ESBD_361404_1717174757922_23-03666 GEO REPORT - Lamar County Emergency Facility.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT

LAMAR COUNTY EMERGENCY FACILITY

2805 N MAIN ST

PARIS, TEXAS

Prepared For:

WA CIVIL, LLC

Prepared By:

EST, Inc.

EST PROJECT NUMBER

23-03666

December 8, 2023

Comprehensive Engineering Services

Colorado Oklahoma Texas

3522 Sam Rayburn Hwy Melissa, Texas 75454

Tel: (469) 907 5500 Texas Firm Reg.# F-10777

December 8, 2023

WA Civil, LLC 350 N. Collegiate Street, Suite 100 Paris, Texas

Attn : Larry H. Walker, PE, PMP

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Lamar County Emergency Facility

2915 N Main St Paris, Texas

EST Project Number: 23-03666

Mr. Walker:

EST has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Lamar County emergency facility building to be located at 2805 N Main St, in Paris, Texas.

The purpose of the subsurface exploration was to evaluate the geotechnical engineering properties of the near surface soils for the above referenced project. This report provides the information and geotechnical recommendations needed for the design and construction of the proposed building.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please call us at (469) 907-5500.

Respectfully, Ahmad Souri, Ph.D., P.E.

Geotechnical Engineering Manager Eds@estinc.com mailto:Eds@estinc.com

Lamar County Emergency Facility EST Project Number: 23-03666 Paris, Texas December 8, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Subsurface Exploration

3.0 Site Conditions

3.1 Seismic Site Classification

3.2 Historical Aerial Photographs Review

3.3 Topography

3.4 Geology

3.5 Stratigraphy

3.6 Groundwater Conditions

3.7 Corrosion Potential and Cement Type

4.0 Laboratory Testing

4.1 Swell Potential Based on Atterberg Limits

4.2 One Dimensional Swell Tests

4.3 Soluble Sulfate Tests

5.0 Evaluation and Recommendations

5.1 Potential for Vertical Rise (PVR)

5.2 Short-Term Construction Excavations

5.3 General Site Development

5.4 Demolition Considerations

5.5 Fill and Compaction

5.6 Subgrade Treatment for Slab-on-Grade

5.7 Foundation System

5.8 Suspended Structural Slab

5.9 Pavement

6.0 Closing and Limitations

APPENDICIES

Appendix A – Project Location and Boring Location Diagrams

Appendix B – Boring Logs and Laboratory Test Results

Appendix C – Geologic Information

Appendix D – Web Soil Survey Corrosion Maps

Appendix E – Supporting Information

- 1 -

1.0 Introduction

Project Description. The project is located at 2805 N Main St, in Paris, Texas. The project consists of a proposed metal building (footprint approximately 19,000 SF) and associated parking areas. The general location and layout of the project site are provided in Appendix A.

Project Authorization. This geotechnical investigation was authorized by Mr. Larry Walker with WA Civil, LLC and performed in accordance with EST Proposal dated October 16, 2023.

Report Specificity. This report was prepared to meet the specific needs of the client for the specific project identified. Recommendations contained herein should not be applied to any other project at this site by the client or anyone else without the explicit approval of EST.

2.0 Subsurface Exploration

The subsurface exploration was completed on October 20, 2023. The table below summarizes the soil borings performed. The boring location plan is provided in Appendix A.

Summary of Soil Borings

Boring ID Depth (feet) Date Drilled General Location

B-01 25 10/20/2023 Building Area

B-02 25 10/20/2023 B-03 5 10/20/2023

Parking and Driveways B-04 5 10/20/2023

The project was accessed with a CME-55 track-mounted, rotary drilling rig equipped with 4-inch hollow stem augers. Representative soil samples were obtained using the Shelby Tube sampling procedure in general accordance with ASTM Specification D1587 and using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM Specifications D1586. Texas Cone Penetration (TCP) test was performed to evaluate the strength characteristics of rock materials and according to TxDOT Tex-132-E procedure and TxDOT geotechnical manual.

The SPT sampling process utilizes a split-barrel (two-piece) sampling tube to obtain soil samples.

A 2-inch outside diameter sampling tube is hammered, using an automatic drive hammer, into the bottom of the boring with a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the tube the last 12 inches of an 18-inch sampling interval or portion thereof is recorded as the standard

- 2 -penetration resistance value, SPT-N value. The in-situ relative density of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils can be estimated from the SPT-N value. The uncorrected, SPT-N values recorded for each test are shown on the attached boring logs at their relative sampling depths.

TCP test was performed by driving a 3-inch outside diameter steel cone with a 170-pound weight falling 24 inches. The number of blows for 12 inches of penetration, or the inches of penetration due to 100 blows of the hammer, whichever occurs first, are recorded. The TCP blow counts and penetration values recorded for each test are shown on the attached boring logs at their relative test depths.

The soil borings were located in the field by an EST representative using handheld GPS device with horizontal accuracy of 20 feet. The approximate boring locations and depths are provided in the boring location diagram included in Appendix A of this report.

As part of the drilling operations, the drill crew prepared field boring logs. The drill crew examined the samples retrieved during drilling operations and recorded a soil description on the field boring logs. The split-barrel samples were packaged in plastic bags to reduce moisture loss and tagged for identification.

The Shelby tube and split-barrel samples were transported to our laboratory for further evaluation. The field boring logs also include the visual classifications of the auger sample materials encountered during drilling and the engineer’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. This report contains the final boring logs that represent some modifications based on the engineer’s evaluation and the laboratory test results of the soil samples.

3.0 Site Conditions

3.1 Seismic Site Classification

Based on the subsurface materials encountered during our investigation and the 2018 International Building Code (IBC), the site class is “C”. This site class should be used when designing the foundation systems for this project. The following seismic design parameters based on the 2018 IBC may be used.

Seismic Site Classification and Parameters

Site Class C Seismic Design Category A

Approximate Site Coordinates Latitude 33.690652o N

Longitude 95.555256o W Ss – MCER Acceleration (Short period) 0.135g S1 – MCER Acceleration (1.0s period) 0.069g SMS – Site Modified MCER Acceleration (Short period) 0.176g SM1 – Site Modified MCER Acceleration (1.0s period) 0.104g

- 3 -

Seismic Site Classification and Parameters

SDS – Design MCER Acceleration at 5% Damping (Short period) 0.117g SD1 – Design MCER Acceleration at 5% Damping (1.0s period) 0.069g Fa – Site Amplification Factor (Short period) 1.3 Fv – Site Amplification Factor (1.0s period) 1.5 *MCER = Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Response.

3.2 Historical Aerial Photographs Review

Historical aerial photographs of the site were reviewed for potential past alterations to the site which could impact our geotechnical recommendations. Specifically, aerial photographs were reviewed to visually assess obvious areas of significant past fill on site. Aerial photographs reviewed for this study are identified below and are included in Appendix C.

Year Observations Since Prior Aerial Photograph

1995 The site areas were part of truck parking. Concrete pavement was noted at parts of the site.

2005 No visible changes.

2008 No visible changes.

2013 No visible changes.

2021 No visible changes.

Our review of past aerial photographs revealed no obvious areas of fill onsite. Due to previous site use (truck parking) we anticipate disturbance of near surface soil in those areas.

Limitations. Due to the intermittent nature, relatively low resolution of aerial photographs, and lack of detailed information regarding the past site use, our review should not be considered a thorough and complete review of the site history. Therefore, significant activities including undocumented fills may be missed from our review.

3.3 Topography

A topographic map of the site is provided in Appendix C. The map indicates the site generally slopes to the west and southwest.

3.4 Geology

Based on available surface geology maps, it appears this site is located in the Bonham Formation. A geologic map and USGS formation description are provided in Appendix D. Soils associated with the Bonham Formation generally consists of high plasticity clays overlying Marl.

- 4 -

3.5 Stratigraphy

Descriptions of the soil layers (per ASTM Unified Soil Classification System, USCS) encountered and their approximate depths are provided in the boring logs included in Appendix B. A summary of the stratigraphy indicated by the borings is provided below.

Generalized Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Building Area (Borings B-01 and B-02)

Depth from Existing Ground Surface

(feet)

Soil/Rock

Description

Detailed Description of Soils/Rock Encountered

Top of Layer

Bottom of Layer

0 25 FAT AND LEAN

CLAY

Stiff to very stiff FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) / FAT CLAY (CH), stiff to very stiff SANDY LEAN CLAY

(CL) / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL).

Exception:

• GRAVEL / SAND at 0 to 11in. at Boring B-02.

• Stiff CLAYEY SAND (SC) at 4 to 6-feet at Boring B-02.

* Boring Termination Depth = 25 feet from ground surface.

3.6 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings during or immediately after the completion of drilling operations. Groundwater level fluctuations and/or perched water conditions may occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall and other factors such as drainage characteristics. To obtain more accurate groundwater level information, long-term observations in a monitoring well or piezometer that is sealed from the influence of surface water would be needed. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered during the preparation of construction plans.

3.7 Corrosion Potential and Cement Type

The corrosion potential (for concrete and steel) of on-site soils was evaluated using the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Web Soil Survey maps, which are provided in Appendix F.

According to the USDA Web Soil Survey maps, the on-site materials present a high risk of corrosion to steel and a moderate exposure of concrete to sulfate containing solutions. Therefore, we recommend that preventative measures against steel corrosion be considered. In many cases, polyethylene encasement or epoxy-coated resin have been used to protect buried ferrous metals or ductile iron pipes.

- 5 -

For concrete elements at this site, we recommend using ASTM C150, Type I/II Portland cement (or equivalent type) with a maximum water to cement ratio (w/c) of 0.50 and a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 psi.

4.0 Laboratory Testing

All samples obtained from the project site were transferred to our laboratory for processing and/or testing. Laboratory tests were performed on select soil samples in agreement with the applicable ASTM testing procedures. Laboratory testing included estimation of the natural moisture content (ASTM D2266), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318), sieve analysis (ASTM D2487), one-dimensional swell of soils (ASTM D4546), and soluble sulfate content in soils (Tex-145-E). The results of moisture content, Atterberg limits, and sieve analysis tests can be found in the boring logs provided in Appendix B.

4.1 Swell Potential Based on Atterberg Limits

Atterberg limits for 6 soil samples within the top 10 feet were used to evaluate the swell potential of onsite soils. The plasticity index (PI) of the samples was between 26 and 49 with an average of 36 indicating that the soils have a high potential for shrinking and swelling with changes in soil moisture content.

4.2 One Dimensional Swell Tests

One dimensional swell tests (ASTM D4546) were performed on select clay soil samples. Detailed swell test results are provided in Appendix B. The results of these tests are summarized below.

Boring ID Sample Depth

Initial Moisture Content

Liquid Limit

(LL)

Plasticity Index

(PI)

Applied Load Swell

(feet) (%) (tsf) (%) B-01 6-8 29.3 71 49 7/16 2.39 B-02 0-2 28.4 59 42 1/16 0.87 B-02 4-6 24.2 37 26 5/16 2.25

4.3 Soluble Sulfate Tests

Soluble sulfate tests (Tex-145-E) were performed on select soil samples. Detailed sulfate test results are provided in Appendix B. The results of these tests are summarized below.

- 6 -

Boring ID Depth (feet)

Soluble Sulfate Concentration (ppm)

B-01 2-4 <100 B-02 0-2 <100 B-03 0-2 <100

5.0 Evaluation and Recommendations

5.1 Potential for Vertical Rise (PVR)

TxDOT Tex-124-E method was used to evaluate the potential for vertical rise (PVR) of onsite soil materials. The calculated PVR is an empirical estimate of a soil’s potential for swell based upon the soil’s plasticity, applied loading (due to structures or overburden), and antecedent moisture content. The wetter a soil’s antecedent moisture content, the lower its calculated PVR will be for a given plasticity index and load. However, soils with a higher antecedent moisture content will be more susceptible to shrinkage due to drying. Maintaining a consistent moisture content in the soil is the key to minimizing both swell- and shrink-related structural problems. The calculated PVR values below should not be considered as absolute values that will occur, but rather an approximate estimate based on industry standard practice and local experience. Extreme changes in soil moisture may occur in events such as but not limited to ponding water, leaking water lines, inadequate drainage and nearby trees causing soil desiccation. Thus, movements that exceed those calculated below may be encountered. Regular maintenance should be provided to address any potential detrimental issues that may affect the soil moisture during the lifespan of the structure.

Estimated PVR Using Tex-124-E Method. We estimated a PVR value of about 2.5 to 3.0 inches for onsite soils assuming dry to average antecedent moisture condition. A 10 feet zone of seasonal moisture change was used in our PVR estimate.

Estimated PVR From Swell Tests. We estimated a PVR value of about 2.0 to 2.5 inches using the swell test results. It should be noted that the PVR from the swell tests is dependent on the samples’ moisture content at the time of testing. A 10 feet zone of seasonal moisture change was used in our PVR estimate.

5.2 Short-Term Construction Excavations

Sloped (un-supported) Excavations. On-site sloped (un-supported) short-term construction excavations should be designed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) excavation standards. Based on our investigation, the on-site soils may be classified as Type B (per OSHA classification system) from the ground surface to a depth of 10-feet. Short-term construction excavations in Type B soils may be constructed with a maximum slope of 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical)

- 7 -to a depth of 10-feet. If excavations are to be deeper than 10-feet, EST should be contacted to evaluate the excavation. Recommendations provided herein are not valid for any long-term or permanent slopes on-site.

Shored Excavations. Vertical short-term construction excavations may be used in conjunction with trench boxes or other shoring systems. Shoring systems should be designed using an equivalent fluid weight of 85 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) above the groundwater table and 105 pcf below the groundwater table excluding the effect from surcharge loads. If present, lateral pressure from surcharge loads (dead and live) at the ground surface should be added to the lateral earth pressures calculated. Lateral pressures from surcharge can be estimated using a lateral earth coefficient of 0.5 and assumed to act as a uniform pressure along the upper 10-feet of the excavation. Surcharge loads located at a horizontal distance (from the edge) equal to or greater than the excavation depth may be ignored. We recommend a maximum of 200 feet of unshored excavation be open at any one time to prevent the possibility of failure and excessive ground movement. Unshored excavations should not remain open for a period longer than 24-hours.

Limitations. Recommendations for short-term construction excavations assume there are no nearby structures or other improvements that might be detrimentally affected by the construction excavation. If there are nearby structures or improvements, EST should be contacted before proceeding in construction to evaluate the construction excavations.

Excavation Monitoring. Excavations should be monitored to confirm site soil conditions consistent with those encountered in the borings drilled as part of this study. Discrepancies in soil conditions should be brought to EST attention for review and revision of recommendations, as appropriate.

5.3 General Site Development

Site Preparation. We recommend removing all existing structures, trees, pavements, vegetation, topsoil, and any other unsuitable materials from the construction areas. We also recommend removing any existing stumps, roots larger than 2 inches in diameter, rocks larger than 3 inches in diameter, and any matted roots from the proposed construction area. After removing all vegetation and unsuitable materials, the exposed surface should be proofrolled.

Proofroll. We recommend proof-rolling the exposed subgrade for building and paving areas. Proof-rolling should be performed in overlapping passes and in mutually perpendicular directions using equipment with minimum subgrade loadings of 25 tons. The proofroll should be performed after the final grade is established in areas to be cut. In areas to be filled, the proofroll should be performed prior to fill placement. Areas of loose or soft subgrade encountered in the proofroll should be removed and

- 8 -replaced with engineered fill and compacted in place as per our recommendations in section 5.5 - “Fill and Compaction”. The Geotechnical Engineer or his representative should be present to witness the removal of the unsuitable materials and the proof-rolling process.

Subgrade Scarification. After proofroll and prior to any fill placement, subgrade in building and paving areas should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to 92 to 98 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and at a workable moisture level at least 4 percentage points above optimum per ASTM D698.

Grading and Drainage. Standard construction practices of providing good surface water drainage should be used. A positive slope of the ground for drainage away from any foundation should be provided.

Ditches or swales should be provided to carry the run-off water both during and after construction.

Stormwater runoff should be collected by gutters and downspouts and should discharge away from the buildings.

Trees and Plants. Root systems from trees and shrubs can affect soil moisture causing subgrade soils to dry and shrink. Soil drying and shrinking leads to settlement beneath grade slabs such as floors, sidewalks and paving. If shrubs or bushes are placed next to building slabs, an impervious membrane should be used to separate the slabs from the shrubs to limit any infiltration of water under the slab.

Trees and large bushes should be located a distance equal to at least one-half their anticipated mature height away from grade slabs. Lawn areas should be watered moderately, without allowing the clay soils to become too dry or too wet.

5.4 Demolition Considerations

Based on our review of the historical site aerial photos, there are existing facilities present on the site and expected to be demolished. We recommend the demolition and removal operations be carefully performed for existing floor slabs, foundations, utilities, and pavements to minimize disturbance to the subgrade. Excessive disturbance of subgrade soils from demolition activities can have detrimental effects on any planned foundation and flatwork elements for the new development. Our guidelines presented herein should be followed during demolition activities.

Existing Foundations. Existing foundations can be slabs, shallow footings, or drilled piers. Slabs or shallow footings should be completely removed. Drilled piers should be cut off to an elevation at least 24-inches below proposed bottom of slabs, grade beams, footings, utility lines, or final subgrade, whichever is deeper. The remainder part of the drilled pier should remain in place. Foundation elements left in place should be surveyed and superimposed on the proposed plans for the new development to determine the potential for obstructions to the planned construction. If drilled piers are planned to be

- 9 -completely removed, EST should be contacted to review the removal procedures and provide additional recommendations, as necessary.

Existing Utilities. Existing utilities and bedding from previous development should either be completely removed or may be abandoned in place if they do not interfere with the new planned development.

Abandoned utility piping should be properly pressure-grouted and completely filled.

Backfill. Any soil material resulting from the removal of existing foundations and utilities should be backfilled according to our recommendations in Section 5.5 – “Fill and Compaction” of this report, as appropriate.

5.5 Fill and Compaction

Select Fill. Select fill consists of low PI material with at least 25 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, having a liquid limit less than 35, and a plasticity index between 8 and 20. Select fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and at a moisture content between optimum and +4 percent of the optimum moisture content per ASTM D698. Select fill soils placed during construction should be checked routinely to verify its conformance with the requirements.

Lime Treatment for Native Soil. Onsite soils treated with hydrated lime may be used in lieu of importing select fill. We estimate a minimum of 7 percent hydrated lime based on the maximum dry density of the unmodified materials will be required to adequately lower the PI of onsite soils. We recommend “Lime series” test be performed to determine the proper percentage of hydrated lime required to adequately lower the PI of the native material to below 15. Lime treated soils should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content per ASTM D698. We recommend the Geotechnical Engineer or a qualified testing firm be hired to perform routine laboratory testing to verify the treated on-site materials are suitable for construction. Further, we recommend that routine sulfate screening be performed to verify sulfate concentrations are within acceptable ranges for lime modification to prevent sulfate-induced heave.

General Fill. General fill may be used in areas outside of the building pad. General fill should consist of clean onsite material or other import material as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. General fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches and should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density and within -1 and +3 percent of the optimum moisture content per

ASTM D698.

- 10 -

Unsuitable Materials. Materials considered unsuitable for use as select fill or general fill include low and high plasticity silt (ML and MH), silty clay (CL-ML), organic clay and silt (OH and OL) and highly organic soils such as peat (Pt). Such materials may be used for site grading and in unimproved areas as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Soils placed in unimproved areas should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 10-inches and should be compacted to at least 90 percent maximum dry density and at a moisture content within ±3 percentage points of optimum per ASTM D698.

Fill Testing. During compaction operations, the exposed subgrade and each lift of compacted fill should be tested for moisture and density and reworked as necessary until that surface is approved by the Geotechnical Engineer’s representative prior to the placement of additional lifts. We recommend the scarified surface and each lift of fill be tested for density and moisture content at a rate of:

• One test per 2,500 square feet for building areas, or a minimum of two tests per compacted lift.

• One test per 5,000 square feet for paving areas, or a minimum of two tests per compacted lift.

• One test per 150 linear feet of utility trench backfill, or minimum of two tests per compacted lift.

5.6 Subgrade Treatment for Slab-on-Grade

Based on our investigation, a slab constructed on grade in this site will be subjected to a PVR up to 3.0 inches. We recommend performing subgrade treatment for the building pad to reduce the PVR to the allowable post construction PVR value of 1.0 inch. Subgrade treatment may be performed by using select fill or moisture conditioning of existing soils.

Subgrade Treatment Using Select Fill. We recommend subgrade treatment to the depths shown in the table below for select fill option.

Subgrade Treatment Using Select Fill

Allowable PVR (inches)

Minimum Thickness of Select Fill (feet) 1, 2

Thickness of Compacted Subgrade below Select Fill

(inches) 3

1.0 10 6

Notes:

1. Depth measured below bottom of the slab-on-grade.

2. Select fill material should meet the requirements and placed as discussed in section 5.5 – “Fill and Compaction” of this report.

3. The subgrade to receive select fill soil should be scarified to a depth indicated above. The scarified subgrade should be compacted to 92 to 98 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and at a workable moisture level at least +4 percentage points above optimum per ASTM D698.

- 11 -

Subgrade Treatment by Moisture Conditioning. We recommend subgrade treatment to the depths shown in the table below for moisture conditioning option.

Subgrade Treatment Using Moisture Conditioning

Allowable PVR (inches)

Thickness of Moisture Conditioned Soil and Cap

(feet) 1, 2, 3

Thickness of Cap (inches) 4, 5

1.0 10 8 Notes:

1. Depth measured below bottom of the slab-on-grade.

2. Moisture conditioned native clay soil should be compacted to 92 to 98 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and at a workable moisture level at least +4 percentage points above optimum (ASTM D698) and placed in loose lifts not exceeding 9 inches.

3. The cap material must be placed above the moisture conditioned soils in a reasonable period of time (within 48 hours) following completion of the moisture conditioning process to prevent the loss of soil moisture. If the surface of the moisture conditioned soils is allowed to dry and crack prior to placement of the cap, the dry soils should be reworked and placed in a moisture conditioned state.

4. Lime should be applied at a minimum rate of 42 pounds per square yard for a depth of 8 inches. Lime stabilization should be performed in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specifications Item 260 “Lime Treatment”, or local equivalent. Lime treated soils should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content per ASTM D698

5. In lieu of lime stabilized soil cap, flexible base may be used for the cap. The flexible base should meet the requirements of TxDOT Standard Specifications Item 247, Grade 1-2, Type A or D, or equivalent.

Flexible base should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D698) and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content.

Building Pad Construction Recommendations. The extent of the pad preparation area should extend at least 5 feet laterally from the building slab edges. Subgrade treatment should also extend beneath abutting sidewalks and exterior doorways to prevent differential heaving between exterior sidewalks and doorways resulting in doors being stuck or difficult to open.

The ground surface should be sloped away from the building on all sides to prevent water from collecting near the building. Water should not be allowed to pond near the building during or after construction. In addition, the moisture content of the soil should be maintained until the slab is constructed. Therefore, the building pad should always contain enough moisture so that surface cracks do not develop. We recommend the moisture content of the building pad be evaluated just before concrete for the slab is placed.

- 12 -

Moisture/Vapor Retarder. We recommend placing vapor barrier (10-mil minimum thickness) underneath the slab for areas to be covered with flooring such as wood, tile, and/or carpeting. The designer may refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 standards for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

5.7 Foundation System

Assumed Maximum Cut Depth. Recommendations provided herein assume that the finish grade for the building pad is within 1 foot of existing site grade. In the event the finish grade requires more than 1 foot of cut or fill, we should be contacted to review the design and assess the suitability of the foundation recommendations provided.

Foundations Adjacent to Slopes. Foundation recommendations provided herein assume the foundations are not adjacent to slopes in excess of 5:1 (H:V). Foundations located in close vicinity to slopes steeper than 5:1 may experience reduced bearing capacities and/or excessive settlement. Any foundations closer than 5 times the depth of adjacent slopes or excavations in excess of 5:1 should be brought to our attention so that we can review the appropriateness of our recommendations.

Slab-on-Grade

A reinforced slab may be used to support the building additions. The slab should be adequately designed with exterior and interior grade beams to sustain the vertical soil movements (PVR of 1.0in.). We recommend the slab be designed using a net dead load plus sustained live load of 1,500 psf or a net total load pressure of 2,250 psf, whichever results in a larger bearing surface. These bearing pressures are based on a safety factor of 3 and 2, respectively, against shear failure of the foundation bearing soils.

Grade beams should be found at a minimum of 18 inches below surrounding grade (supported on select fill or moisture conditioned soils, depending on the subgrade treatment implemented). The bottom of the beam trenches should be free of any loose or soft material prior to the placement of the concrete.

Underreamed Drilled Piers

Underreamed drilled pier foundations bearing in native soil may be utilized at this site for the proposed building. For slab-on-grade supported by drilled piers option, our recommendations in section

5.6 – “Subgrade Treatment for Slab-on-Grade” for 1-inch allowable PVR should be followed. For suspended structural slab option, our recommendations are presented in Section 5.8 – “Suspended Structural Slab”.

- 13 -

Foundation Depth and Bearing Capacity. We recommend that underreamed piers should be found at a depth of 17 feet beneath the existing grade. The piers may be proportioned using a net dead load plus sustained live load bearing pressure of 4,000 psf or a net total load pressure of 6,000 psf, whichever condition results in a larger bearing surface. These bearing pressures are based on a safety factor of 3 and 2, respectively, against shear failure of the foundation bearing soils.

Settlement. Foundation settlement for drilled piers constructed as described above should be less than 1 inch.

Lateral Capacity. We recommend soil resistance to lateral loads on drilled piers be ignored in the upper 3-feet of the soil profile. The following LPILE design parameters are recommended for use in lateral load pier design.

Depth (feet)

Soil Type LPILE Model

Effective Soil Unit Weight (pcf) 1

Undrained Shear

Strength (psf) 2

Strain at 50% of Peak

Strength, ε50

Soil Modulus of Horizontal Subgrade

Reaction, k (pci)

0 - 3 Native Soil / Clay Fill Soft Clay (Matlock) 125 50 0.02 10

3 - 10 Moisture Conditioned / Fill Soil

Soft Clay (Matlock) 125 400 0.01 100

3 - 18 Native Untreated Soil Stiff Clay w/o water (Reese) 125 1000 0.007 400

Notes:

1. Effective soil unit weight based on assumed groundwater depth greater than 25-feet.

2. Based on Factor of safety of 2.

Uplift. The uplift force on the piers due to swelling of the active clays can be approximated by assuming a uniform uplift pressure of 800 psf for moisture conditioned soil or select fill or 1500 psf for untreated native soil acting over the perimeter of the shaft to a depth of 10 feet. The shafts should contain sufficient full length reinforcing steel to resist uplift forces.

Uplift Resistance. The uplift resistance provided by an underreamed drilled pier is the sum of resistance provided by the shear strength of the soil, the weight of the soil above the bell and the weight of the drilled pier itself. The following equation may be used to calculate the allowable uplift resistance:

Where:

Fa is allowable uplift resistance (lb), FS cW

FS

sW

AcNRaF uuF ++=

- 14 -c is allowable soil cohesion (psf), Nu is bearing capacity factor = 3.5([Db − 10]/Bb) ≤ 8.0

RF is reduction factor for closer pier spacings (see below), Db is depth to base of bell (ft), Bb is diameter of the bell (ft), Au is projected area of bell outside the shaft = 𝜋𝜋(Bb 2 − Bs

2)/4, Bs is diameter of straight portion of pier (ft), Ws is weight of soil above the bell (lb), Wc is weight of drilled pier (lb), FS1, FS2 are factors of safety for soil weight and weight of pier, respectively. We recommend

FS1 value of 1.2 and FS2 value of 1.1.

An allowable cohesion c = 600 psf (using factor of safety of 3) may be used and is appropriate for sustained loading conditions. The allowable cohesion value may be increased for transient loading conditions by multiplying the value by 1.5.

Shaft/Diameter Ratio. The piers should be provided with an underream diameter to shaft diameter ratio not less than 2.5 to 1 and not greater than 3 to 1.

Pier Spacing. Piers should not be spaced closer than two underream diameters (edge to edge) based on the diameter of the larger bell. Closer pier spacings may result in reduced uplift capacity and increased settlements. We should be contacted to review closer pier spacings on a case-by-case basis.

Reduction Factor (RF) for Closer Pier Spacings. A reduction in uplift resistance will be required for piers spaced closer than two bell diameters (edge to edge). The reduction factor is dependent on the number of piers in close proximity to the pier in question. The following table shows the recommended Reduction Factor (RF) values based on number of piers in close proximity to the pier in question:

Numbers of Piers in Close Proximity to a Given Pier Reduction Factor (RF)

Piers Spaced Greater than 2x Diameters Edge-to-Edge Spacing 1.0 1 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.2

Greater than or equal to 4 0

There will be no reduction in uplift resistance contribution from the weight of soil above the bell and weight of drilled pier.

- 15 -

Construction Observation. Construction of piers should be observed by qualified engineer representative/inspector to ensure:

1. The bearing stratum and penetration depth are per the design.

2. The bell/underream size is per design.

3. The removal of all cuttings and loose materials.

4. That groundwater seepage, if encountered, is handled correctly.

5. The shafts are vertical (within acceptable tolerance).

6. That the top of the shafts in contact with clay are not enlarged (i.e., mushroomed).

Groundwater. Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. However, groundwater may be encountered during pier excavation and the risk of groundwater seepage is increased during or after periods of precipitation. Submersible pumps may be capable of controlling seepage in the pier excavation to allow for concrete placement.

Recommended Construction Specifications. Drilled shaft foundations construction specifications are found in TxDOT Item 416 (Drilled Shaft Foundations), or ACI 336.3 (Design and Construction of Drilled Piers). These specifications include requirements for construction using casing or the slurry displacement method, as appropriate.

Concrete Placement. Concrete should be placed in the shafts immediately after excavation to reduce the risk of significant groundwater seepage, deterioration of the foundation-bearing surface and underream collapse. In no event should a pier excavation be allowed to remain open for more than 8 hours.

Concrete should have a slump of 5 to 7 inches and should not be allowed to strike the shaft sidewall or steel reinforcement during placement.

5.8 Suspended Structural Slab

A suspended structural slab supported on underreamed drilled piers may be used for the proposed building. If a structural floor slab is to be installed, a minimum of 6-inch void space between the bottom of the slab or grade beams and the underlying ground surface should be maintained. This can be provided by crawl space or using void forms. Any fill placed within the building areas for grading or backfill around grade beams/pier caps should be moisture conditioned soil. Moisture conditioned soil should consist of clean material free of debris or organics and compacted to 92 to 98 percent of the material’s maximum dry density and at a workable moisture level at least +4 percentage points above optimum (ASTM D698) and placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches.

- 16 -

Grade Beams and Pier Caps. Where applicable, all grade beams supported by piers and pier caps should be formed and not cast against earthen trenches. Grade beams and pier caps should be formed with a minimum 6-inch void at the bottom. Structural cardboard forms should extend to the full length and width of the grade beams and pier caps. Soil retainers should be provided to prevent soils adjacent to grade beams and pier caps from sloughing into the void space. Soil retainers should extend at least 4 inches above the bottom of the grade beam and the same distance below the bottom of void space.

Backfill soils placed adjacent to grade beams and pier/pile caps must be moisture conditioned and compacted to 92 to 98 percent of the maximum dry density at a moisture level at least +4 percentage points above the optimum moisture content (ASTM D698).

Utility Lines Under Slab. Provisions should be made to protect utility lines under the slab from differential movement from swelling soils. For utilities passing through grade beams, sleeves allowing a minimum of 4 inches of void space above and below the utility line can be utilized.

5.9 Pavement

Rigid pavement (concrete) may be used for parking areas and driveways. Traffic data indicating the number and type of vehicles on which to base the pavement design was not provided. Therefore, our recommendations are based upon our experience and assuming normal vehicular loading. Any unusual loading conditions should be brought to our attention prior to finalizing the pavement design so that we assess and modify our recommendations as necessary.

Reinforced Concrete Pavement. Portland cement concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) should be used. Grade 60 reinforcing steel should be used in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The following pavement thicknesses and reinforcing are recommended.

Pavement Use Thickness (inches)1 Steel Reinforcing

Light Duty Pavement Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 5 No. 3 bars spaced at 18-inch intervals each way

Heavy Duty Pavement Heavy Trucks and Dumpsters 7 No. 3 bars spaced at 18-inch intervals each way

Notes:

1. Thickness based on design life of 20 years and reliability of 90%.

- 17 -

Concrete pavement thicknesses provided above can be increased an extra 1-inch in lieu of lime stabilization of the pavement subgrade.

The maximum control joint spacing should be 15 feet. Saw cut control joints should be cut within 6 to 12 hours of concrete placement. Where not specified herein, concrete pavements should comply with TxDOT Item 360 - "Concrete Pavement", or local equivalent.

Pavement Subgrade. Based on our investigation, the onsite subgrade soils consist of high plasticity clay.

The pavement subgrade should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches and should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content per ASTM D698. We recommend the subgrade be stabilized using lime treatment as shown below.

Reagent Application Rate (pounds per square yard)1

Application Depth (inches)

Lime 32 6

Notes:

1. Based on 7% lime by dry weight of soil.

Lime stabilization should be performed in accordance with TxDOT Item 260 - “Lime Treatment”, or local equivalent.

6.0 Closing and Limitations

This report was prepared for WA Civil, LLC in reference to the proposed Lamar County Emergency Facility building located at 2805 N Main St, in Paris, Texas. This report provides geotechnical recommendations based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings. It is not practical or economical to perform enough subsurface investigation borings to identify all conditions at the site.

Subsurface conditions may vary with distance away from the borings completed for this report.

Conditions that may affect the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report may exist and may not become known until construction. If variations appear during construction, it may be necessary to revise the recommendations contained in this report. Therefore, monitoring of subsurface conditions during construction should be performed by a geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify that conditions are consistent with the geotechnical report.

EST warrants that the findings and recommendations contained herein have been made with generally accepted professional geotechnical practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or

- 18 -expressed. The scope of services and recommendations contained in this report do not include any environmental assessment or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials. Any statements in this report or in the boring logs concerning suspicious odors, colors, irregular textures or abnormal conditions are for informational purpose only and have not been verified by testing.

Appendix A

Project Location and Boring Location Diagrams

EST Project No. 23-03666 Metal Building at 2805 N Main St

PROJECT LOCATION - GENERAL

PROJECT LOCATION - LOCAL

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Appendix B

Boring Logs and Laboratory Test Results

8-13-14 (27)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - Stiff to very stiff, dark brown.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Stiff to very stiff, brown and gray.

Fissured below 8-feet.

Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

TCP

SS

TCP

2.25

4.50

3.00

4.25

4.25

4.50

2.25

36/12"

59/12"

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY TL

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY A.S

DATE STARTED 10/20/23 COMPLETED 10/20/23

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

AFTER 15 Min. ---

AFTER hrs ---

HOLE SIZE 4 inches

S P

T B

LO

W

C O

U N

T S

(N V

A

LU

E

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

D E

P T

H (f t)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G S

IE

V

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

C O

N F

. P R

E S

S U

R E

(p si

C O

M P

. S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T C

P (B

LO

W

S /P

E N

E T

BORING NUMBER B-01

CLIENT WA Civil, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 23-03666 PROJECT LOCATION Paris, Texas

PROJECT NAME Metal Building at 2805 N. Main St.

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

E S

T G

T D

T E

M P

.1 .2

.G

D T

/7

/2

:5

J

T X

M

E L

IS

S

A

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L \2

G

E O

T E

C H

T E

X A

S P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M E

T A

L B

U

IL

D

IN

G A

T

N

M A

IN

S

T \D

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\2

-0

.G

P J

EST, Inc 3522 Sam Rayburn Hwy

Tel: 469-907-5500

21-20-18 (38)

20-22-20 (42)

GRAVEL / SAND - 11in.

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) - Very stiff, dark brown and brown.

CLAYEY SAND (SC) - Stiff, brown.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Very stiff, brown and gray.

Bottom of borehole at 25.0 feet.

AU

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

SS

TCP

SS

TCP

4.25

3.25

3.00

3.50

3.25

4.50

22/12"

45/12"

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY TL

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY A.S

DATE STARTED 10/20/23 COMPLETED 10/20/23

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

AFTER 15 Min. ---

AFTER hrs ---

HOLE SIZE 4 inches

S P

T B

LO

W

C O

U N

T S

(N V

A

LU

E

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

D E

P T

H (f t)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G S

IE

V

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

C O

N F

. P R

E S

S U

R E

(p si

C O

M P

. S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T C

P (B

LO

W

S /P

E N

E T

BORING NUMBER B-02

CLIENT WA Civil, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 23-03666 PROJECT LOCATION Paris, Texas

PROJECT NAME Metal Building at 2805 N. Main St.

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

E S

T G

T D

T E

M P

.1 .2

.G

D T

/7

/2

:5

J

T X

M

E L

IS

S

A

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L \2

G

E O

T E

C H

T E

X A

S P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M E

T A

L B

U

IL

D

IN

G A

T

N

M A

IN

S

T \D

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\2

-0

.G

P J

EST, Inc 3522 Sam Rayburn Hwy

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) - Very stiff, brown.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Very stiff, brown and gray.

Bottom of borehole at 5.0 feet.

48 17 31 73ST

ST

ST

3.50

4.50

4.50

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY TL

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY A.S

DATE STARTED 10/20/23 COMPLETED 10/20/23

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

AFTER 15 Min. ---

AFTER hrs ---

HOLE SIZE 4 inches

S P

T B

LO

W

C O

U N

T S

(N V

A

LU

E

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

D E

P T

H (f t)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G S

IE

V

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

C O

N F

. P R

E S

S U

R E

(p si

C O

M P

. S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T C

P (B

LO

W

S /P

E N

E T

BORING NUMBER B-03

CLIENT WA Civil, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 23-03666 PROJECT LOCATION Paris, Texas

PROJECT NAME Metal Building at 2805 N. Main St.

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

E S

T G

T D

T E

M P

.1 .2

.G

D T

/7

/2

:5

J

T X

M

E L

IS

S

A

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L \2

G

E O

T E

C H

T E

X A

S P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M E

T A

L B

U

IL

D

IN

G A

T

N

M A

IN

S

T \D

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\2

-0

.G

P J

EST, Inc 3522 Sam Rayburn Hwy

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) - Very stiff, brown.

Bottom of borehole at 5.0 feet.

53 16 37 73ST

ST

ST

3.25

4.00

3.00

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY TL

DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger

DRILLING CONTRACTOR GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY A.S

DATE STARTED 10/20/23 COMPLETED 10/20/23

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

AFTER 15 Min. ---

AFTER hrs ---

HOLE SIZE 4 inches

S P

T B

LO

W

C O

U N

T S

(N V

A

LU

E

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

D R

Y U

N

IT

W T

(p cf

M O

IS

T

U R

E C

O N

T E

N T

LI

Q

U

ID

LI

M

IT

P

LA

S T

IC

LI

M

IT

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

D E

P T

H (f t)

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

G R

A P

H

IC

LO

G

P E

R C

E N

T P

A S

S

IN

G S

IE

V

E

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

P O

C K

E T

P E

N

(t sf

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(R

Q D

C O

N F

. P R

E S

S U

R E

(p si

C O

M P

. S T

R E

N G

T H

(t sf

T C

P (B

LO

W

S /P

E N

E T

BORING NUMBER B-04

CLIENT WA Civil, LLC

PROJECT NUMBER 23-03666 PROJECT LOCATION Paris, Texas

PROJECT NAME Metal Building at 2805 N. Main St.

G E

O T

E C

H B

H C

O

LU

M N

S

E S

T G

T D

T E

M P

.1 .2

.G

D T

/7

/2

:5

J

T X

M

E L

IS

S

A

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L \2

G

E O

T E

C H

T E

X A

S P

R O

JE

C

T S

\2

-0

M E

T A

L B

U

IL

D

IN

G A

T

N

M A

IN

S

T \D

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G S

\2

-0

.G

P J

EST, Inc 3522 Sam Rayburn Hwy

Project Name: Metal Building at 2805 N Main St Project Location: Paris, Texas

Boring No. B-01 B-02 B-02

Average Sample Depth (ft) 6-8 0-2 4-6

Sample Height (in) 0.8 0.8 0.8

Sample Diameter (in) 2.5 2.5 2.5

Initial Sample Volume (in3) 3.93 3.93 3.93

Initial Sample Weight (g) 122.9 124.7 128.0

Initial Moisture (%) 29.3% 28.4% 24.2%

Final Moisture (%) 33.3% 30.6% 26.3%

Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf) 119.0 120.8 124.0

Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 92.1 94.0 99.8

Applied Load (tsf) 7/16 1/16 5/16

Initial Dial Reading (in) 0.30120 0.22550 0.28260

Final Dial Reading (in) 0.32030 0.23250 0.30060

Swell (%) 2.39% 0.87% 2.25%

EST Project Number:

Date:

Absorption Swell Test Results (ASTM D4546)

23-03666 10/3/2023

Project Name: Metal Building at 2805 N Main St 23-03666 Project Location: Paris, Texas Date: 11/3/2023

B-01, S2 2-4 20 BDL BDL BDL <100

B-02, S1 0-2 20 BDL BDL BDL <100

B-03, S1 0-2 20 BDL BDL BDL <100

*BDL= Below Detection Limit

Sample Depth (feet) Dilution Ratio (1:X)

Soluble Sulfate Content Test Results (Tex-145-E)

Sulfate Concentration (ppm)

EST Project Number:

Sample ID Colorimeter Readings

Appendix C

Historical Aerial Photographs

HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOS – 2021

HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOS – 2013

HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOS – 2008

HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOS – 2005

HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOS – 1995

Appendix D

Topographic Map

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Appendix E

Geologic Information

GEOLOGIC MAP

Mineral Resources / Online Spatial Data / Geology / by state / Texas

Bonham Formation

State Texas

Name Bonham Formation

Geologic age

Late Cretaceous; Gulfian Series

Lithologic constituents

Major Sedimentary > Carbonate > Marlstone (Bed) Sedimentary > Clastic > Mudstone > Claystone (Bed)

Comments marl and clay, silty, glauconitic, most abdt near middle, poorly to thinly bedded, med to lt gray; weathers lt gray to yell-gray; marine megafossils, thickness 400 +- ft.

References

NGMDB

product

NGMDB product page for 68390

Counties Fannin - Grayson - Lamar - Red River

Bonham Formation

XML JSON

Bureau of Economic Geology, 1967, Sherman Sheet, Geologic Atlas of Texas: University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, scale 1:250,000.

Bureau of Economic Geology, 1992, Geologic Map of Texas:

University of Texas at Austin, Virgil E. Barnes, project supervisor, Hartmann, B.M. and Scranton, D.F., cartography, scale 1:500,000.

|DOI Privacy Policy |Legal |Accessibility |Site Map Contact USGS

|U.S. Department of the Interior |DOI Inspector General |White House |E-gov |No Fear Act FOIA https://www.usgs.gov/energy-and-minerals/mineral-resources-program https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/ https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/ https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=TX https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=TX https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_68390.htm https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f48147 https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f48181 https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/fips-unit.php?code=f48277…