modulus of 8,000 psi and a 4” HMAC base layer, the effective modulus of subgrade reaction was calculated using DARWin, which resulted in a k-value equal to 300 psi/in.

CRCP Designs

Continuously-Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) designs were prepared using TxDOT’s Mechanistic/Empirical program TxCRCP-ME. This was done using input parameters recommended in the TxDOT Pavement Manual, which are at or near the above values used in DARWin. All input parameters for both programs are available in Appendix E.

Design Regression Curves

Many rigid pavement designs are required at port facilities where the only design variable that changes is the traffic, expressed as ESALs. To expedite ESAL-based thickness calculations, the number of ESALs of life available at each half-inch increment of thickness was calculated. This was done for CPCD using DARWin as well as for CRCP using TxCRCP-ME. The thickness/ESAL plots follow logarithmic trends almost perfectly. The concrete thickness, before rounding to the nearest half-inch, is as follows:

For CPCD/DARWin designs Thickness (in) = 1.7054 x ln(Million ESALs)+6.9006

For CRCP/TxCRCP-ME designs Thickness (in) = 1.4205 x ln(Million ESALs)+6.679

Fig. 1 – CPCD and CRCP Design Curves (Calculation for 2.5M ESALs Shown)

5 RECOMMENDED DESIGNS

While CRCP generally provides more life as measured in ESALs before the pavement reaches unacceptable condition, it may not be as practical to construct as CPCD when considering the size and shape of the section.

Another consideration is the recommended range of thickness for each pavement type. Minimum thickness for CPCD and CRCP is 6 and 7 inches, respectively. Maximum thickness (before a second mat of reinforcement steel is required) for CPCD and CRCP is 12 and 13 inches, respectively.

Standard TxDOT details for CPCD and CRCP are provided in Appendix F.

Most rigid pavements in Texas utilize the following base layer and subgrade treatment. This is recommended for the foundation of all CPCD and CRCP pavements at Eagle Pass I:

4.0” HMAC Base: SS 3076 D-Gr TY B, PG 64-22 8.0” Treated Subgrade, Item 275 Est. 5% Cement

The concrete layer thickness and type depends primarily on the design traffic and size/shape of the section. For Eagle Pass I, both thicknesses are provided for each section in Appendix E. If desired, one pavement type may be substituted for the other. The recommendations are based on the size and shape of the section as well as thickness limitations.

The following rigid pavement designs will provide a minimum 20-year service life.

POVSCNPY-1 and POVPRD-1

8” Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) 4.0” HMAC Base: SS 3076 D-Gr TY B, PG 64-22

8.0” Treated Subgrade, Item 275 Est. 5% Cement

POVSRD-1

8.5” Concrete Pavement Contraction Design (CPCD)

4.0” HMAC Base: SS 3076 D-Gr TY B, PG 64-22

8.0” Treated Subgrade, Item 275 Est. 5% Cement

ADMINPK-1, POVSPK-1 and POVPPK-1

8.0” Concrete Pavement Contraction Design (CPCD)

4.0” HMAC Base: SS 3076 D-Gr TY B, PG 64-22

8.0” Treated Subgrade, Item 275 Est. 5% Cement

ADMINPK-2

7.5” Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP)

4.0” HMAC Base: SS 3076 D-Gr TY B, PG 64-22

8.0” Treated Subgrade, Item 275 Est. 5% Cement

6 LIMITATIONS

This study was performed for the exclusive use of the U.S. General Services Administration for specific application to the Eagle Pass I LPOE pavements. HVJ Associates Inc. has endeavored to comply with generally accepted engineering practice common in the local area. HVJ Associates, Inc.

makes no warranty, express or implied. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on data obtained from subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, the project information provided to us, and our experience with similar soils and site conditions. If any of the engineering information changes, the design will not be applicable and will need to be revised to incorporate the new information.

APPENDIX A

USDA SOILS REPORT

United States Department of Agriculture

A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants

Custom Soil Resource Report for

Maverick County, Texas

Natural Resources Conservation Service

March 22, 2022

Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?

cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Map Unit Legend

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

LgA Lagloria very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

6.5 66.1%

Rz Rio Grande and Zalla soils, frequently flooded

3.3 33.9%

Totals for Area of Interest 9.8 100.0%

Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Table—Gypsum

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (percent) Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

LgA Lagloria very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

0 6.5 66.1%

Rz Rio Grande and Zalla soils, frequently flooded

0 3.3 33.9%

Totals for Area of Interest 9.8 100.0%

Rating Options—Gypsum

Units of Measure: percent

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Interpret Nulls as Zero: Yes

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average)

Top Depth: 0

Bottom Depth: 120

Units of Measure: Inches

Soil Physical Properties

Soil Physical Properties are measured or inferred from direct observations in the field or laboratory. Examples of soil physical properties include percent clay, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, and bulk density.

Liquid Limit

Liquid limit (LL) is one of the standard Atterberg limits used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. It is the water content, on a percent by weight basis, of the soil (passing #40 sieve) at which the soil changes from a plastic to a liquid state.

Generally, the amount of clay- and silt-size particles, the organic matter content, and the type of minerals determine the liquid limit. Soils that have a high liquid limit have the capacity to hold a lot of water while maintaining a plastic or semisolid state.

Liquid limit is used in classifying soils in the Unified and AASHTO classification systems.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

Table—Liquid Limit

LgA Lagloria very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

23.0 6.5 66.1%

Rz Rio Grande and Zalla soils, frequently flooded

27.2 3.3 33.9%

Totals for Area of Interest 9.8 100.0%

Rating Options—Liquid Limit

Units of Measure: percent

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Interpret Nulls as Zero: No

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average)

Top Depth: 0

Bottom Depth: 120

Units of Measure: Inches

Plasticity Index

Plasticity index (PI) is one of the standard Atterberg limits used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. It is defined as the numerical difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit of the soil. It is the range of water content in which a soil exhibits the characteristics of a plastic solid.

The plastic limit is the water content that corresponds to an arbitrary limit between the plastic and semisolid states of a soil. The liquid limit is the water content, on a percent by weight basis, of the soil (passing #40 sieve) at which the soil changes from a plastic to a liquid state.

Soils that have a high plasticity index have a wide range of moisture content in which the soil performs as a plastic material. Highly and moderately plastic clays have large PI values. Plasticity index is used in classifying soils in the Unified and AASHTO classification systems.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

Table—Plasticity Index

LgA Lagloria very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

4.5 6.5 66.1%

Rz Rio Grande and Zalla soils, frequently flooded

8.0 3.3 33.9%

Totals for Area of Interest 9.8 100.0%

Rating Options—Plasticity Index

Units of Measure: percent

Aggregation Method: Dominant Component

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Interpret Nulls as Zero: No

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average)

Top Depth: 0

Bottom Depth: 120

Units of Measure: Inches

Soil Qualities and Features

Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil.

AASHTO Group Classification (Surface)

AASHTO group classification is a system that classifies soils specifically for geotechnical engineering purposes that are related to highway and airfield construction. It is based on particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits, such as liquid limit and plasticity index. This classification system is covered in AASHTO Standard No. M 145-82. The classification is based on that portion of the soil that is smaller than 3 inches in diameter.

The AASHTO classification system has two general classifications: (i) granular materials having 35 percent or less, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter and (ii) silt-clay materials having more than 35 percent, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter. These two divisions are further subdivided into seven main group classifications, plus eight subgroups, for a total of fifteen for mineral soils. Another class for organic soils is used.

For each soil horizon in the database one or more AASHTO Group Classifications may be listed. One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring.

The representative classification is shown here for the surface layer of the soil.

Table—AASHTO Group Classification (Surface)

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

LgA Lagloria very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

A-4 6.5 66.1%

Rz Rio Grande and Zalla soils, frequently flooded

3.3 33.9%

Totals for Area of Interest 9.8 100.0%

Rating Options—AASHTO Group Classification (Surface)

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Lower

Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable)

Chemical Soil Properties–Maverick County, Texas

Map symbol and soil name Depth Cation-exchange capacity

Effective cation-exchange capacity

Soil reaction Calcium carbonate

Gypsum Salinity Sodium adsorption ratio

In meq/100g meq/100g pH Pct Pct mmhos/cm

LgA—Lagloria very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Lagloria 0-44 4.0-10 — 7.9-8.4 5-30 0 0.0-4.0 0

44-80 4.0-13 — 7.9-8.4 10-40 0 2.0-8.0 0-2

Rz—Rio Grande and Zalla soils, frequently flooded

Rio grande 0-10 2.0-10 — 7.9-8.4 1-20 0 0.0-4.0 0

10-80 2.0-10 — 7.9-8.4 1-20 0 0.0-4.0 0

Zalla 0-4 3.0-10 — 6.6-8.4 0-25 0 0.0-2.0 0

4-60 1.0-8.0 — 6.6-8.4 0-25 0 0.0-2.0 0

Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The asterisk '*' denotes the representative texture; other possible textures follow the dash. The criteria for determining the hydrologic soil group for individual soil components is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17757.wba). Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H).

Engineering Properties–Maverick County, Texas

Map unit symbol and soil name

Pct. of map unit

Hydrolo gic group

Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid limit

Plasticit y index

Unified AASHTO >10 inches

3-10 inches

4 10 40 200

In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H

LgA—Lagloria very fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Lagloria 100 B 0-44 Very fine sandy loam CL, CL-

ML, ML

A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

85-93-1

51-73-

16-23 -30

NP-5 -9

44-80 Stratified very fine sandy loam to silty clay loam

CL, CL-

ML, ML

A-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

85-93-1

51-73-

16-23 -30

NP-5 -9

Rz—Rio Grande and Zalla soils, frequently flooded

Rio grande 48 A 0-10 Very fine sandy loam CL, CL-

ML

A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

70-83-

20-25 -30

4-8 -12

10-80 Stratified loamy very fine sand to silt loam

CL, CL-

ML

A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

95-98-1

70-85-1

20-28 -35

4-8 -12

Zalla 32 A 0-4 Very fine sandy loam CL, CL-

ML, ML

A-4, A-6 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 100-100 -100

100-100 -100

90-95-1

70-75-

16-23 -30

NP-6

-11

4-60 Loamy fine sand, fine sand, sand

SC-SM,

SM, SP-

SM

A-2-4 0- 0- 0 0- 0- 0 95-98-1

95-98-1

70-78-

10-18-

16-21 -25

NP-4 -7

APPENDIX B

SOILS DATA

CORE SITE/PVT TYPE SOIL CLASS TTC MR, ksi

COLUMBIA GC 3.0

C1 PCC GC 3.0

C2 PCC GC 3.0

C3 PCC GC 3.0

C4 PCC GC 3.0

C5 PCC GC 3.0

C6 PCC GC 3.0

C7 AC CL 4.4

C8 AC CL 4.4

C9 PCC GC 3.0

C10 PCC GC 3.0

C11 PCC CL 4.4 8

EAGLE PASS 1

C1 PCC CL 4.4

C2 PCC CL 4.4

C3 PCC CL 4.4

EAGLE PASS 2

C1 PCC CL 4.4

C2 AC CL 4.4

C3 PCC CL 4.4

DEL RIO

C1 AC CL 4.4

C2 AC CL 4.4

C3 AC CL 4.4

C4 AC CL 4.4

C5 AC CL 4.4

C6 AC CL 4.4

Symbol Unit Name Percent of AOI USCS Soil Type

JQD Jimenez-Quemando complex 46% GC, GC-GM

LgA Lagloria silt loam 50% CL, CL-ML, ML

Rg Rio Grande very fine sand 5% CL, CL-ML, ML

Symbol Unit Name Percent of AOI USCS Soil Type

LgA Lagloria very fine sandy loam 66% CL, CL-ML, ML

Rz Rio Grande and Zalla soils 34% CL, CL-ML, ML, SC-SM, SM, SP-SM

Symbol Unit Name Percent of AOI USCS Soil Type

LgA Lagloria very fine sandy loam (0-1% slop 73% CL, CL-ML, ML

LgB Lagloria very fine sandy loam (1-3% slop 27% ML, CL-ML, CL

Symbol Unit Name Percent of AOI USCS Soil Type

LaB Lagloria loam 47% CL, CL-ML, ML

Lv Laredo variant silty clay loam 25% CL

Ra Reynosa silty clay loam 16% CL, CL-ML, ML

Rg Rio Grande silt loam 12% CL, CL-ML, ML

Ro Rio Grande soils 0% CL, CL-ML, ML

Soil Class TTC Appx. MR

CH 5.1 4.4 ksi

CL 4.4 8 ksi

SC 3.7

SM-SC 3.4

SM 3.1 21 ksi

GC 3.0 23 ksi

EAGLE PASS 1

EAGLE PASS 2

DEL RIO

COLUMBIA

APPENDIX C

CORING AND

LAB REPORT

May 18, 2022

Mr. Robert F. Carmichael, PE Branch Manager HVJ Associates, Inc.

1701 Directors Boulevard, Suite 910 Austin, TX 78744

Re: GSA Various LPOE PH5 Cores – Eagle Pass I

Owner: General Services Administration HVJ No. AG 21 10322

Dear Mr. Carmichael, Submitted herein is the summary memo for the asphaltic concrete and base thickness to provide field and testing services for the Geotechnical Investigation for the General Services Administration Land Port of Entry Phase 5 (GSA LPOE PH5) facilities improvements project located at Eagle Pass Port of Entry, Eagle Pass, Texas. We understand pavement improvements to various facilities in south Texas located at Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio, Brownsville and Pharr Ports of Entry are planned. This memorandum was prepared in accordance with our proposal number AG 21 10322 dated September 22, 2021.

1. Objectives and Scope of Work

HVJ South Central Texas – M&J, Inc. (HVJ SCTx) was retained by HVJ Associates, Inc. to provide pavement and base thicknesses, field testing, and laboratory testing information to aide in the GSA LPOE PH5 project improvements at Eagle Pass Port of Entry. A total of three (3) pavement core locations have been investigated.

2. Geotechnical Field Exploration

Coring operations for the field exploration program were performed on Jan 19, 2022. The cores were advanced using a 6-inch electric core drilling machine to core through the pavement and base.

The coring locations were provided by HVJ Associates, Inc. and are shown on the Plan of Cores, Appendix A. The following table provides general core information

4201 Freidrich Lane, Suite 110

Austin, Texas 78744

512.447.9081 Ph

512.443.3442 Fax

www.hvj.com

Table 2-1: Core Information

Core Name Northing Easting Elevation (ft.) +/- 5ft.

C1 13443652.5 1486274.6 729

C2 13443653.1 1486017.0 728

C3 13443438.8 1485609.7 718 Note: Core locations were not professionally surveyed and were taken from a hand held GPS device. The grid coordinates are based on the Texas State Plane Coordinate System, Central Zone, NAD 83(93). Elevations are based on Google Earth 2019. Units: Survey Feet.

Cores were obtained, when possible, from cracked locations near and slightly offset of the wheel paths. The extracted asphalt cores were carefully placed (taped together if cracked) in containers and transported to the laboratory for further examinations. Upon completion of coring activities, the core holes were drained out, backfilled with mix of sand and gravel, and topped with a single lift of cold mix asphalt patch to match the existing pavement.

3. Pavement Thickness

The pavement structure was observed to consist of 8 to 9 inches of concrete overlaying 13 inches of flexible base material. Table 3-1 below provides the pavement and base thicknesses.

Table 3-1: Existing Pavement Details

Core Name

Concrete Thickness

(in)

Base Thickness

(in)

Base Classification

Subgrade Classification

C1 9.0 * Clayey Sand with Gravel

(SC)

Silty Clay (CL-ML)

C2 9.0 13 Silty Gravel with Sand

(GM)

Clayey Sand (SC)

C3 8.0 * Clayey Sand with Gravel

(SC)

Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM)

* Base thickness information is not available.

Base and subgrade samples were collected using a hand auger. Upon completion of coring activities, the core holes were drained out and topped with a single lift of cold mix asphalt patch or concrete mix to match the existing pavement. The base material was observed to consist of light brown Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC) and Silty Gravel with Sand (GM). The subgrade was found underlying the base material at a depth of 22-inches below grade. The subgrade material was visually classified as Silty Clay (CL-ML), Clayey Sand (SC) and Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM).

4. Laboratory Testing

General

Base and subgrade samples transported to our laboratory were further examined and described and a preliminary soil classification was assigned to each soil sample based on ASTM D 2487 – Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes.

Classification testing, which included moisture contents, Atterberg limits and percent passing the No. 200 sieve, were subsequently conducted on select samples. All the testing was performed in accordance with the relevant ASTM and TxDOT Standards as required. The results of these tests were used to confirm or modify the preliminary soil classifications.

The laboratory test results are provided in the Laboratory Tests Results Summary, Appendix C.

Atterberg Limits

Select samples were tested to determine the Atterberg Limits in accordance with ASTM D4318 (TEX-104-E, and 105-E). The Atterberg Limit test is used to classify the soil using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The Atterberg Limit test consists of two parts: a liquid limit test and a plastic limit test. The liquid limit equipment setup consists of a brass cup partially filled with soil which is grooved with a specialized grooving tool, and then dropped freely from a specified height to the rubber base below at a constant rate of 2 drops per second. The liquid limit test is performed on soil that has been sieved through the No. 40 sieve and brought to a moisture content that would close the ½-inch groove within 20 to 30 blows for two consecutive tests. The moisture content of the soil is then measured and recorded as the liquid limit. The second part of the test consists of a rolling a remolded sample between the tips of the fingers and a glass plate until transverse cracks appear at a rolled diameter of 1/8-inch. The moisture content of the rolled sample is taken and recorded as the plastic limit.

Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve

Select soil samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D1140 (TEX-111-E) to determine the amount of material finer than the No.