Final Pavement Report.pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock St., Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204

(303) 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

TX FTFW SAMA 10(1)

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

SAN MARCOS, TEXAS

May 2020

Shannon & Wilson No: 103987-001

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020 ii

CO

NT

EN

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Project and Site Description

3 Subsurface Explorations and Laboratory Testing

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

4 Pavement Assessment

5 Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

5.1 Regional Geology

5.2 Ground Conditions

5.3 Groundwater

6 Pavement Recommendations

6.1 Design Methodology

6.2 Expansive Soil Mitigation

6.2.1 Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) Compliant

Mitigation

6.2.2 Non Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM)

Compliant Mitigation

6.2.2.1 Existing Paved Areas

6.2.2.2 Unpaved Areas

6.3 Traffic Loading

6.4 Subgrade Soils

6.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

7 Construction and Materials Specification

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

7.2.2 Fill Placement

7.2.3 Low Permeable Fill

7.2.4 Proof-Rolling

7.3 Lime Treated Subgrade (LTS)

iii

CO

NT

EN

7.4 Paving Materials

7.5 Sulfates

8 Closure

9 References

Exhibits Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site Plan and Exploration Plan

Appendices Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results Appendix C: Pavement Conditions Appendix D: Pavement Design Calculations Important Information iv

AC

RO

NY

MS

ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials International ABC Aggregate Base Course ACI American Concrete Institute AOS Apparent Opening Size CBR California Bearing Ratio ESAL 18-kip Equivalent Single Axle Loading EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division FHWA Federal Highway Administration FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services HACP Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement HDR HDR Engineering, Inc.

LL Liquid Limit LTPP Long Term Pavement Performance LTS Lime Treated Subgrade NMAS Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size PCC Portland Cement Concrete PDDM Project Development and Design Manual PG Performance Grade PI Plastic Index SPT Standard Penetration Test SMNFH San Marcos National Fish Hatchery TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USCS Unified Soil Classification System UTBC Untreated Base Course

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and presents pavement design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed improvements to the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery (SMNFH) in San Marcos, Texas for this Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) project. Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No.

014/10001000043857 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), dated August 6, 2019. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

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

Our understanding of the project and information provided by HDR;

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

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

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

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located in San Marcos, Texas (Figure 1) and the SMNFH is accessed via McCarty Lane northwest of the I-35 interchange. The current Entrance Road (RTE 010) alignment travels in a northeast-southwest direction and provides access to the SMNFH headquarters, hatcheries and other buildings, and three parking lots paved with Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. The roadway is relatively flat throughout the project alignment. The existing Entrance Road is a 12- to 18-foot wide, one to two lane road that is paved with hot asphalt concrete pavement (HACP) with grassy shoulders, along with curb and gutter in areas.

We understand the proposed Entrance Road alignment will provide access to the SMNFH facility at the Barnes Road and McCarty Lane intersection and the road will be realigned through the undeveloped land (adjacent to McCarty Lane). We understand approximately 300 feet of the northeast portion of the existing Entrance Road alignment will be abandoned

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020 and reseeded. Based on discussions with HDR, we understand the project will include replacement of the existing pavement and widening the roadway to include two 12-foot lanes and a designated left turn lane at the McCarty Lane intersection. The new Entrance Road paving material will consist of HACP.

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY

TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Shannon & Wilson conducted a field exploration program on October 1, 2019, to explore subsurface conditions along the proposed roadway alignment. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling three borings (designated SW-01 through SW-

03) along the proposed Entrance Road alignment, as shown in Figure 2. The borings were advanced to a depth of 10.5 feet below the existing site grades.

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

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory tests were completed on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. Index tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included sulfate content testing, moisture density relationship (Proctor test) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). Laboratory test results and a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.

4 PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

To evaluate the condition of the existing roadway pavement for potential rehabilitation options, we performed a visual pavement survey to assess the overall pavement condition and to identify areas of distress and typical crack patterns. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) has developed a rating system to quantify levels of distress and to describe

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020 roadway conditions of asphalt pavements. Their five levels of pavement condition for asphalt are summarized below:

Asphalt

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

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

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

Longitudinal, transverse, and edge cracking is at medium extent and severity. Block cracking is extensive. Any patches are in good condition. Preventative maintenance recommended.

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

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

Using the FWS visual rating system, we conducted our assessment survey on September 19, 2019. Site photographs 1 through 14 in Appendix C indicate the existing pavement and typical distress patterns observed along the roadway. The age of the existing pavement is unknown. The HACP was generally in poor condition. We observed medium severity longitudinal cracking in the HACP throughout the Entrance Road, along with occasional potholes, edge cracking, and an uneven riding surface. We also observed evidence of swell distress along the Entrance Road in the form of localized heaved pavement and uneven transitions between the roadway pavement and the parking lot PCC.

The Headquarters' parking lot is in fair condition with cracking slabs. The other two parking lots along the Entrance Road are in excellent condition and appear to have recently been constructed and rehabilitation of these pavements will not be completed as part of this project.

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020

5 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

A regional geologic map of the area (DeCook, 1963) indicates that the near surface geology is the Upper Cretaceous Gulf series consisting of Navarro group clays and Taylor marl. The geologic mapping by DeCook is consistent with the findings from our limited subsurface explorations. Subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations are discussed in more detail below.

5.2 Ground Conditions

The HACP pavement thickness was measured in two borings (SW-02 and SW-03). The HACP ranged in thickness from 3.5 to 6.0 inches. Below the pavement, borings SW-02 and SW-03 encountered 20 and 12 inches of loose to medium dense, clayey gravel base course (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A-2-5). Below the base course material, soft to very stiff clay with varying percentages of sand and gravel (AASHTO A-7-6 soil) were encountered to the final boring depths of 10.5 feet.

In boring SW-01, 6.0 inches of topsoil with varying amounts of organics and roots were encountered. Beneath the topsoil, medium stiff to stiff clay with varying percentages of sand and gravel (AASHTO A-7-6 soil) was observed to the final boring depth of 10.5 feet.

Our observations are specific to the locations, depths, and dates noted on the exploration logs in Appendix A and may not be applicable to all areas of the site. There is no amount of explorations or laboratory testing that can precisely predict the characteristics, quality, or distribution of subsurface conditions at every location throughout the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions may occur between and below the borings. Also, the passage of time or intervening causes (natural and manmade) may result in changes to the conditions of the site and subsurface conditions.

5.3 Groundwater

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

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020

6 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

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

6.1 Design Methodology

Our pavement design and results are based on the design procedures presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures with guidance from the U.S.

Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), dated March 2008, and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Pavement Manual, dated April 2017.

Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix D.

6.2 Expansive Soil Mitigation

Many of the soil formations in Texas are susceptible to volume change by swelling/shrinking. This geologic phenomenon has the potential to cause substantial damage to lightly loaded structures, such as pavements, when exposed to water. As indicated in Section 4, damage to the existing pavement was presumably caused from swelling subgrade. To provide an indication of the swell potential of near surface soils at the site, we performed Atterberg limits, grain size distributions, and moisture contents on soil samples encountered in our explorations. Based on this testing, the Plastic Index (PI) ranged from 49 to 63, and the Liquid Limit (LL) ranged from 65 to 85 for the three tests completed.

6.2.1 Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) Compliant Mitigation

Section 11.3.2.1.3 of the PDDM indicates that 4 to 6 feet of moisture treatment is required for roadways with a PI greater than 35 and an LL greater than 60. The PDDM does note that the subexcavation requirements should account for the traffic volume and project significance when selecting a subexcavation depth.

To achieve the 4-foot minimum treatment depth specified by the PDDM, we recommend:

1. Overexcavating the pavement section a depth of 40 inches from below the pavement section.

2. Scarifying and moisture treating the underlying 8 inches of subgrade in place;

compacting the subgrade to project specifications (refer to Section 7.2.2).

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020

3. Backfilling and moisture treating 16 inches of native clay subgrade. Compact the subgrade to project specifications.

4. Placing 24 inches of low permeable fill (refer to Section 7.2.3), compacted to project specifications. If the lime treated subgrade (LTS) option is selected, the last 8 inches of low permeable fill should be treated with LTS.

6.2.2 Non Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) Compliant Mitigation

Based on the low traffic volume of the roadway, EFLHD may want to consider a lower level of swell mitigation, with the understanding that this also results in a higher risk of swell-related damage.

6.2.2.1 Existing Paved Areas

For this reduced level of protection, we recommend that the subgrade soils below existing paved areas be treated as follows:

1. Remove the existing pavement layer and base course layer down to the elevation of the proposed bottom of the pavement section (including proposed untreated base course [UTBC] thickness). Care should be given to reduce disturbance of the underlying clayey gravel subgrade.

2. Scarify, moisture treat and recompact the subgrade. Proof roll the exposed subgrade. If the proof roll does not expose soft or yielding subgrade areas, place the proposed pavement section.

3. If excess deflection, soft or yielding areas are observed, overexcavate the subgrade an additional 24 inches, place a separation and stabilization geotextile at the base of the excavation.

4. Place 24 inches of low permeable fill material compacted to project specifications.

5. If LTS is considered, then overexcavate the clayey gravel base course to below the thickness of the proposed LTS. The replacement fill should consist of the low permeable fill that will be subsequently treated with lime.

Based on borings SW-02 and SW-03, the thickness of the existing base course is variable. For cost estimating purposes only, we suggest assuming that up to 50 percent of the existing paved area will require the additional overexcavation indicated above.

6.2.2.2 Unpaved Areas

For subgrade areas that have not previously been paved, we recommend the following for a higher risk, non-PDDM compliant section:

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020

1. Overexcavate a minimum of 16 inches from below the base of the proposed pavement section.

2. Scarify and moisture treat the underlying 8 inches of subgrade in place. Compact the subgrade to project specifications.

3. Proof roll the subgrade. If the proof roll does not expose soft or yielding subgrade areas, then place 16 inches of low permeable fill compacted to project specifications.

4. If the proof roll fails, over-excavate a minimum of 8 inches and place a separation and stabilization geotextile at the base of the over-excavation and 16 inches of low permeable fill compacted to project specifications.

5. If the LTS option is selected, the last 8 inches of low permeable fill should be treated with LTS.

6.3 Traffic Loading

Based on discussions with HDR, traffic counts are not available for the roadway and that the roadway is classified as a low volume road. For design of the roadway, we assumed an equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) of 50,000 based on the minimum recommend ESAL in the PDDM.

6.4 Subgrade Soils

As discussed in Section 5.0, the subsurface explorations completed along the roadway primarily consisted of clays with varying percentages of sand (A-7-6 soils). To estimate the strength of the subgrade materials, a CBR test was completed on a bulk sample from boring SW-03 resulting in a CBR of 2.9 percent. For the design subgrade strength, we used a TxDOT (2017) correlation between CBR and resilient modulus, which calculates a resilient modulus value of 5,041 pounds per square inch.

6.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

Using the PDDM procedures and the parameters outlined in Appendix D, we recommend the following pavement sections for the project provided the pavement sections subgrade is prepared to recommendations specified in Section 6.2:

4.0 inches of HACP overlying 8 inches of LTS

4.0 inches of HACP overlying 6 inches of UTBC overlying a separator geotextile

Because of the expansive nature of the native clay subgrade, we recommend the UTBC layer be daylighted to an adjacent ditch layer extending out beyond the pavement section or into a drainage system (such as an edge drain). If the aggregate base course (ABC) layer is

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020 terminated at the edge of the pavement, there is an increased risk of localized area of subgrade saturation and subsequent subgrade swelling. If daylighting or installing a drainage system is not practical for the project roads, the LTS section should be considered.

7 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATION

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 6.0 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assumed that this project is constructed according to Federal Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14 (FP-14) (U.S.

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

7.1 Site Preparation

In widening areas, we recommend that brush and other vegetation be cleared and roots and stumps be removed from all areas to be graded in accordance with FP-14 Sections 201 and

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

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Subgrade Preparation

Proper subgrade preparation is required for adequate pavement performance. The exposed subgrade should be treated to an appropriate depth as discussed in Section 6.2.

7.2.2 Fill Placement

The on-site soils can be reused as part of the moisture-treated subgrade or for fills associated with the widening. However, due to the potential expansive nature of the clay, it will be important to place overexcavated materials at a moisture content above the optimum moisture content to reduce the potential for swell. In this regard, cohesive soils (AASHTO A-6 and A-7) should be moisture treated to 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content.

All subgrade material and fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11. On-site subgrade and fill materials

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020 should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T180 or T99 for granular and fine-gained soils, respectively, as specified in FP-14 Section

204. Fill should be placed in uniform, horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness for heavy, self-propelled compactors, or 4 inches for hand-operated mechanical compactors. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the Contractor’s equipment and the moisture content and quality of the fill material.

7.2.3 Low Permeable Fill

Due to the presence of expansive soils at the site, we do not recommend replacing the subgrade over-excavation with clean granular soils (as there will be no natural drainage and this can form a bathtub effect that can exacerbate swell). At locations where low permeable fill is specified in Section 6.2, we recommend that the material conform to the following requirements:

Fines content between 30 and 50 percent (if lime treatment will be performed, the fines content of the proposed low fill can be increased up to 60 percent)

PI less than 20

Be low swell susceptible (swell of less than 1 percent when wetted under a surcharge load of 200 pounds per square foot when tested with ASTM D4546)

Minimum CBR of 3 percent

Free of organics, contaminants, debris, and rock fragments larger than 3 inches

7.2.4 Proof-Rolling

As discussed above, the subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11, which includes the use of compression-type rollers. While it is important to place clayey material above the optimum moisture content to control swell, material placed wet of optimum is prone to pumping and yielding from construction activities. This material can be difficult to pass a proof-roll. The Contractor will need to carefully control the movement of equipment around the site and minimize the passage of equipment over the overexcavated area. Even with these precautions, compaction of the material will be difficult and extra working time should be anticipated. Placement and compaction testing should be monitored on a full-time basis to assist in this process.

7.3 Lime Treated Subgrade (LTS)

Based on subgrade conditions indicated by the borings, lime treatment is a suitable option for treating subgrades at the project site. Lime is typically placed during construction, after the site is graded. The subgrade is then disked, lime added, mixed, and compacted prior to

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020 the lime setting up. A chemical reaction occurs between the lime, clay, and water resulting in a low plasticity, stiff layer. If the LTS pavement option is selected, a mix design should be completed on the proposed import material and/or native soils that will be treated to ensure that the materials are compatible with lime treatment.

Soils containing high sulfate concentrations can result in a deleterious reaction between the sulfate ions, soil, and water, resulting in long-term heaving in the subgrade soil. For sulfate content greater than 0.3 percent, TxDOT (2005) Guidelines for Treatment of Sulfate-Rich Soils and Bases in Pavement Structures requires modified or alternative treatments. A single sample from the pavement subgrade soils was tested for water soluble sulfates and indicated 0.06 percent sulfate content. Based on these results, treatment for sulfate-rich soils does not appear necessary. However, if lime is used, the mix design should include additional sulfate testing to confirm sulfate concentrations less than 0.3 percent.

7.4 Paving Materials

The following exhibit summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection using the FP-14 specifications. Based on the project estimated paving quantities, we understand that the HACP material will utilize FP-14 Section 403, which uses the local department of transportation mix design. Exhibit 7-1 below reflects a TXDOT (2014) mix design for the HACP.

Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

UTBC Section 301 Use Gradation C, D, or E

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

HACP Section 403 (FP-14) TXDOT Item 341 (2014)

Aggregate Gradation: F Fine Mixture (3/8-inch NMAS) Aggregate Gradation: D Fine Surface (1/2-inch NMAS) PG Binder: PG 70-22 Gyratory Number (N): 50 or 75

Subgrade Stabilization and Separator Geotextile

Section 714.01 Either Class 1 or 2 Separation and Stabilization Geotextile Maximum AOS 0.3 mm

NOTE:

AOS = Apparent Opening Size; CBR = California Bearing Ratio; HACP = Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement; LTS = Lime Treated Subgrade; mm = Millimeters; NMAS = Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size; PG = Performance Grade; TXDOT = Texas Department of Transportation; UTBC = Untreated Base Course

To determine the recommended SuperPave Binder, we used the long term pavement performance (LTPP) Bind Version 3.1Beta and guidance from the TxDOT Pavement Manual

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020

(2017). We recommend using a performance grade (PG) 70-22 binder for the HACP, based on availability in the project area. Recommended lift thicknesses for the 1/2 inch nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) HACP are between 1.5 and 3.0 inches and for the 3/8 inch NMAS HACP between 1.25 and 2.5 inches (TxDOT, 2014). Using criteria provided by TxDOT, the proposed 4-inch thick pavement section can be paved with either two lifts of the 1/2 inch NMAS or 3/8 inch NMAS. A tack coat should be placed between subsequent lifts if more than 24 hours has occurred between paving.

7.5 Sulfates

To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, a sample was tested for water soluble sulfates. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B. The concentration of water-soluble sulfates measured in the sample was measured to be 0.06 percent by weight.

Based on classifications as defined by the American Concrete Institute ACI-318-19 (ACI, 2019), these test results suggest a low degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

8 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery project. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

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

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

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

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

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has prepared “Important Information about Your Geotechnical Report,” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports.

Pavement Design Report

103987-001 May 2020

9 REFERENCES

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

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

DeCook, K.J., 1963, Geology and ground-water resources of Hays County, Texas: U.S.

Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper WSP-1612, Scale 1:125,000.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), LTPP InfoPave: Tools: LTPPBind, Version 3.1 Beta, September 15, 2005.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2005, Guidelines for Treatment of Sulfate- Rich Soils and Bases in Pavement Structures.

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

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), 2014, Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. November 1, 2014.

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

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

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

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, 2014, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal Highway projects, FP-14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

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

VICINITY MAP

FIG. 1

TX FTFW SAMA 10(1)

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

Hays County, Texas

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

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

NOTE

May 2020 103987-001

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

E

F L

T

X

S a n

M r c D r a f t i n g

F i g u r e d w g

D t e o g i n m l w

0 3000 6000

Scale in Feet

Amarillo

Dallas

Houston San Antonio

El Paso

Texas

MT

Austin

PROJECT

LOCATION

M c

C a r t y n e

C e n t

P i

R a d

H u n t

R a d

W o n d

W r l d i v e

G u a d a l u p e

S t r e e t

S

A t o n i o u s t i n

Project

Location

103987-001

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

May 2020

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

F i l e

C

U s e r s M

L W a p p d a t a l o c a l t e m p A c P u b l i s h F i g u r e d w g t e u t h o r

M

L W

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

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

NOTE

TX FTFW SAMA 10(1)

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

Hays County, Texas

FIG. 2

MT

SW-01

125 250

Scale in Feet

M c

C a r y n e

LEGEND

Boring Designation and

Approximate Location

SW-01

SW-02

SW-03

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

Barn s D riv

5/28/2020-103987-001_AA.docx A-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

IO

NS

Appendix A: Subsurface Ex plorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

CONTENTS

A.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 Explorations ........................................................................................................................... A-1

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

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

A.2.3 Bulk Sampling .......................................................................................................... A-2

Figures Figure A-1: Soil Description and Log Key Figure A-2 through A-4: Log of Borings SW-01 through SW-03

A-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) field exploration program was conducted on October 1, 2019, and consisted of drilling three borings designated SW-01 through SW-03 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Appendix C. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figure A-2 through A-4. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by Austin Geologic of Austin, Texas (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a 45B truck mounted drill rig. Select borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter solid-stem auger to depths of approximately

10.5 feet. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling in any of the borings. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with bentonite chips and patched with cold patch asphalt where required.

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System

During exploration, our representative collected samples and prepared field logs of the explorations. Soil classification for this project was based on ASTM International (ASTM) Designation: D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), and ASTM Designation: D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System is summarized in Figure A-1.

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in the borings in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter, 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the

A-2

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

penetration resistance number, or N-value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count. The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1). The raw N-values are shown on the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Bulk Sampling

A bulk soil sample was obtained by collecting the drill cuttings from the upper four feet of boring SW-03. Approximately 20 pounds of cuttings were placed in a sealed plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

May 2020 103987-001

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

San Marcos, Texas

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

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

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

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

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

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

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

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

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

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

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

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

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

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

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

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

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

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

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

CONSTITUENT2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

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

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

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

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

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

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

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

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

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

7-

E

F L

T X

S A

N M

A R

C O

S .G

P J

S H

A N

_W

IL

.G D

T

2/

/1

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

San Marcos, Texas

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

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

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

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

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

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

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

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

OL

(less than 5% fines)

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

FIG. A-1

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

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

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

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

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

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

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

NOTES

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

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

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

7-

E

F L

T X

S A

N M

A R

C O

S .G

P J

S H

A N

_W

IL

.G D

T

2/

/1

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

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

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

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

San Marcos, Texas

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-1

Sheet 3 of 3

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

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

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure.

Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure.

Will not crumble or break with finger pressure.

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

STRUCTURE TERMS1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

singular: bed.

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

singular: lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy; sometimes striated.

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

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

Same color and appearance throughout.

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

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

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Weak

Moderate

Strong

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

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

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

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

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

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

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

ADDITIONAL TERMS

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

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

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

APPROX.

PLASITICITY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

S O

IL

_C

LA

S

S _K

E Y

_P G

7-

E

F L

T X

S A

N M

A R

C O

S .G

P J

S H

A N

_W

IL

.G D

T

2/

/1

-1

S -2

S -3

6-inches of Topsoil

Medium stiff to stiff, dark gray to black, Fat Clay (CH); moist; trace sand and gravel.

[A-7-6]

Stiff, yellow to red-yellow, Fat Clay (CH); moist;

trace sand. [A-7-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/1/2019

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.5

7.0

10.5

May 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

10.5 ft.

FIG. A-2

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-01

4 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

TX FTFW SAMA 10(1)

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

San Marcos, Texas

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

103987-001

Solid-Stem Auger Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck Rig

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

~ 29.84136° ~ -97.97498°

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7-

E F

L T

X S

A N

M A

R C

O S

.G P

J

2/

7/

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

(blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

LL=85

S -2

S -3

3.5 inches of Asphalt

Loose, yellow to red-yellow, Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC); moist. [A-2-5] Base course

Soft to medium stiff, yellow-brown, Fat Clay (CH); moist; trace sand. [A-7-6]

Stiff, yellow to red-yellow, Fat Clay (CH); moist;

trace sand. [A-7-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/1/2019

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.3

2.0

3.5

10.5

May 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

10.5 ft.

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-02

4 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

TX FTFW SAMA 10(1)

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

San Marcos, Texas

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

103987-001

Solid-Stem Auger Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck Rig

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

~ 29.84096° ~ -97.97616°

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

7-

E F

L T

X S

A N

M A

R C

O S

.G P

J

2/

7/

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

(blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

LL=71

B -1

S -2

S -3

6.0 inches of Asphalt

Loose, yellow to red-yellow, Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC); moist. [A-2-5] Base Course

Medium stiff to very stiff, yellow to red-yellow, Fat Clay (CH); moist; few sand, trace gravel.

[A-7-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 10/1/2019

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.5

1.5

10.5

May 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

10.5 ft.

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-03

4 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the subsurface materials.

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

TX FTFW SAMA 10(1)

San Marcos National Fish Hatchery

San Marcos, Texas

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

103987-001

Solid-Stem Auger Austin Geologic CME 45B Truck Rig

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

D ep…