Sol_140P8125B0008_Amd_0002.pdf

(x)

140P8125B0008 x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

PPL

Boulder City NV 89005-2426 601 Nevada Way

NPS, PWR - LAKE MABO

06/03/20250002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

05/05/2025

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

See Continuation Page

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Caroline Bachelier

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

140P8125B0008 Amendment 0002

The purpose of this amendment is to answer contractor questions.

A. Contractor questions and answers are provided as follows:

Question 1: Please confirm the full paving section (asphalt thickness, base and sub-base materials and thicknesses) for both the new and existing road improvements.

Reference: Drawings – Site Plan, Spec Section 32 12 16

Answer 1: See Geotechnical Report

Question 2: Please provide a schedule or sequencing plan for when GRBA staff will complete their scope. Will coordination meetings be required prior to contractor work? Reference:

Section 01 11 00 – Summary of Work

Answer 2: Great Basin National Park is currently working on the trenching and installation of a potable water system main and appurtenances. The goal is to have this work completed in June 2025, however subject to other park changing priorities. It is anticipated that the new S curve road and campsite construction work, culvert installations be taking place outside of the work footprint of park’s concurrence work. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to coordinate all work with the park each day through daily contact with the government Project Manager.

The park does not provide contractor with a schedule or sequencing plan. When the time comes to install a concrete double vault restroom and 1,000-gallon concrete septic tank, contractor is responsible for scheduling and coordinating the delivery and placement for these facilities. The vendor/supplier for these facilities is responsible for the placement, and the contractor is responsible for preparing both sites where they are placed to the proper grades and to manufacturer’s specifications. The park shall provide contractor with the contact phone number and Point of Contact person for these facilities upon award of the contract. When hauling materials into the park on government roadways, it will be especially important for the contractor to coordinate these deliveries with the PM. All deliveries with vehicles larger than a single dump truck such as equipment transports, pup-dumps, etc. will require two pilot vehicles, one in the front, and another in the rear of mobilization/demobilization/deliveries/returns with signage and flashing caution lights. Contractor is responsible for traffic control in/out of the project site, ensuring that all sub-contractors comply as well.

Question 3: Please clarify procedures for undocumented utility discovery. What is the NPS policy for delays due to unidentified utilities? Reference: Section 01 11 00 – Paragraph 1.7.C

Answer 3: There are no undocumented utilities therefore we don’t anticipate any unidentified utilities to be present during this project. All existing utilities are documented and found on the construction drawings provided in the solicitation of this contract.

Question 4: Please confirm who defines sensitive areas for full-time monitoring. Are any zones pre-cleared for excavation? Reference: Sections 01 35 13.22 and 01 11 00

Answer 4: Archeological clearances and compliances have been considered early during project development. No full-time monitor is required by contractor. If unforeseen evidence of an archeological objects is discovered, contractor superintendent will stop work and notify the park immediately. This scenario although highly unlikely to occur.

Question 5: Can additional details be provided about access for deliveries, including weight or clearance restrictions, and alternatives during closures? Reference: Section 01 11 00, Site Access Plan

Answer 5: Access for deliveries shall take place during regular business hours, M-F, 6am to 4:30 pm, unless scheduled and approved in advanced by the park. There are no clearance restrictions, or alternatives as there aren’t any scheduled closures.

Question 6: Do the Superintendent, SSHO, and QC Manager need to be three separate individuals, or can one person fulfill multiple roles?

Answer 6: The Superintendent, SSHO, and QC Manager can be performed by one person provided they have the knowledge, skill and ability to perform as such. Contractor shall provide the name and credentials to demonstrate skillset from past performance in these three roles.

Question 7: Can the contract period of performance be extended after award to accommodate confirmed material/equipment lead times due to current market conditions?

Answer 7: This contract has a specified performance period, and the contractor shall schedule all material/equipment deliveries to stay on track with the scheduled performance period. Work must be completed this calendar year.

Question 8: Please provide a copy of the sign-in sheet from the site visit.

Answer 8: Site Visit attendance sheet provided in Amendment 001.

Question 9: Are there any phasing requirements for construction activities?

Answer 9: Complete the new campground expansion phase first, followed by completing the existing Lower Lehman Campground work, and lastly the Pole Canyon Road work if this item is opted into the contract. It is the responsibility of the contractor to determine how to accomplish this work and stay on time with the contract performance period.

Question 10: Are soil boring reports available? If not, we will assume excavations will be clear of rock and major obstructions.

Answer 10: See Geotechnical Report

Question 11: Is there a hydrant or other water source near the site that can be used for grading operations?

Answer 11: No. Water source may be available from the Baker Ranch located 8 miles from the project site at 2400 Baker Ranch Road, Baker, Nevada 89311.

Question 12: Please confirm whether asbestos or lead is present. If so, provide the relevant testing or abatement documentation.

Answer 12: No asbestos or lead abatement issues on this project.

Question 13: Is this project tax exempt? If so, please provide the exemption certificate or documentation.

Answer 13: The federal government is tax exempt however there are states that still charge taxes. Contractors must follow state rules on tax exemption.

Question 14: When is on-site work anticipated to begin following award?

Answer 14: A NTP will be issued as soon as bonds are received. Once contractor submits required submittals and they are approved, work on site can begin.

Question 15: Are third-party inspections required for any disciplines on this project?

Answer 15: Yes. Proctor compaction testing as identified in the Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement Design Report.

Question 16: Are there any required permits the contractor must obtain? If so, please identify the types and jurisdictions.

Answer 16: Contractor is responsible for any transportation permits that may be required by all Department of Transportation jurisdictions along the routes when traveling to/from the project site. There is no project permits required by the contractor.

B. The bid due date remains the same, June 10, 2025, at 2pm PDT.

C. The bid opening will be held on via Microsoft Teams on June 11, 2025, at 2pm PDT. Below is the hyperlink:

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZjUxNDc5NTktODg2Yi00NGM2LTk0MTMtOTg0ZDM5ZDBiMDdm%40thread

.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%220693b5ba-4b18-4d7b-9341-f32f400a5494%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%222da10b0b-e814-41bc-9eff-e60b77ae9f23%22%7d

Meeting ID: 236 488 280 045 0

Passcode: 6Di7W9pm https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZjUxNDc5NTktODg2Yi00NGM2LTk0MTMtOTg0ZDM5ZDBiMDdm%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%220693b5ba-4b18-4d7b-9341-f32f400a5494%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%222da10b0b-e814-41bc-9eff-e60b77ae9f23%22%7d https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZjUxNDc5NTktODg2Yi00NGM2LTk0MTMtOTg0ZDM5ZDBiMDdm%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%220693b5ba-4b18-4d7b-9341-f32f400a5494%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%222da10b0b-e814-41bc-9eff-e60b77ae9f23%22%7d https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZjUxNDc5NTktODg2Yi00NGM2LTk0MTMtOTg0ZDM5ZDBiMDdm%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%220693b5ba-4b18-4d7b-9341-f32f400a5494%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%222da10b0b-e814-41bc-9eff-e60b77ae9f23%22%7d https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_ZjUxNDc5NTktODg2Yi00NGM2LTk0MTMtOTg0ZDM5ZDBiMDdm%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%220693b5ba-4b18-4d7b-9341-f32f400a5494%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%222da10b0b-e814-41bc-9eff-e60b77ae9f23%22%7d

Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement Design Report

Lower Lehman Creek Campground

Great Basin National Park

White Pine County, Nevada

Yeh Project No.: 220-299

April 14, 2022

Prepared for:

DHM Design 900 South Broadway

Denver, Colorado 80209

Anderson Hallas Architects 715 14th Street

Golden, Colorado 80401

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

2000 Clay Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80211

Phone: 303-781-9590

Geotechnical Engineering and Pavement Design Report

Lower Lehman Creek Campground

Great Basin National Park

White Pine County, Nevada

Yeh Project No.: 220-299

April 14, 2022

Prepared by:

Cory Wallace, E.I.T., G.I.T. Samantha Sherwood, P.E.

Project Engineer Senior Project Manager

Reviewed by:

Judd King, P.E.

Senior Project Manager i

Table of Contents

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

3. SITE DESCRIPTION

4. GEOLOGIC SETTING

5. SITE INVESTIGATION

5.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

5.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.3 LABORATORY TESTING

6. SEISMICITY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

7. PAVEMENT DESIGN

7.1 TRAFFIC LOADING

7.2 SUBGRADE STRENGTH

7.3 PAVEMENT DESIGN

7.4 HACP MIX AND BINDER RECOMMENDATIONS

8. VAULT TOILET DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE RECOMMENDATIONS

9. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLAT WORK DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

10. SITE GRADING CONSIDERATIONS

10.1 EXCAVATION AND TRENCH CONSTRUCTION

10.2 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION

10.3 SURFACE DRAINAGE

11. CORROSIVITY

12. LIMITATIONS

13. REFERENCES

i i

List of Figures

FIGURE 1 – PROJECT LOCATION

FIGURE 2 – TYPICAL CONDITIONS IN THE LEHMAN CREEK VALLEY

FIGURE 3 – TYPICAL GROUND CONDITIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE. NOTE COBBLES AND BOULDERS AT THE GROUND SURFACE

List of Tables

TABLE 1 - SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS

TABLE 2 - PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS

TABLE 3 - MINIMUM RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT THICKNESS

TABLE 4 – GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VAULT TOILET WALL BACKFILL

TABLE 5 - STRUCTURAL FILL CRITERIA

TABLE 6 - ANALYTICAL TEST RESULTS

List of Appendices

BORING LOCATION PLANS .............................................................................................................................................A

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS ...................................................................................................................................... B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... C

PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................................................. D

DRILLING PHOTOGRAPHS .............................................................................................................................................. E

Geotechnical Engineering Report YA Project No. 220-299 GRBA Lower Lehman Creek Campground April 14, 2022

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and our design recommendations for the Lower Lehman Creek Campground project in Great Basin National

Park, White Pine County, Nevada. The project site is located near approximate mile marker 1.8 along Wheeler Peak Scenic Drive (Figure 1). The Lower Lehman Creek Campground is one of six campgrounds in the national park that have been built since the 1920s. The campgrounds have been receiving modernization improvements over the last 10 years, and Lower Lehman

Creek Campground is the last to receive these improvements. Proposed construction at this site includes pavement improvements along the existing campground loop road and a vault toilet in the central part of the campground.

Figure 1 – Project location

To prepare this report, we conducted a geotechnical investigation and developed design recommendations for the proposed construction. This work was performed in accordance with our scope of work dated November 10, 2020 for National Park Service Contract Number GRBA

311594. To prepare this report, we performed the following scope of work:

• Reviewed existing literature relevant to the project site,

• Conducted a subsurface geotechnical investigation near the locations of the proposed improvements,

• Performed laboratory testing on representative samples to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the soil at the site, and

• Developed engineering recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements.

2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The proposed construction for this project includes the addition of 11 campsites, re-paving of the existing campground loop road and campsite spurs, a new precast concrete vault toilet, and improvements to the existing vault toilets and other campground amenities. To facilitate construction of the proposed improvements, minor site grading may be necessary. Shallow temporary excavations up to 10 to 15 feet deep will likely be necessary to accommodate construction of the proposed vault toilet.

3. SITE DESCRIPTION

Lower Lehman Creek Campground is located in Great Basin National Park, in the southern

Snake Range of eastern Nevada. The site is bounded to the north by Wheeler Peak Scenic

Drive, near approximate mile marker 1.8 (about 1.8 miles west of the eastern park boundary), and to the south by Lehman Creek, one of the major drainages that drains the east slope of the southern Snake Range. The campground is located along an existing paved loop road on the south side of Wheeler Peak Scenic Drive. The loop road includes several paved campsite spurs.

Terrain at the project site slopes gently to the east. Slope gradients in the immediate vicinity of

Lehman Creek are moderate to steep, sloping towards the creek. Vegetation at the site includes low grasses, sagebrush, and scattered pinyon pine and juniper trees with dense stands of broadleaf and coniferous trees along Lehman Creek. Elevations range from approximately

7,270 to 7,370 feet above sea level (asl).

4. GEOLOGIC SETTING

The geology of the project site is shown on the USGS 1:24,000-scale geologic map of the

Lehman Caves quadrangle, White Pine County, Nevada (Miller et al., 1995). According to the geologic map, bedrock underlying the Lehman Creek Campground consists of Cambrian- to

Proterozoic-aged Prospect Mountain Quartzite, which is white, gray, tan, and purple and is commonly cross bedded. This unit is roughly 5,000 feet thick and dips steeply to the east. The

Prospect Mountain Quartzite is overlain by Quaternary-aged alluvium, which generally consists of unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits along modern drainage systems. Artificial fills, consisting of earth materials placed for the construction of roads and other infrastructure, are also present along the Wheeler Peak Scenic Drive embankment, but they are not shown on the geologic map.

5. SITE INVESTIGATION

5.1 Subsurface Exploration

We conducted a subsurface exploration at the project site on October 6, 2021. Four geotechnical borings were drilled along the shoulders of the existing campground loop road

(YA-L-1, 2, 3, and 4). The borings were advanced by a truck-mounted Diedrich D-120 drill rig using a solid-stem auger. Borings were drilled to depths of between 2 and 4 feet below ground surface (bgs). During drilling, we used an 18-inch Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split spoon sampler to collect soil samples and obtain SPT blow counts in general accordance with ASTM

D1586. We collected bulk samples of auger cuttings from the top four feet of borings YA-L-2, 3 and 4.

We also hand-excavated one test pit (YA-L-5) in the Wheeler Peak Scenic Drive road cut to visually characterize the materials east of the project site. We collected a bulk sample from the upper 0.5 feet bgs. The approximate boring locations are shown in Appendix A. Boring and test pit logs are presented in Appendix B. Drilling photographs are shown in Appendix E.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

The borings generally encountered medium dense to very dense silty sand and silty gravel soils containing abundant cobbles and boulders. The auger met refusal on cobbles and boulders within the top two to four feet of each hole. Cobbles and boulders up to two feet in diameter are common at the project site and are visible at the ground surface. Figures 2 and 3 show typical site and ground conditions. We encountered artificial fill underlying the Lower Lehman Creek

Campground loop road where it approaches Wheeler Peak Scenic Drive (YA-L-1). We did not observe the fill-native soil transition due to auger and sampler refusal in the upper four feet.

However, based on the elevation difference between the loop road embankment and the surrounding undisturbed ground, we anticipate that there is a maximum of about five feet of artificial fill supporting the loop road. We did not encounter bedrock or groundwater in our borings. Given the proximity of the site to Lehman Creek, groundwater is expected to be within

10 to 15 feet bgs and may be encountered in the proposed vault toilet excavation. Groundwater levels should be expected to vary annually and seasonally.

Figure 2 – Typical conditions in the Lehman Creek valley

Figure 3 – Typical ground conditions. Note cobbles and boulders at the ground surface

5.3 Laboratory Testing

We performed laboratory testing on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering characteristics. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C and summarized on the boring logs in Appendix B. The following tests were performed in general accordance with the following locally recognized standards:

• Sieve analysis (ASTM D6913)

• Soil classification (ASTM D2487, D3282, AASHTO M145)

• Natural moisture content determination (ASTM D2216)

• Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318, AASHTO T89, T90)

• R-value (ASTM D2844, AASHTO T190)

• Water-soluble sulfate content (ASTM D4327, AASHTO T290)

• Water-soluble chloride content (ASTM D4327, AASHTO T291)

• Resistivity (AASHTO T288)

• pH (AASHTO T289)

Results of the sieve analysis and Atterberg limits tests were used to classify soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and AASHTO standards. In general, the tested soils classified as silty sands and silty gravels according to the USCS system, and they classified as A-1-b and A-2-4 soils according to the AASHTO system. The tested soils generally contained up to 28 percent fines.

We conducted R-value testing on a combined bulk sample collected from 0 to 4 feet bgs from borings YA-L-2 and 3. The results indicate that the subgrade soils at this location have an R-value of 63.

6. SEISMICITY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

No active faults are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. Based on our experience with seismic site classifications and the definitions provided in ASCE 7-16 (ASCE, 2016) and

IBC (2018), the site can be categorized as Site Class C, Risk Category II. The short- and long-period spectral acceleration coefficients (Ss and S1, respectively) for Site Class B (reference site class) were determined using the seismic design maps from the ASCE website (Table 1). These parameters can be adjusted for Site Class C using the short- and long-period site amplification factors (Fa and Fv, respectively) shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - Seismic design parameters

SS S1 Fa Fv

0.344 0.115 1.3 1.5

Due to the topography and geologic setting of the site, the likelihood of seismically induced slope instabilities, liquefaction, and lateral spreading is very low. Seismically induced settlement is anticipated to be minimal.

7. PAVEMENT DESIGN

7.1 Traffic Loading

Because traffic volumes are unavailable for this campground, we assumed the minimum equivalent single-axel load (ESAL) value of 50,000 in accordance with the Federal Lands

Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM). This value is used to calculate the minimum pavement and aggregate base thicknesses.

7.2 Subgrade Strength

We measured an R-value of 63 at this site using a combined soil sample from borings YA-L-2 and 3. For design purposes, we selected an R-value of 60. Using an R-value of 60 and Equation

1.5.3 from the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Guide, we calculated a resilient modulus of

18,260 psi for use in the pavement design. We used the strength coefficients presented in the

Federal Lands PDDM to design the pavement sections presented in the following section. The design parameters are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 - Pavement Design Parameters

Design Parameter Parameter Value Design Parameter Parameter Value

Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) 0.44/inch Reliability 75%

Aggregate Base Course (ABC) 0.12/inch Initial Serviceability 4.2

R-Value 60 Terminal Serviceability 2.0

Resilient Modulus 18,260 psi Overall Deviation 0.49

Resulting Structural Number (SN) = 1.32

7.3 Pavement Design

Based on our calculations using Equation 1.2.1 from the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

Guide and the design parameters summarized in Table 2, we recommend the following minimum pavement sections for widening and new construction:

Table 3 - Minimum Recommended Pavement Thickness

AC Pavement PCC Pavement

3 inches HMA/ 4 inches ABC

4 inches HMA

(Full Depth) 6 inches PCC/ 4 inches ABC

Pavements should be placed over 8 inches of moisture treated and compacted subgrade

Our calculations are included in Appendix C.

Prior to fill placement for widening areas or turn lanes, debris, vegetation, organics, oversize material, and other deleterious material should be removed and the surface should be scarified at least 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted. The existing fill along the loop road near Wheeler Peak Scenic Drive may be used to support the proposed pavement improvements. Proposed fills should be placed in thin lifts (not to exceed 8 inches before compaction), moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined by

AASHTO T99 or 90 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by

AASHTO T180.

7.4 HACP Mix and Binder Recommendations

The Long-Term Pavement Performance Program LTPPBind recommends using a PG 64-28 asphalt binder based on the site elevation and on data from several of the nearest weather stations. We recommend that a 75-gyration mix meeting the gradation requirements from Table

703-4 of the FHWA Standard Specifications (FP-14) (FHWA, 2014) for either a nominal ¾-inch or ½-inch mix be used for this project. The ¾-inch and ½-inch mixes are structurally equivalent, however ½-inch mix would have a smoother aesthetic. A copy of the LTPPBind print-out for this project is presented in Appendix D following the pavement design information.

8. VAULT TOILET DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Foundation Design Recommendations

We anticipate that the proposed vault toilet will bear on native sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Following excavation for the vault, the bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture, and recompacted in accordance with the Site Grading section of this report. The vault toilet may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The design bearing pressure may be increased for transient loads such as wind or seismic by 1/3 or as allowable by local building code. If properly constructed, total movement of the foundation resulting from structural loads is estimated to be less than one-half inch, about half of which is expected to occur as the structure is being built. Differential movement should be up to ½ to ¾ of the total movement. Foundations should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement.

Cobbles and boulders could create point loads on the vault toilet foundation, increasing the potential for differential foundation movement. If cobbles or boulders are encountered in the vault toilet foundation excavation, they should be removed to a minimum depth of 8 inches and replaced with structural fill, placed and compacted as discussed in the Site Grading section of this report.

8.2 Lateral Earth Pressure Recommendations

The following lateral earth pressure values may be used for the design of the proposed vault toilet. Assuming that the vault walls are rigid and restrained from movement at the top of the walls such that negligible deflection can occur, they should be design for “at-rest” lateral earth pressure conditions. Walls should be backfilled with cohesionless material with meeting the following gradation in Table 4.

Table 4 – Gradation Requirements for Vault Toilet Wall Backfill

Sieve Size Percent Passing

3-inch 100 No. 200 0-15

Maximum liquid limit: 35; maximum plasticity index: 6

Lateral earth pressures can be calculated using equivalent fluid unit weights for cohesionless soils. We anticipate the vault will be constructed below the seasonal groundwater table, so we recommend that the walls should be designed for hydrostatic pressures. For cohesionless soils meeting the gradation requirements in Table 3, the walls can be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid unit weight of 68 pcf, plus hydrostatic pressures, assuming no surcharge load or inclined backfill at the top of the vault wall. As an alternative, the floor elevation of the vault toilet structure could be raised to elevate the vault walls above the groundwater table. In this case, wall drainage would need to be considered.

Compaction of each lift of fill adjacent to walls should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. Over-compaction may cause excessive lateral earth pressures, which could result in wall movement or damage.

9. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLAT WORK DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

The silty sand site soils, whether in-place or used in fills, are susceptible to frost heave.

Covering of the native soils and/or introduction of moisture from irrigation or concentrated precipitation may increase the moisture content of the soils and result in frost heave. Movement may occur in exterior concrete slabs, which can result in offsets, tilting and cracking and can affect slab compliance with ADA requirements. There are several mitigation measures to improve slab appearance and performance; however, these options are not solely related to the geotechnical aspects, so input from the design team is suggested. In areas where movement is to be mitigated, we believe these options can be considered for best performance.

1. The upper 12 inches of the native silty sandy subgrade soils and/or topsoil could be removed and replaced with granular non-plastic fill with less than 15 percent fines by weight.

2. At entrances to the building, the exterior slab may be structurally tied to the building foundation. This detail would reduce offsets between the exterior slab and the building interior; however, the movement may be translated to other portions of the exterior slab. The structural engineer should also include uplift loads from the exterior slab in designing the foundation.

3. Moisture is one of the key elements; therefore, elimination of irrigation around the exterior slabs, directing roof discharges away from these slabs and preventing snow

1 0 accumulation adjacent to the slabs can reduce the potential for movement.

Additionally, slopes should be graded to slope away from the building for a minimum of 10 feet.

4. Use of plants that do not require irrigation and will help absorb the moisture beneath the exterior slab without creating large root masses, which could cause slab movement, may also reduce potential movement.

10. SITE GRADING CONSIDERATIONS

10.1 Excavation and Trench Construction

Excavations into the on-site soils will encounter a variety of conditions. All excavations must comply with the applicable local, State, and Federal safety regulations, and particularly with the excavation standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Construction site safety, including excavation safety, is the sole responsibility of the Contractor as part of its overall responsibility for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We anticipate temporary excavations will encounter soil type “C” per OSHA standards. Please note that an OSHA-qualified “competent person” must make the actual determination of soil type and allowable sloping in the field.

Based on our investigation, excavations for the proposed construction would likely encounter variable amounts of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. We believe the excavations can be accomplished using conventional, heavy-duty excavation equipment. If encountered, large boulders or bedrock may require larger equipment for removal.

10.2 Fill Placement and Compaction

We recommend topsoil, vegetation and organic materials be removed from the site or used to revegetate landscaped areas after completion of grading operations. All exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions, which could prevent uniform compaction.

On-site material may be suitable for structural fill if verified to meet the fill criteria presented in

Table 5. Additional imported structural fill, if required, should also meet these criteria.

1 1

Table 5 - Structural Fill Criteria

Gradation Requirements

Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing

3-inch 100

No. 200 10 – 30

Plasticity Requirements (Atterberg Limits)

Liquid Limit 30 or less

Plasticity Index 6 or less

All exposed areas that will receive fill, once properly cleared, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted.

Fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose measurement, using equipment and procedures that will produce a uniform fill with the recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. We recommend that structural fill be compacted to 90 percent of the Modified proctor maximum dry density, or 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density, at +/- 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Placement and compaction of structural fill should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.

Roadway grading should conform to FHWA Standard Specifications (FHWA, 2014). Cut slopes in the native soils and bedrock may be constructed at a maximum of 2H:1V. It should be noted that while these soils are considered stable at 2:1 slopes, they can be difficult to vegetate and as result, highly susceptible to surface erosion.

Surface water should be directed away from the crest of slopes. The slopes should be protected from erosion by re-vegetation or other means.

10.3 Surface Drainage

Surface drainage is crucial to the performance of foundations and flatwork. We recommend the ground surface surrounding the building be sloped to drain away from the structure. We

1 2 recommend a slope of at least 5 percent in the first 10 feet for landscape areas and a minimum slope of 0.5 percent for paved areas. Backfill around foundations should be moisture conditioned and compacted at 90 percent of the Modified proctor maximum dry, or 95 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density, and at +/- 2 percent of the optimum moisture content.

Roof downspouts and drains should discharge beyond the backfill area.

11. CORROSIVITY

We conducted analytical testing, including water-soluble sulfate and chloride content, pH, and electrical resistivity testing, on a selected soil sample at the site. The test results are presented in Appendix C and summarized in Table 6. The results indicate that the severity of sulfate exposure for these soils can be classified as Class 0 in accordance with the American Concrete

Institute (ACI) Standard 201.2R, “Guide to Durable Concrete.” A qualified corrosion engineer should review the laboratory data and boring logs to determine the appropriate level of corrosion protection for materials in contact with these soils.

Table 6 - Analytical Test Results

Boring

ID

Sample Depth (ft) Material

Water- Soluble

Sulfates (%)

Water- Soluble

Chlorides (%) pH Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

YA-L-1 3 Silty sand 0.003 0.0135 7.6 2,092

12. LIMITATIONS

This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from exploratory borings, laboratory testing, field reconnaissance, aerial photographs, and our understanding of the proposed type of construction. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock, or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, our office should be advised at once so we may reevaluate our recommendations. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.

1 3

13. REFERENCES

AASHTO, 1993. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

AASHTO, 2020. Load-Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, Ninth Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

ASCE, 2016. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16. American Society of Civil Engineers

ASCE, 2021. ASCE 7 Hazard Tool. American Society of Civil Engineers

Federal Highway Administration, 2014. Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, Manual No. FP-14.

IBC, 2018. International Building Code

Miller, E.L., Grier, S.P., and Brown, J.L., 1995, Geologic map of the Lehman Caves quadrangle, White Pine County, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey, Map GQ-1758, scale 1:24,000

Appendix A

BORING LOCATION PLANS

PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE

SHEET REVISION DATEBY

OF

SHEET

& Associates, Inc.

project without written authorization from Yeh service and shall not be used for any other document are instruments of professional

Associates, Inc. The ideas incorporated on this

This document is the property of Yeh &

REUSE OF DOCUMENT

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

HORIZ: VERT:

NO.

DESIGNED FOR:

1:1

11/23/2021

11/23/2021

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical · Geological · Construction Services

YA-L-04

YA-L-03

YA-L-02

YA-L-01

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

220-299

MJW

SCS

MARTIN/MARTIN, INC

BORING LOCATION PLAN

LOWER LEHMAN RECREATION AREA

GREAT BASIN NATIONAL PARK

ASSOCIATES ON 09/14/21.

BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ROSENBERG

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMAITON SHOWN HEREIN IS

NOTE:

PROJECT NUMBER:

SCALE

SHEET REVISION DATEBY

OF

SHEET

& Associates, Inc.

project without written authorization from Yeh service and shall not be used for any other document are instruments of professional

Associates, Inc. The ideas incorporated on this

This document is the property of Yeh &

REUSE OF DOCUMENT

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

DATE:

HORIZ: VERT:

NO.

DESIGNED FOR:

1:1

11/23/2021

11/23/2021

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Geotechnical · Geological · Construction Services

YA-L-05

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

220-299

MJW

SCS

MARTIN/MARTIN, INC

BORING LOCATION PLAN

LOWER LEHMAN RECREATION AREA

GREAT BASIN NATIONAL PARK

ASSOCIATES ON 09/14/21.

BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ROSENBERG

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMAITON SHOWN HEREIN IS

NOTE:

Appendix B

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS

GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone

Project Number: 220-299

Sample Types Legend for Symbols Used on Borehole Logs

Project:

3. The Modified California sampler used to obtain samples is a 2.5-inch OD, 2.0-inch ID (1.95-inch ID with liners), split-barrel sampler with internal liners, as per ASTM D3550. Sampler is driven with a 140-pound hammer, dropped 30 inches per blow.

2. "Penetration Resistance" on the Boring Logs refers to the uncorrected N value for SPT samples only, as per ASTM D1586. For samples obtained with a Modified California (MC) sampler, drive depth is 12 inches, and "Penetration Resistance" refers to the sum of all blows. Where blow counts were > 50 for the 3rd increment (SPT) or 2nd increment (MC), "Penetration Resistance" combines the last and 2nd-to-last blows and lengths; for other increments with > 50 blows, the blows for the last increment are reported.

Lab Test Standards

1. Visual classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2488, "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures)".

Bulk Sample of auger/odex cuttings

Modified California Sampler (2.5 inch OD, 2.0 inch

ID)

Standard Penetration Test

(ASTM D1586)

Drilling Methods

4. "ER" for the hammer is the Reported Calibrated Energy Transfer Ratio for that specific hammer, as provided by the drilling company.

Moisture Content ASTM D2216 Dry Density ASTM D7263 Sand/Fines Content ASTM D421, ASTM C136, ASTM D1140

Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318 AASHTO Class. AASHTO M145, ASTM D3282

USCS Class. ASTM D2487 (Fines = % Passing #200 Sieve Sand = % Passing #4 Sieve, but not passing #200 Sieve) pH Soil pH (AASHTO T289-91) S Water-Soluble Sulfate Content (AASHTO T290-91, ASTM D4327)

Chl Water-Soluble Chloride Content (AASHTO T291-91, ASTM D4327)

S/C Swell/Collapse (ASTM D4546) UCCS Unconfined Compressive Strength

(Soil - ASTM D2166, Rock - ASTM D7012) R-Value Resistance R-Value (ASTM D2844) DS (C) Direct Shear cohesion (ASTM D3080) DS (phi) Direct Shear friction angle (ASTM D3080) Re Electrical Resistivity (AASHTO T288-91) PtL Point Load Strength Index (ASTM D5731)

Lithology Symbols

Asphalt Silty Gravel (GM) Silty Sand (SM)

(see Boring Logs for complete descriptions)

Other Lab Test Abbreviations

Notes

SOLID-STEM

AUGER

TEST PIT - HAND

DUG

Fill

Heavy rig chatter

Sampler refusal on cobble/boulder pH=7.6 S=0.003% Chl=0.0135% Re=2092ohm·cm Auger refusal on boulder

50:0"17-50:0"

0.0 - 4.0 ft. Silty SAND with gravel (SM) (Fill), gray-brown, dry to moist, medium dense to very dense, contains abundant cobbles and boulders.

Bottom of Hole at 4.0 ft.

Weather Notes: Cloudy, 50s

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Groundwater Levels: Not Observed

Night Work:

Logged By: C. Wallace

Final By: C. Wallace

Symbol Depth Date

Total Depth: 4.0 ft

Ground Elevation: 7333

Coordinates: Lat: 39.01729 Long: -114.23933

Location: Lower Lehman Creek Campground

Drilling Method(s):

Boring Began: 10/6/2021

Boring Completed: 10/6/2021

Driller: Taber

Drill Rig: Diedrich D-120

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: 85%

Solid-Stem Auger

Atterberg Limits

E le va tio n (f ee t)

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cationsLi qu id

Li m it

P la st ic ity In de x

D ril lin g

M et ho d

Project Number: 220-299 Boring No.: YA-L-1

S am pl e

T yp e/ D ep th

Project Name:

D ep th (f ee t)

GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

F in es C on te nt

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

S

P T

C D

O T

S T

Y

LE

-2

G R

B A

L O

W E

R L

E H

M A

N A

N D

B R

IS

T

LE

C

O N

E .G

P J

Y

E H

C O

LO

R

A D

O T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

Y E

H C

O

LO

R A

D O

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

1/

/2

Li th ol og y Soil Samples

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta nc e

Blows per 6 in

Material Description

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e C on te nt

A-1-b (0)

SM

NV NP

Heavy rig chatter

Sampler refusal on cobble/boulder

Auger refusal on cobble/boulder

20.466:7"4-16-50:1"

0.0 - 4.0 ft. Silty SAND with gravel (SM), gray-brown, moist, medium dense to very dense, contains abundant cobbles and boulders, (alluvium).

Bottom of Hole at 4.0 ft.

10.7 30.9 48.7

Weather Notes: Rain, 50s

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Groundwater Levels: Not Observed

Night Work:

Logged By: C. Wallace

Final By: C. Wallace

Symbol Depth Date

Total Depth: 4.0 ft

Ground Elevation: 7339

Coordinates: Lat: 39.0165 Long: -114.23899

Location: Lower Lehman Creek Campground

Drilling Method(s):

Boring Began: 10/6/2021

Boring Completed: 10/6/2021

Driller: Taber

Drill Rig: Diedrich D-120

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: 85%

Solid-Stem Auger

Atterberg Limits

E le va tio n (f ee t)

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cationsLi qu id

Li m it

P la st ic ity In de x

D ril lin g

M et ho d

Project Number: 220-299 Boring No.: YA-L-2

S am pl e

T yp e/ D ep th

Project Name:

D ep th (f ee t)

GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

F in es C on te nt

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

S

P T

C D

O T

S T

Y

LE

-2

G R

B A

L O

W E

R L

E H

M A

N A

N D

B R

IS

T

LE

C

O N

E .G

P J

Y

E H

C O

LO

R

A D

O T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

Y E

H C

O

LO

R A

D O

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

1/

/2

Li th ol og y Soil Samples

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta nc e

Blows per 6 in

Material Description

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

S an d C on te nt

A-1-b (0)

GM

NV NP Heavy rig chatter Stopped drive to prevent sampler damage

19.126:10"6-12-14:4"

0.0 - 2.0 ft. Silty GRAVEL with sand (GM), light gray-brown, dry to moist, medium dense to very dense, contains abundant cobbles and boulders, (alluvium).

Bottom of Hole at 2.0 ft.

3.7 44.6 36.3

Weather Notes: Cloudy, 50s

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Groundwater Levels: Not Observed

Night Work:

Logged By: C. Wallace

Final By: C. Wallace

Symbol Depth Date

Total Depth: 2.0 ft

Ground Elevation: 7285

Coordinates: Lat: 39.01722 Long: -114.23727

Location: Lower Lehman Creek Campground

Drilling Method(s):

Boring Began: 10/6/2021

Boring Completed: 10/6/2021

Driller: Taber

Drill Rig: Diedrich D-120

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: 85%

Solid-Stem Auger

Atterberg Limits

E le va tio n (f ee t)

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cationsLi qu id

Li m it

P la st ic ity In de x

D ril lin g

M et ho d

Project Number: 220-299 Boring No.: YA-L-3

S am pl e

T yp e/ D ep th

Project Name:

D ep th (f ee t)

GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

F in es C on te nt

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

S

P T

C D

O T

S T

Y

LE

-2

G R

B A

L O

W E

R L

E H

M A

N A

N D

B R

IS

T

LE

C

O N

E .G

P J

Y

E H

C O

LO

R

A D

O T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

Y E

H C

O

LO

R A

D O

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

1/

/2

Li th ol og y Soil Samples

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta nc e

Blows per 6 in

Material Description

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e C on te nt

G ra ve l C on te nt

S an d C on te nt

Heavy rig chatter

Auger refusal on cobble/boulder

0.0 - 2.0 ft. Silty GRAVEL with sand (GM), brown to dark brown, moist, contains abundant cobbles and boulders, (alluvium).

Bottom of Hole at 2.0 ft.

Weather Notes: Cloudy, 50s

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Groundwater Levels: Not Observed

Night Work:

Logged By: C. Wallace

Final By: C. Wallace

Symbol Depth Date

Total Depth: 2.0 ft

Ground Elevation: 7284

Coordinates: Lat: 39.01779 Long: -114.23731

Location: Lower Lehman Creek Campground

Drilling Method(s):

Boring Began: 10/6/2021

Boring Completed: 10/6/2021

Driller: Taber

Drill Rig: Diedrich D-120

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: 85%

Solid-Stem Auger

Atterberg Limits

E le va tio n (f ee t)

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cationsLi qu id

Li m it

P la st ic ity In de x

D ril lin g

M et ho d

Project Number: 220-299 Boring No.: YA-L-4

S am pl e

T yp e/ D ep th

Project Name:

D ep th (f ee t)

GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

F in es C on te nt

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

S

P T

C D

O T

S T

Y

LE

-2

G R

B A

L O

W E

R L

E H

M A

N A

N D

B R

IS

T

LE

C

O N

E .G

P J

Y

E H

C O

LO

R

A D

O T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

Y E

H C

O

LO

R A

D O

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

1/

/2

Li th ol og y Soil Samples

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta nc e

Blows per 6 in

Material Description

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e C on te nt

Sample collected from roadcut

0.0 - 0.5 ft. Silty SAND with gravel (SM), gray-brown, dry to moist, contains cobbles and bounders, (alluvium).

Bottom of Hole at 0.5 ft.

Weather Notes: Rain, 50s

Inclination from Horiz.: Vertical

Groundwater Levels: Not Observed

Night Work:

Logged By: C. Wallace

Final By: C. Wallace

Symbol Depth Date

Total Depth: 0.5 ft

Ground Elevation: 7225

Coordinates: Lat: 39.01918 Long: -114.2354

Location: Roadcut ~750 ft east of campground entrance

Drilling Method(s):

Boring Began: 10/6/2021

Boring Completed: 10/6/2021

Driller: N/A

Drill Rig: N/A

Hammer: Automatic (hydraulic), ER: %

Test Pit - hand dug

Atterberg Limits

E le va tio n (f ee t)

PAGE

AASHTO

& USCS

Classifi-cationsLi qu id

Li m it

P la st ic ity In de x

D ril lin g

M et ho d

Project Number: 220-299 Boring No.: YA-L-5

S am pl e

T yp e/ D ep th

Project Name:

D ep th (f ee t)

GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone

Field Notes and

Other Lab Tests

F in es C on te nt

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

S

P T

C D

O T

S T

Y

LE

-2

G R

B A

L O

W E

R L

E H

M A

N A

N D

B R

IS

T

LE

C

O N

E .G

P J

Y

E H

C O

LO

R

A D

O T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

Y E

H C

O

LO

R A

D O

L

IB

R A

R Y

.G

LB

1/

/2

Li th ol og y Soil Samples

P en et ra tio n

R es is ta nc e

Blows per 6 in

Material Description

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e C on te nt

Appendix C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

YA-L-1 3.0 SPT 7.6 0.003 0.0135 2092

YA-L-2 2.0 SPT 10.7 30.9 48.7 20.4 NV NP NP A-1-b (0) SM

YA-L-2 and 3 0 BULK 3.8 25.8 57.1 17.1 NV NP NP 63 A-1-b (0) SM

YA-L-3 0 SPT 3.7 44.6 36.3 19.1 NV NP NP A-1-b (0) GM

Summary of Laboratory Test Results

Sample Location Classification

AASHTO

Swell (+) / Collapse (-) (% at Load in psf)

Denver Lab

Water Soluble Chloride pH

Gradation

Sand

Natural Dry

Density (pcf)

R-ValueBoring No.

Unconf.

Comp.

Strength

Natural Moisture Content

Depth

(ft)

Gravel > #4

Report By: M. Aichiouene Checked By: C. Wallace

Sample Type PI USCS

Project No: 220-299 Project Name: GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone Date: 11-16-2021

Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Water Soluble Sulfate

PLLL

Atterberg

Fines < #200

Rev 03/19 Page 1 of 1

0.0010.010.1110100

16 30 P

E R

C E

N T

F

IN

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T 1 2006 1403

PIPL

BOREHOLE DEPTH

(ft)

LL

4 20 406 601.5 8 14

%Silt%Sand

2.0

0.0

0.0

501/2

SIEVE ANALYSIS

COBBLES GRAVEL SAND

NP

NP

NP

SILT OR CLAY

USCS

Classification

YA-L-2

YA-L-2 and 3

YA-L-3

3/4 3/8

SM

SM

GM

A-1-b (0)

A-1-b (0)

A-1-b (0)

HYDROMETER

%Fines %Clay%Gravel

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

AASHTO

Classification

NP

NP

NP

3 10024

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

NV

NV

NV

48.7

57.1

36.3

20.4

17.1

19.1

30.9

25.8

44.6

Report By: M. Aichiouene

Checked By: C. Wallace

Project No. 220-299

Yeh Lab: Denver

Date: 11-16-2021 GRBA Lower Lehman and Bristlecone Baker, NV

G

R A

IN

S

IZ

E

Y E

H

-2

G

R B

A L

O W

E R

L E

H M

A N

A N

D B

R

IS

T

LE

C O

N E

.G P

J

Y E

H C

O

LO

R A

D O

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

Y

E H

C O

LO

R

A D

O L

IB

R

A R

Y .G

LB

1/

/2

�.��-+/��0+. *+,-� �.1����0+.2333�45!6�7"8��"7( "��2339�%:�8�4;��<32== ����(%"��>!6!?5������������ !"��#�$%�&2333�45!6�7"8��"7( "��2339�%:�8�4;��<32==@AB��C�D�8�C��E!%�!%F�B8��G�5���%��223H2II J������-+/��K.=3L23L2=0��M�N+O.2==3==3== P��/�Q.7� 5�H�@��"���J���������R�K.=3L==L2=*��� ��S/+T���.*��� ��SU. ��HBV�7>G�W�2�X"*���+,�/�Y�,-���ZJ0��� P��[+K2==3==3==H3=\�]�N�,]�/. ������4�5�8 F��H�̂ !"�8�7�5(?5� ��7_G;�G2I=HI=L��7G'�9̀ V2abObbbc�d)_ ��7_G;�G2<IHI=eOc�� ���A�� �" : "6 ��7_G;�G2<<HI=fghi�+[,O�,7(5j!"��H�̂ !"�8�7�5(?5� ��7_G;�G2I3HI=L��7G'�9̀ V2abObbi�d��HCH=�7>G�W�V�X"*���+,�/�Y�,-���ZJ0��� P��[+K2==3==3==H32\�]�N�,]�/. ������4�5�8 F��H�̂ !"�8�7�5(?5� ��7_G;�G2I=HI=L��7G'�9̀ V2abObklf�d)_ ��7_G;�G2<IHI=eOc�� ���A�� �" : "6 ��7_G;�G2<<HI=ibgi�+[,O�,7(5j!"��H�̂ !"�8�7�5(?5� ��7_G;�G2I3HI=L��7G'�9̀ V2abObbl�d mnomm�pqrst�uvw���x�yz{{q|}q�yr~w��y����n�on��x���n��������m��vr�rs�����|q����������z���n���x���|r��~zs��y����n�nm�n�n�J�0���SS�U��J��U����\��Y��1����������� ¡¢£�¤�¥���¡¦�¢� 2==3==3==

�§§̈ ©ª«�¬�§®̄°±²³�§́ µ́±°²¶°µ³�µ·�̈¶²¶®�©°̧¹º²»�²³¼�ª̄²³́½µ̄¶²¶°µ³�«··°±°²¾́¿�§̈ ªÀ�¬�§®̄°±²³�̈µ±°®¶»�·µ̄�ª®́¶°³̧�²³¼�À²¶®̄°²¾́¿�§̈ §�¬�§®̄°±²³�̈µ±°®¶»�µ·�§̧ µ̄³µ»¿�ÁÂÃħ�¬�Áű¶°¾®�Â̄µ³�ð½®�Ä®́®²̄±¹�§́ µ́±°²¶°µ³�©²³¼ÆµµÇ�µ·�Áű¶°¾®�Â̄µ³�𽮿

ÈÉ�ÈÊËÌÍ�Î�ÏÐ�Ñ

WinPAS Pavement Thickness Design According to

1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of…