Lake_Pueblo_FINAL_Geotechnical-Pavement_Report.pdf

Geotechnical Design Report Lake Pueblo State Park

Road and Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

June 24, 2015

Submitted To:

AECOM

717 17th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, Colorado 80202

By:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock Street, Ste. 200 Denver, CO 80204

23-1-01372-202

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLES

FIGURES

APPENDICES

GEOTECHNICAL AND PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

LAKE PUEBLO STATE PARK

ROAD AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

PUEBLO COUNTY, COLORADO

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

3.1 Subsurface Explorations

3.2 Laboratory Test Results

4.0 ROADWAY PAVEMENT CONDITIONS

Juniper Road (at the Park northern entrance), STA 13+00 to STA 75+00:

North Marina Road, STA 300+00 to STA 327+52:

Juniper Road, STA 1597+00 to STA 1683+00:

Reservoir Road, STA 200+00 to STA 235+00:

South Marina Road (at the Park southern entrance), STA 250+00 to STA 278+93:

5.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT THICKNESS DATA

Boring Location(1) Asphalt

Thickness(2)

(in)

Approximate Aggregate

Base Course Thickness

(in)

Subgrade

AASHTO

Classification

5.3 Groundwater

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Seismic Hazards and Ground Motion Design Parameters

TABLE 2

SEISMIC DESIGN GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS

Ground Motion Parameters Arkansas River

Pedestrian Bridge Dry Wash

Pedestrian Bridge

6.2 Pedestrian Bridges

TABLE 3

ESTIMATED NOMINAL BEARING CAPACITIES

Crossing

Estimated Settlement/

Total Movement (in)

Nominal Bearing Capacity

(psf)

TABLE 4

RECOMMENDED SOIL PARAMETERS FOR ABUTMENT AND WINGWALL DESIGN

Design Parameter Recommended

Value

6.3 Pavements

6.3.1 Subgrade Conditions

6.3.2 Swelling Subgrade Soils

6.3.3 Pulverized Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

6.3.4 Traffic Loading

6.3.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

6.4 Pueblo Trail Distress

6.5 Fagan’s Gap Embankment Widening

6.6 Corrosive Soil and Sulfates

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 General

7.2.2 Subgrade Preparation

7.2.3 Fill Placement, Moisture Conditioning and Compaction

7.3 Paving Materials

TABLE 5

RECOMMENDED MATERIALS FOR PAVEMENTS

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

8.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION

9.0 CLOSURE

10.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 EXPLORATIONS .......................................................................................................... A-1 A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System ................................................................ A-2 A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ...................................................................... A-2 A.2.3 Modified California (MC) Test ........................................................................ A-3 A.2.4 Bulk Samples .................................................................................................... A-3

FIGURES

A-1 Soil Classification and Log Key (3 sheets) A-2 Rock Classification and Log Key (2 sheets) A-3 Log of Boring SW-01 A-4 Log of Boring SW-02 A-5 Log of Boring SW-03 A-6 Log of Boring SW-04 A-7 Log of Boring SW-05 A-8 Log of Boring SW-06 A-9 Log of Boring SW-07 A-10 Log of Boring SW-08 A-11 Log of Boring SW-09 A-12 Log of Boring SW-10 A-13 Log of Boring SW-11 A-14 Log of Boring SW-12 A-15 Log of Boring SW-13 A-16 Log of Boring SW-14 A-17 Log of Boring SW-15 A-18 Log of Boring SW-16 A-19 Log of Boring SW-17 A-20 Log of Boring SW-18 A-21 Log of Boring SW-19 A-22 Log of Boring SW-20 A-23 Log of Boring SW-21

A-24 Log of Boring SW-22 A-25 Log of Boring SW-23 (2 sheets) A-26 Log of Boring SW-24 (2 sheets) A-27 Asphalt Core Photographs at Borings SW-02, SW-03, & SW-04 A-28 Asphalt Core Photographs at Borings SW-05, SW-09, & SW-10 A-29 Asphalt Core Photographs at Borings SW-11, SW-12, & SW-13 A-30 Asphalt Core Photographs at Borings SW-14, SW-15, & SW-16 A-31 Asphalt Core Photographs at Borings SW-17, SW-18, & SW-19

23-1-01372-202-R1-AA.docx 23-1-01372-202 A-1

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

A.1 INTRODUCTION

The field exploration program for the Lake Pueblo State Park Road and Trail Improvement Project consisted of drilling and sampling 24 geotechnical borings on March 2 through 6, 2015 designated SW-01 through SW-24. Approximate boring locations are indicated on Figure 2. A representative from Shannon & Wilson observed the drilling and sampling operations, retrieved representative samples for laboratory testing, and prepared logs of our subsurface explorations.

The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination, utility locates, and traffic control) by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A-3 through A-

26. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. All borings were drilled by Vine Laboratories Inc (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a truck-mounted CME 55 drill rig or track-mounted CME 45 drill rig.

Borings drilled within the roadway (SW-01 through SW-19), were generally advanced to an approximate depth of 5 to 15 feet below the road surface with the exception of boring SW-06 which was drilled to a depth of about 30 feet. Boring SW-20 was drilled in an area of trail pavement distress and was drilled to a depth of 15 feet. Borings drilled at the proposed abutments of the dry wash pedestrian bridge (borings SW-21 and SW-22) were drilled to auger refusal at depths of 8 and 12 feet, respectively. The Arkansas River pedestrian bridge abutment borings (SW-23 and SW-24) were drilled to a depth of 50 feet.

All borings were advanced using 4-inch-diameter solid-stem-auger with the exception of borings SW-23 and SW-24, which were advanced using 7-inch-outside-diameter hollow-stem-auger.

Pavement cores were obtained from 15 borings drilled within the roadway. The pavement cores varied from 5-3/4 to 4 inches in diameter. Figures A-27 through A-31 present photographs of each pavement core. In the borings where pavement cores were not obtained, the asphalt thicknesses were measured through the boring hole by the Shannon & Wilson representative.

Where groundwater was encountered, the approximate depth to groundwater was measured using an electronic water level indicator. Borings drilled within the existing roadway were backfilled

A-2 with flow-fill mixed onsite, and repairs to the pavement were made using either cold patch asphalt or hot-mix asphalt. Drill cuttings were dispersed onsite. Boring SW-15 was backfilled with grout. Borings SW-20 through SW-24 were backfilled with drill cuttings.

A.2.1 Soil and Rock Classification System

During drilling, the Shannon & Wilson representative collected soil/rock samples and prepared a field log of the boring. Soil classifications were based on ASTM D 2487, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes, and ASTM D 2488, Standard Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The system is called the Unified Soil Classification System and is summarized in Figure A-1. Our representative classified rock samples in general accordance with the International Society of Rock Mechanics classification method. According to this system, rocks are classified based on the stratigraphic structure, rock strength, degree of weathering, and other properties. The rock classification system is summarized in Figure A-2.

Consistent with other locations along the Front Range, the bedrock encountered in the borings was found to be very stiff to hard when considered as a lithified soil material. However, when compared with other types of bedrock using the International Society of Rock Mechanics classification of rock strength, the rock resembles a very low strength rock. Therefore, for completeness, the boring logs contain dual descriptions of the bedrock using the Unified Soil Classification System and rock classification shown in Figure A-2, where appropriate.

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D 1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 1.375-inch inside diameter (I.D.) split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the penetration resistance number, or N-value. If high penetration resistance prevented driving 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 N-values are shown in the individual boring logs. Representative portions of

A-3 the split-spoon sample were placed in an airtight jar and transported to our laboratory for further analysis.

A.2.3 Modified California (MC) Test

Samples were also obtained using an MC barrel drive sampler. The MC test procedure is similar to the SPT, except a larger diameter barrel sampler (2½-inch O.D., lined with 2-inch-diameter brass tubing) is used and only driven 12 inches. As a result of the larger diameter, the MC sampler yields slightly higher raw blow count numbers when compared to SPT N-values for similar soils. In our opinion, the blow count numbers are similar between the two samplers, and because the difference in blow counts does not significantly impact our evaluation, we used the field MC blow counts over the 12-inch increment to define the relative density and consistency/ stiffness of the subsurface materials following SPT terminology. Representative samples were sealed in the brass liner tubes with plastic caps and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.4 Bulk Samples

Bulk soil samples were also obtained by collecting the drill cuttings generally from 1 to 5 feet of select borings. Approximately 30 to 40 pounds of cuttings were placed in a plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

Pa ve m en t C or e Ph ot os

6/

/2

La ke

P ue bl o

St at e Pa rk R oa d

Tr ai l I m pr ov em en ts

Pu eb lo C ou nt y, C ol or ad o

PA

VE

M

EN

T C

O R

E

PH

O

TO

G R

AP

H

S

AT

B O

R

IN

G S

S W

-0 2, S W

-0 3, S

W -0

FIG. A-27

Ju ne

-1 -0

-2

FI

G

. A -2

SH

A N

N O

N

W

IL

SO

N

, I N

C

Ge ote ch nic al an d E nv iro nm en tal

C on su lta nts

Top of Asphalt Top of Asphalt

Co re a t S

W -0

2:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 1 ¼ in ch es

Co re a t S

W -0

4:

L oc at ed : S

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 4 ¾ in ch es

Top of Asphalt

Co re a t S

W -0

3:

L oc at ed : S

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 3 ¾ in m en t C or e Ph ot os

6/

/2

La ke

P ue bl o

St at e Pa rk R oa d

Tr ai l I m pr ov em en ts

Pu eb lo C ou nt y, C ol or ad o

PA

VE

M

EN

T C

O R

E

PH

O

TO

G R

AP

H

S

AT

B O

R

IN

G S

SW

-0

5, S

W -0

9, S W

-1

FIG. A-28

Ju ne

-1 -0

-2

FI

G

. A -2

SH

A N

N O

N

W

IL

SO

N

, I N

C

Ge ote ch nic al an d E nv iro nm en tal

C on su lta nts

Top of Asphalt Top of Asphalt

Co re a t S

W -0

5:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 2 in ch es

Co re a t S

W -0

9:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 3 ¾ in

Top of Asphalt re a t S

W -1

0:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 3 in m en t C or e Ph ot os

6/

/2

FIG. A-29

FI

G

. A -2

La ke

P ue bl o

St at e Pa rk R oa d

Tr ai l I m pr ov em en ts

Pu eb lo C ou nt y, C ol or ad o

PA

VE

M

EN

T C

O R

E

PH

O

TO

G R

AP

H

S

AT

B O

R

IN

G S

SW

-1

1, S

W -1

2, S W

-1

Ju ne

-1 -0

-2

SH

A

N N

O N

W

IL

SO

N , I

N C

Ge ote ch nic al an d E nv iro nm en tal C on su lta nts

Top of Asphalt Top of Asphalt Co re a t S W

-1 2:

L oc at ed

: E B la ne

; T hi ck ne ss : 5 in a t S

W -1

1:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 2 ¾ in ch es

Co re a t S

W -1

3:

L oc at ed : E

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 4 ¼ in ch m en t C or e Ph ot os

6/

/2

La ke

P ue bl o

St at e Pa rk R oa d

Tr ai l I m pr ov em en ts

Pu eb lo C ou nt y, C ol or ad o

PA

VE

M

EN

T C

O R

E

PH

O

TO

G R

AP

H

S

AT

B O

R

IN

G S

SW

-1

4, S

W -1

5, S W

-1

FIG. A-30

Ju ne

-1 -0

-2

FI

G

. A -3

SH

A N

N O

N

W

IL

SO

N

, I N

C

Ge ote ch nic al an d E nv iro nm en tal

C on su lta nts

Top of Asphalt Top of Asphalt

Co re a t S

W -1

5:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 8 ½ in a t S

W -1

6:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 6 in re a t S

W -1

4:

L oc at ed : W

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 4 in m en t C or e Ph ot os

6/

/2

La ke

P ue bl o

St at e Pa rk R oa d

Tr ai l I m pr ov em en ts

Pu eb lo C ou nt y, C ol or ad o

PA

VE

M

EN

T C

O R

E

PH

O

TO

G R

AP

H

S

AT

B O

R

IN

G S

SW

-1

7, S

W -1

8, S W

-1

FIG. A-31

Ju ne

-1 -0

-2

FI

G

. A -3

SH

A N

N O

N

W

IL

SO

N

, I N

C

Ge ote ch nic al an d E nv iro nm en tal

C on su lta nts

Top of Asphalt Top of Asphalt

Co re a t S

W -1

8:

L oc at ed : E

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 4 ½ in a t S

W -1

9:

L oc at ed : E

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 2 ¾ in re a t S

W -1

7:

L oc at ed : E

B la ne ; T hi ck ne ss

: 4 ½ in

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

23-1-01372-202-R1-AB.docx 23-1-01372-202 B-i

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

B.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................B-1

B.2 GEOTECHNICAL INDEX TESTS ................................................................................B-1 B.2.1 Water Content ....................................................................................................B-1 B.2.2 Gradation ...........................................................................................................B-1 B.2.3 Atterberg Limits ................................................................................................B-1

B.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPERTY TESTS ............................................B-2 B.3.1 One-dimensional Swell .....................................................................................B-2

TABLE

B-1 Summary of Laboratory Test Results by Boring

FIGURES

B-1 Grain Size Distribution (2 sheets) B-2 Plasticity Chart (3 sheets) B-3 Consolidation/Swell Test Report, Boring SW-03, Sample S-3 B-4 Consolidation/Swell Test Report, Boring SW-22, Sample S-3 B-5 R-Value Report, Boring SW-05, Sample G-1 B-6 R-Value Report, Boring SW-06, Sample G-1 B-7 R-Value Report, Boring SW-10, Sample G-1 B-8 R-Value Report, Boring SW-19, Sample G-1

B-1

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

B.1 INTRODUCTION

Laboratory tests were completed on soil samples retrieved from the borings in general accordance with ASTM and AASHTO standards. The laboratory testing program was performed to classify the materials into similar geologic groups and provide data that can be used for design of the project. The geotechnical laboratory testing was performed at our laboratory and Vine Laboratories Inc. of Denver, Colorado. The testing program included index tests and geotechnical engineering property tests. A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Table B-1. The following sections describe the laboratory testing procedures.

B.2 GEOTECHNICAL INDEX TESTS

B.2.1 Water Content

Water content was determined for selected samples in general accordance with AASHTO T 265, Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils. To perform this test, a sample was weighed before and after oven-drying, and the water content was calculated. Water content determinations are shown graphically on the boring logs and are also summarized in Table B-1.

B.2.2 Gradation

The grain size distributions of selected samples were determined in general accordance with AASHTO T 88, Standard Method of Test for Particle Size Analysis of Soils. Results of these analyses are presented as grain size distribution curves on Figure B-1. The percent fines (silt and clay-sized particles passing the No. 200 sieve) are shown graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A and are also summarized in Table B-1.

B.2.3 Atterberg Limits

Soil plasticity was determined by performing liquid and plastic Atterberg limits tests on selected samples. The tests were performed in general accordance with AASHTO T 89, Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils and AASHTO T 90, Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils. The Atterberg limits include liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity index (PI). PI is defined as the LL minus the PL. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are plotted on plasticity charts on Figure B-2, shown graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A, and summarized in Table B-1.

B-2

B.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPERTY TESTS

B.3.1 One-dimensional Swell

One-dimensional swell tests were performed on MC samples in general accordance with ASTM D 4546, Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils. The results of the swell tests are included as Figures B-3 and B-4. The samples were loaded at field moisture conditions in a fixed-ring consolidometer to a predetermined pressure intended to approximate the existing in-situ vertical stress conditions. Drainage was allowed from both the top and bottom of the samples. The samples were inundated with distilled water and allowed to reach equilibrium. Where samples exhibited swell, additional pressure was sequentially applied to return the sample to the strain condition observed at the inundation pressure. The results of each test include a summary of specimen and test data, as well as a plot of percent vertical strain versus logarithmic applied pressure.

B.3.2 R-value

Hveem stabilometer (R-value) tests were completed by Vine Laboratories to evaluate the stiffness of soils that may be used in the subgrade of the roadway. Bulk samples collected from borings SW-05, SW-06, SW-10, and SW-19 were used for the tests. The test was completed according to ASTM D 2844, Standard Method of Test for Resistance R-value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils. The R-value test results are presented on Figure B-5 through B-8 and are summarized in Table B-1.

T A

B L

E B

-1

SU

M M

A R

Y O

F L

A B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E

ST

R E

SU

L

T S

B Y

B O

R

IN

G

SH

AN

N

O N

W

IL

SO

N , I

N C.

T op

B ot to m

(p cf

(p sf

(p si

(o hm -c m

S-

1.

2.

C L

A -6

.4

S-

5.

6.

.1

S-

2.

4.

C L

A -6

.7

S-

5.

6.

.2

S-

3.

4.

.5

6.

S-

5.

6.

C

L A

-6

.9

1.

S-

7.

9.

.4 S-

.0

.5

.9 S-

2.

4.

.4 S-

5.

6.

C

L A

-6

.5

S-

7.

8.

.7 S-

1.

1.

0.

G

-1 2.

5.

C

L A

-6

.2

SW

-0

G

-1 2.

5.

C

H A

-7 -6

.2

S-

1.

2.

.6 S-

4.

6.

C

H A

-7

- 6

.4

S-

1.

1.

.2

S-

5.

6.

C L

A -4

.6

S-

2.

3.

C L

A -6

.7

S-

5.

6.

.4

S-

7.

8.

.3

SW

-1

G

-1 2.

5.

SC

A -6

.3

S-

2.

4.

C

L A

-7 -6

.5

S-

2.

3.

C L

A -6

.2

S-

4.

5.

.3

SW

-1

S-

4.

6.

SM

A -4

.8

S-

2.

3.

C L

A -6

.6

S-

5.

6.

.5

S-

7.

9.

.2

S-

1.

2.

.8

S-

4.

4.

C L

A -6

.1

S-

2.

4.

9.

S-

5.

6.

SC

-S

M A

-4

.8

S-

2.

3.

C

L A

-7 -6

.7

S-

5.

6.

.6

S-

7.

9.

.9

S-

2.

3.

C L

A -7

-6

.8

S-

0.

1.

2.

G

-1 1.

6.

C

H A

-7

- 6

.3

SW

-2

S-

2.

4.

7.

0.

0.

SW

-2

S-

7.

7.

A -6

8.

4.

0.

SW

-2

S-

.0

.5 G

P- G

M 9.

SW

-2

S-

.0

.5 G

W -G

M 8.

N ot es

1.

R ef er to F i g ur e A

-1 fo r d ef in iti on s.

2.

R -V

A L

U E

R-Value

Exudation Pressure

Swell (+) Consolidation (-)

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Inundation Pressure

SW

-0

SW

-0

SW

-1

SW

-1

SW

-1

Sulfates

G ra ve l d ef in ed a s p ar tic le s l ar ge r t ha n th e

N o.

si ev e si ze

, s an d as p ar tic le s b et w ee n th e N o.

a nd

N o.

si ev e si ze s, an d fin es a s p ar tic le sp as si ng th e N o.

si ev e.

SW

-0

Fines

SW

-1

SW

-1

SW

-1

SW

-1

SW

-0

SW

-1

SW

-0

Sa m pl e

SW

-0

SW

-0

SW

-0

AASHTO Classification

C O

R R

O

SI

O N

A

T T

E R

B E

R G

L

IM

IT

S

Natural Moisture Content

USCS Symbol (1)

SA

M

PL

E

D A

T A

Moist Unit Weight

G R

A

IN

-S

IZ

E A

N A

L Y

SE

S(2

B or in g

SW

E

L L

C

O N

SO

L

ID

A

T

IO

N pH

Chlorides

D ep th (f ee t)

Gravel

Sand

Plasticity Index

Resistivity

-1

-0

-2

L ab D at a

S um m ar y.

xl sx S he et o f 1

-1 -0

-2

Swell = 1.9 % Inundation Pressure = 200 psf

Initial Moisture Content = 16.5 % Final Moisture Content = 18.1 %

Moist Density = 126.3 pcf

NOTE:

Testing was done in general accordance with ASTM D 4546(B), Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils.

-4

-3

-2

-1

0.1 1.0 10.0

Ve rt ic al

S tr ai n

Applied Pressure (ksf)

CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST REPORT

Boring SW-03: Sample S-3, 5.0 - 6.0 ft

WATER ADDED

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST

REPORT

BORING SW-03, SAMPLE S-3

FIG. B-3

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Lake Pueblo State Park Road and Trail Improvements

Pueblo County, Colorado

Swell = 0.1 % Inundation Pressure = 500 psf

Initial Moisture Content = 8.9 % Final Moisture Content = 20.5 %

Moist Density = 114.8 pcf

NOTE:

Testing was done in general accordance with ASTM D 4546(B), Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils.

-4

-3

-2

-1

0.1 1.0 10.0

Ve rt ic al

S tr ai n

Applied Pressure (ksf)

CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST REPORT

Boring SW-22: Sample S-3, 7.5 - 7.8 ft

WATER ADDED

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

CONSOLIDATION/SWELL TEST

REPORT

BORING SW-22, SAMPLE S-3

FIG. B-4

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Lake Pueblo State Park Road and Trail Improvements

Pueblo County, Colorado

Project: 23-1-01372-202 Lake Pueblo Job Number: 15-5248 Report Date: 3/18/15

Reported to: Shannon & Wilson , Inc

Sample Information Test Data Summary

Sample Number: Specimen No. 1 2 3 Sample Location: Moisture % 11.69 13.07 13.71

Material Desc.:

Date Sampled: R-Value (corrected) 15.0 11.0 10.0

Sampled By: Exudation Pressure, psi 528 445 275

Tested By: Juan Romero Reviewed By: Darrell Evig, P.E.

R-Value Test Report

G-1 Bulk 2-5'

SW-05

3/12/15

DKN

ASTM D2844/CP-L 3101

Vine Laboratories, Inc.

This report is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless written consent from VINE.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

R -V al ue

Exudation Pressure, psi

R-Value @ 300 psi = 10

FIG. B-5

Reported to: Shannon & Wilson , Inc

Sample Information Test Data Summary

Sample Number: Specimen No. 1 2 3 Sample Location: Moisture % 15.94 15.77 18.85

Material Desc.:

Date Sampled: R-Value (corrected) 10.0 8.0 6.0

Sampled By: Exudation Pressure, psi 606 398 285

Tested By: Juan Romero Reviewed By: Darrell Evig, P.E.

R-Value Test Report

G-1 Bulk 2-5'

SW-06

3/12/15

DKN

ASTM D2844/CP-L 3101

Vine Laboratories, Inc.

This report is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless written consent from VINE.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

R -V al ue

Exudation Pressure, psi

R-Value @ 300 psi = 6

FIG. B-6

Job Number: 15-5248 Report Date: 3/19/15

Reported to: Shannon & Wilson , Inc

Sample Information Test Data Summary

Sample Number: Specimen No. 1 2 3 Sample Location: Moisture % 11.82 11.77 16.32

Material Desc.:

Date Sampled: R-Value (corrected) 10.0 8.0 4.0

Sampled By: Exudation Pressure, psi 503 362 161

Tested By: Juan Romero Reviewed By: Darrell Evig, P.E.

R-Value Test Report

G-1 Bulk 2-5'

SW-10

3/12/15

DKN

ASTM D2844/CP-L 3101

Vine Laboratories, Inc.

This report is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless written consent from VINE.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

R -V al ue

Exudation Pressure, psi

R-Value @ 300 psi = 7

FIG. B-7

Reported to: Shannon & Wilson , Inc

Sample Information Test Data Summary

Sample Number: Specimen No. 1 2 3 Sample Location: Moisture % 18.87 20.08 22.24

Material Desc.:

Date Sampled: R-Value (corrected) 10.0 8.0 5.0

Sampled By: Exudation Pressure, psi 627 416 272

Tested By: Juan Romero Reviewed By: Darrell Evig, P.E.

Vine Laboratories, Inc.

This report is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited unless written consent from VINE.

R-Value Test Report

G-1 Bulk 1.5-6'

SW-19

3/12/15

DKN

ASTM D2844/CP-L 3101

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

R -V al ue

Exudation Pressure, psi

R-Value @ 300 psi = 6

FIG. B-8

APPENDIX C

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

23-1-01372-202-R1-AC.docx 23-1-01372-202 C-i

APPENDIX C

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURES

C-1 Site Photograph Boring SW-01 & SW-02 C-2 Site Photograph Boring SW-03 & SW-04 C-3 Site Photograph Boring SW-05 & SW-06 C-4 Site Photograph Boring SW-07 & SW-08 C-5 Site Photograph Boring SW-09 & SW-10 C-6 Site Photograph Boring SW-11 & SW-12 C-7 Site Photograph Boring SW-14 & SW-15 C-8 Site Photograph Boring SW-16 & SW-17 C-9 Site Photograph Boring SW-18 & SW-19 C-10 Site Photograph Boring SW-20 & SW-21 C-11 Site Photograph Boring SW-22 & SW-23 C-12 Site Photograph Boring SW-24

NOTE:

1. Upper photograph is looking east.

2. Lower photograph is looking east

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-01 & SW-02

FIG. C-1

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-02

Boring SW-01

1. Upper photograph is looking southwest

2. Lower photograph is looking south

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-03 & SW-04

FIG. C-2

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-03

Boring SW-04

1. Upper photograph is looking east

2. Lower photograph is looking east

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-05 & SW-06

FIG. C-3

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-05

Boring SW-06

2. Lower photograph is looking southwest

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-07 & SW-08

FIG. C-4

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-07

Boring SW-08

2. Lower photograph is looking northeast

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-09 & SW-10

FIG. C-5

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-09

Boring SW-10

1. Upper photograph is looking south

2. Lower photograph is looking west

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-11 & SW-12

FIG. C-6

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-11

Boring SW-12

1. Upper photograph is looking northeast

2. Lower photograph is looking west

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-14 & SW-15

FIG. C-7

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-14

Boring SW-15

1. Upper photograph is looking west

2. Lower photograph is looking southwest

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-16 & SW-17

FIG. C-8

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-16

Boring SW-17

1. Upper photograph is looking south

2. Lower photograph is looking southweast

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-18 & SW-19

FIG. C-9

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-18

Boring SW-19

2. Lower photograph is looking southweast

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-20 & SW-21

FIG. C-10

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-20

Boring SW-21

1. Upper photograph is looking northwest

2. Lower photograph is looking northwest

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-22 & SW-23

FIG. C-11

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-22

Boring SW-23

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Lake Pueblo State Park Road & Trail Improvements Pueblo County, Colorado

SITE PHOTOGRAPH

BORING SW-24

FIG. C-12

June 2015 23-1-01372-202

Boring SW-24

APPENDIX D

PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS

23-1-01372-202-R1-AD.docx 23-1-01372-202 D-i

APPENDIX D

PAVEMENT DESIGN CALCULATIONS

TABLES

D-1 Flexible Pavement Design Parameters

ATTACHMENTS

Calc. No. 2 – Colorado FLAP 1099(1) Lake Pueblo Pavement Design (9 sheets)

23-1-01372-202-R1-AD.docx 23-1-01372-202 D-ii

TABLE D-1

PDDM FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS

Design Parameter Design Value

Pavement Design Life 25 years Subgrade Resilient Modulus, MR 3,261 psi Reliability, R 75% Standard Normal Deviate, ZR -0.674 Serviceability Loss, PSI 1.7 Overall Deviation, So 0.49 Structural Layer Coefficient for Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement (HACP) 0.42 Structural Layer Coefficient for Untreated Aggregate Base Course (UTBC) 0.14 Structural Layer Coefficient for Pulverized Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) 0.11 Structural Layer Coefficient for Cement Treated FDR 0.20 Drainage Coefficient of Untreated Aggregate Base Course 1.0

Sheet 1 of 9

Sheet 2 of 9

Sheet 3 of 9

Sheet 4 of 9

Sheet 5 of 9

Sheet 6 of 9

Sheet 7 of 9

Sheet 8 of 9

Sheet 9 of 9

APPENDIX D

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

23-1-01372-202-R1-AE.docx 23-1-01372-202 E-i

APPENDIX E

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

ATTACHMENTS

Calc. No. 3 – Colorado FLAP 1099(1), Fagan’s Gap Slope Stabilization Global Stability Analysis (15 sheets)

Sheet 1 of 15

Sheet 2 of 15

Sheet 3 of 15

Sheet 4 of 15

Sheet 5 of 15

Sheet 6 of 15

Sheet 7 of 15

Sheet 8 of 15

Sheet 9 of 15

Sheet 10 of 15

Sheet 11 of 15

Sheet 12 of 15

Sheet 13 of 15

Sheet 14 of 15

Sheet 15 of 15

APPENDIX F

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT

YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Page 1 of 2 1/2012

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Attachment to and part of Report 23-1-01372-202

Date: June 2015 To: AECOM

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.

Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.

THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS.

A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.

Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.

Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.

MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.

Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect.

Page 2 of 2 1/2012

A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.

The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.

THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.

Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to these issues.

BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.

Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.

To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a disproportionate scale.

READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.

Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.

The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland