Final Pavement Report - CA NP MOJA 11(2) 10(2) .pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation

CA NP MOJA 11(2) 10(2)

Kelso-Cima and Kelbaker Roads Mojave National Preserve

San Bernardino County, California for

HDR, Inc.

February 27, 2024

Kelso-Cima and Kelbaker Roads Mojave National Preserve San Bernardino County, California for HDR, Inc.

February 27, 2024

13220 Evening Creek Drive South, Suite 115 San Diego, California 92128 619.314.5043

Kelso-Cima and Kelbaker Roads

Mojave National Preserve San Bernardino County, California

File No. 2368-074-01

February 27, 2024

Prepared for:

HDR, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202

Attention: Scott Marshall, PE

Prepared by:

GeoEngineers, Inc.

13220 Evening Creek Drive South, Suite 115 San Diego, California 92128 619.314.5043

Jason J. Besendorfer Arash Pirouzi, PE Project Engineer Project Engineer

Morgan McArthur, PE King Chin, PE Associate Geological Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer

JJB:AP:MM:KC:nl

Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.

12.31.2024

February 27, 2024| Page i File No. 2368-074-01

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1. Surface Conditions

3.1.1. Kelbaker Road

3.1.2. Kelso-Cima Road

3.2. Pavement Condition Survey

3.2.1. General

3.2.2. Fatigue Cracking

3.2.3. Block Cracking

3.2.4. Edge Cracking

3.2.5. Longitudinal Cracking

3.2.6. Transverse Cracking

3.2.7. Potholes/Patching

3.3. Subsurface Conditions

3.3.1. Subsurface Exploration

3.3.2. Laboratory Testing

3.3.3. Existing Pavement Thickness and DCP Tests

3.3.4. Subgrade Soil

3.3.5. Groundwater Conditions

3.3.6. Climate

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Pavement Design

4.1.1. Pavement Alternatives

4.1.2. Analysis Methods

4.1.3. Recommended Pavement Rehabilitation Treatment

4.1.4. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Agency Construction Costs Analysis Period Discount Rate Maintenance and Rehabilitation Remaining Service Life Value

4.2. Materials

4.2.1. FDR Cement Treated Base Mix Design

4.2.2. Asphalt Binder

4.2.3. Pavement Roughness

4.2.4. Bid Items

4.2.5. Prime and Tack Coats, Fog Seal and Blotter

4.3. General Considerations

4.3.1. Paving

4.3.2. Construction Considerations

4.4. Drainage Considerations

4.5. Corrosion Considerations

5.0 LIMITATIONS

6.0 REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Vicinity and Geology Map Figure 2. Geologic Unit Description Figures 3 through 11. Site Plans – Kelbaker Road Figures 12 through 18. Site Plans – Kelso-Cima Road Figure 19. Regional Seismicity Map

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1—Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 through A-84—Logs of Borings Figures A-85 through A-126—DCP Test Logs

Appendix B. Laboratory Test Results Figures B-1 through B-22—Sieve Analysis Results Figures B-23 through B-35—R-value Test Results Soil Cement Testing Results – ACS Testing, Inc.

Analytical Test Results – Anatek Labs, Inc.

Appendix C. Pavement Core and Site Photographs Figures C-1 through C-22—Pavement Core Photographs Figures C-23 through C-25—Site Photographs

Appendix D. Pavement Design Calculations Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

February 27, 2024| Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services in support of the CA NP MOJA 11(2) 10(2), project located in Mojave National Preserve (Preserve), San Bernardino County, California. The project includes rehabilitation or reconstruction of the existing asphalt concrete (AC) pavement of the following road segments:

■ Kelso-Cima Road from the intersection of Cima Road to the intersection of Kelbaker Road (approximately 19 miles).

■ South Kelbaker Road between the intersection of Kelso-Cima Road and Interstate 40 (I-40) (approximately 23 miles).

The road segments to be rehabilitated or reconstructed are located in the Mojave National Preserve and are federally owned. Both roads are typically about 20 to 24 feet wide, with one northbound and one southbound travel lane. The travel lanes are typically about 10 feet wide. The road locations are presented in the Vicinity and Geology Map, Figure 1. A description of the geologic units shown in Figure 1 is presented in Geologic Unit Description, Figure 2.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

This report provides our pavement design recommendations in accordance with the scope outlined in our agreement with HDR, Inc. (Task Order 002/1000100087125) dated May 3, 2023. Included in this report are the following:

■ Final recommended pavement sections, updated based on comments received from the project team for our Preliminary Pavement Recommendations Memorandum. Our report also contains information we used to develop the design recommendations including the following:

o ESALs for the design life of the pavement o Effective soil resilient modulus used in the pavement design o Pavement surface structural design o A discussion of design alternatives o Economic and cost analysis of design alternatives, including a recommended/preferred alternative

■ Material recommendations

■ Special recommendations, spot repairs or other pertinent information

February 27, 2024| Page 2

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1. Surface Conditions

3.1.1. Kelbaker Road

Kelbaker Road is located in the western portion of the Preserve and extends about 57 miles from I-40 along the south border of the Preserve to Interstate 15 (I-15) along the north border of the Preserve. Our evaluation was limited to the southern approximately 23 miles between I-40 and the intersection of Kelso- Cima Road. From I-40, Kelbaker Road climbs roughly 1,000 feet over about 8 miles, peaking at Granite Pass which has an elevation of 4,024 feet according to the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service (NPS) Map of the Mojave National Preserve. North of Granite Pass, Kelbaker Road descends about 1,900 feet to the intersection with Kelso-Cima Road. Kelbaker Road is surfaced with AC with approximately 10-foot-wide travel lanes, one in the northbound and one in the southbound direction, and approximately 1- to 3-foot-wide shoulders. This area is undeveloped. Vegetation along the alignment is sparse consisting of typical desert plants.

3.1.2. Kelso-Cima Road

Kelso-Cima Road is located near the center of the Preserve and is oriented in a northeast to southwest direction. Kelso-Cima Road extends about 19 miles from the Kelbaker Road intersection at its southwest end to the Cima Road intersection at its northeast end. Kelso-Cima Road climbs approximately 2,100 feet in the northeast direction. Kelso-Cima Road roughly parallels the Union Pacific Railroad. The Road is AC surfaced with one approximately 10-foot-wide travel lane in each direction, and approximately 1- to 3-foot-wide shoulders. With the exception of the Kelso Depot Visitor Center at the southwest end of the alignment and a few other structures, the area bordering the alignment is undeveloped. Vegetation along the alignment is sparse consisting of typical desert plants.

3.2. Pavement Condition Survey

3.2.1. General

On May 23 and 24, 2023, we conducted a limited pavement condition survey within the project limits using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (May 2014). The survey evaluates cracking, patching and potholing, surface deformation and surface defects. Portions of the pavement surface had been chip-sealed making it difficult to determine the severity of some of the pavement distresses described below. A summary of our survey is presented below.

3.2.2. Fatigue Cracking

DESCRIPTION

Fatigue cracking occurs in areas subjected to repeated traffic loadings (wheel paths). This can be a series of interconnected cracks in early stages of development that later can be described as alligator patterned cracking.

■ Low Severity: no or few connecting cracks; cracks are not spalled or sealed; and pumping is not evident.

■ Moderate: interconnected cracks forming a complete pattern; cracks may be slightly spalled, but pumping is not evident.

February 27, 2024| Page 3

■ High: moderately or severely spalled interconnected cracks forming a complete pattern; pieces may move when subjected to traffic; pumping may be evident.

OBSERVED RATINGS

Moderate to high severity but generally limited extent along most of the alignment. Potholing is commonly observed in areas with high severity fatigue cracking. See photos below.

3.2.3. Block Cracking

DESCRIPTION

Block cracking is interconnected longitudinal and transverse cracks forming large blocks.

■ Low Severity: Cracks with a mean width of less than 6 millimeters (mm) or sealed sufficiently that the crack width cannot be determined. Block size is 10 feet or greater.

■ Moderate Severity: Cracks with a mean width greater than 6 mm and less than 19 mm. Block size is 5 to 10 feet.

■ High Severity: Crack with a mean width greater than 19 mm. Block edges have begun to show alligator cracking and potholes may be starting to form.

OBSERVED RATINGS

Moderate to high severity observed along most of the alignment. See photos below.

February 27, 2024| Page 4

3.2.4. Edge Cracking

DESCRIPTION

Edge cracking is the deterioration of the pavement surface edge.

■ Low Severity: Cracks with no breakup or loss of material.

■ Moderate Severity: Cracks with some breakup and loss of material for up to 10 percent of the length of the affected portion of the pavement.

■ High Severity: Cracks with considerable breakup and loss of material for more than 10 percent of the length of the affected portion of the pavement.

OBSERVED RATINGS

Low to high severity with heavy extent. Edge cracking correlated with lack of shoulder soil support and narrow shoulders. See photos below.

3.2.5. Longitudinal Cracking

DESCRIPTION

Longitudinal cracking is pavement distress that forms cracks parallel to the centerline stripe (running in the direction of traffic).

■ Low Severity: Crack width is hairline (less than 6 mm).

■ Moderate Severity: Crack width is between 6 mm and 19 mm or there is a dip 3 to 6 inches wide at the crack.

■ High Severity: Crack width is more than 19 mm or there is a distinct dip of 6 to 8 inches wide or there is visible vegetation in the crack.

February 27, 2024| Page 5

OBSERVED RATINGS

Typically, low to moderate severity but observed along most of the alignment, especially at the roadway centerline and near the center of the lanes between the wheel paths. See photos below.

3.2.6. Transverse Cracking

DESCRIPTION

Transverse cracking is pavement distress that forms cracks perpendicular to the centerline stripe.

■ Low Severity: Crack width is hairline (less than 6 mm).

■ Moderate Severity: Crack width is between 6 mm and 19 mm or there is a dip 3 to 6 inches wide at the crack.

■ High Severity: Crack width is more than 19 mm or there is a distinct dip of 6 to 8 inches wide or there is visible vegetation in the crack.

OBSERVED RATINGS

Typically, low to moderate severity but observed along most of the alignment. See photos below.

February 27, 2024| Page 6

3.2.7. Potholes/Patching

DESCRIPTION

Patches are original surface repaired with new asphalt surface material. Potholes are loss of pavement material.

■ Low Severity: A patch is noticeably present, but rutting is less than 6 mm. Pumping not present.

Potholes are less than 25 mm deep.

■ Moderate Severity: The patch includes rutting between 6 and 12 mm but pumping is not evident. Potholes are between 25 and 50 mm deep.

■ High Severity: The rutting within the patch area exceeds 12 mm. Pumping may be evident. Potholes are greater than 50 mm deep.

OBSERVED RATINGS

Generally low severity but we observed potholes in the wheel path of both lanes. Potholes were generally more frequent in the northbound lane, especially in areas with fatigue cracking. In the southbound lanes, potholes were generally associated with longitudinal and transvers cracked areas. The potholes were generally patched. See photos below.

3.3. Subsurface Conditions

3.3.1. Subsurface Exploration

We evaluated site conditions along the project alignments by completing a site reconnaissance, drilling borings, and completing pavement cores and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests. The approximate exploration locations are shown in the Site Plans, Figures 3 through 18. In summary:

■ Kelbaker Road—Forty-four (44) borings (B-1 through B-44) were completed along Kelbaker Road.

The borings were completed at approximate ½-mile intervals, alternating between travel lanes.

Additionally, 22 pavement cores and DCP tests were completed at select boring locations. Boring locations with pavement cores and DCP tests are indicated in the site plan figures with a DCP notation.

February 27, 2024| Page 7

■ Kelso-Cima Road—Thirty-nine (39) borings (B-45 through B-83) were completed along Kelso-Cima Road. The borings were completed at approximate ½-mile intervals, alternating between travel lanes. Additionally, 20 pavement cores and DCP tests were completed at select boring locations as shown in the site plan figures.

The borings extended to a depth of about 6 ½ feet below existing pavement grade and were drilled using a hollow-stem auger drill rig. The cores were completed using a stand mounted coring machine. Logs of the soil borings are provided in Appendix A.

Soil samples and pavement cores were obtained from the borings for visual classification and transported to GeoEngineers’ laboratory for testing as described below.

3.3.2. Laboratory Testing

We tested representative samples in our laboratory and submitted selected samples to subcontracted laboratories (Anatek Labs, Inc. in Spokane, Washington and ACS Testing, Inc., in Lake Oswego, Oregon) to classify the soils and to evaluate select engineering properties. Laboratory testing results are provided in Appendix B, with select information included in the boring logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. The test procedures were performed in general accordance with the applicable AASHTO or ASTM standard test procedures identified below (“general accordance” means that certain local and common descriptive practices and methodologies have been followed):

■ Classification of Soils (ASTM D 2488)

■ Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (AASHTO T 27/ASTM C 136)

■ Determining the Amount of Material Finer than No. 200 Sieve by Washing (AASHTO T 11/ASTM C

117-87, ASTM D 1140)

■ Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (AASHTO T 89 Method B, AASHTO T 90/ASTM D 4318)

■ Moisture-Density of Soil Cement Mixtures (ASTM D 558)

■ Compressive Strength of Molded Soil-Cement Cylinders (ASTM D 1633)

■ R-Value (AASHTO T 190)

■ Soil pH, Resistivity, Sulfates and Chlorides (EPA 9045 D, EPA 300.0, ASTM G 57a)

3.3.3. Existing Pavement Thickness and DCP Tests

Table 1 presents the thickness of the existing pavement sections at the locations of our borings and pavement cores. Photographs of the pavement cores and general site surface conditions are provided in Appendix C.

We completed the DCP tests at the boring locations where we note an estimated subgrade modulus in Table 1. Logs of the DCP tests are presented in Appendix A. The estimated resilient modulus (Mr) values presented in Table 1 and in Appendix A are based on the following equation presented in the September 2022, Caltrans Site Investigation Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of California Pavements:

February 27, 2024| Page 8 log(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀) = 1.884 − 0.730 ∗ log (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷)

Where:

Mr = resilient modulus (ksi)

DCP = Dynamic Cone Penetration Index (mm/blow)

The DCP logs show estimated Mr values as a function of depth below top of roadway at each test location.

The resilient modulus values presented in Table 1 represent the average Mr values of the subgrade soil.

Given the limited number of borings where we encountered base course, we do not provide an estimated base course Mr.

We completed 13 R-Value tests at the boring locations where we note a correlated R-Value, Mr in Table 1.

We correlated the R-values to resilient modulus using the following equation presented in the September 2022, Caltrans Site Investigation Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of California Pavements:

Mr = 1.12 + 0.55 ∗ 𝑅𝑅

Where:

Mr = resilient modulus (ksi)

R = R-Value

The R-value test results are included in Appendix B.

TABLE 1. EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION THICKNESS SUMMARY

Boring Lane

Existing

AC

Surfacing (inches)

Existing Aggregate

Base (inches) Subgrade Soil

DCP

Average

Subgrade Mr

(psi)1

R-Value, Mr

(psi)

Kelbaker Road

B-1 NB 3½ 8 Silty sand (SM) - -

B-2 SB 1¾ - Silty sand (SM) 21,800 -

B-3 NB 3¼ - Silty sand (SM) - -

B-4 SB 3 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 25,600 36,300

B-5 NB 2½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-6 SB 1¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 19,600 -

B-7 NB 2½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-8 SB 3¼ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 32,8003 -

B-9 SB 2¾ - Sand with silt and occ. gravel (SW-SM) - -

B-10 NB 3¼ - Silty sand (SM) 16,500 -

B-11 SB 1½ - Silty sand (SM) - -

B-12 NB 2½ - Silty sand (SM) 22,900 22,600

B-13 SB 6½ - Silty sand (SM) - -

February 27, 2024| Page 9

Boring Lane

Existing

AC

Surfacing (inches)

Existing Aggregate

Base (inches) Subgrade Soil

DCP

Average

Subgrade Mr

(psi)1

R-Value, Mr

(psi)

B-14 NB 6½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 17,900 -

B-15 SB 6¼ 5 Silty sand with gravel (SM) - -

B-16 NB 3 5 Silty sand with gravel and cobbles (SM/Weathered sandstone?)

24,900 18,700

B-17 NB 4 5 Sand with silt (SP-SM) - -

B-18 NB 2 4 Sand with silt (SP-SM) 16,500 -

B-19 SB 2¾ 3 Sand with silt and occ. gravel (SP) 21,200 -

B-20 NB 3¼ - Silty sand (SM) - 37,400

B-21 SB 3¼ - Silty sand (SM) 17,500 -

B-22 NB 2¾ - Silty sand (SM) - -

B-23 SB 3½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 22,000 -

B-24 NB 2¼ - Silty sand (SM) - -

B-25 SB 2¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 32,1002 -

B-26 NB 5¼ - Sand with silt (SP-SM) - -

B-27 SB 2½ - Silty sand with gravel (SM) 17,900 -

B-28 NB 3½ - Sand with silt, gravel and occ. cobbles

(SP-SM)

- 40,700

B-29 SB 3¾ - Silty sand with gravel (SM) - -

B-30 NB 2¾ - Silty sand with gravel and occ. cobbles

(SM)

26,900 -

B-31 SB 4 - Silty sand with gravel (SM) - -

B-32 NB 3½ - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) 30,2002 -

B-33 NB 4½ - Sand with silt and occ. gravel (SP-SM) - -

B-34 NB 2¾ - Sand with silt, gravel and occ. cobbles

(SP-SM)

38,9002 -

B-35 SB 3¾ - Sand with silt, gravel and cobbles

(SP-SM)

B-36 NB 3 - Sand with silt, gravel and cobbles

(SP-SM)

54,2002 -

B-37 SB 2½ - Sand with gravel (SP) - 45,700

B-38 NB 4 - Sand with silt, gravel and occ. cobbles

(SP-SM)

46,6002 -

B-39 SB 3¾ - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) 69,0002 -

B-40 NB 4¾ - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) - -

B-41 SB 5 - Sand with silt and occ. gravel (SP-SM) 33,6002 -

B-42 NB 4½ - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) - -

February 27, 2024| Page 10

Boring Lane

Existing

AC

Surfacing (inches)

Existing Aggregate

Base (inches) Subgrade Soil

DCP

Average

Subgrade Mr

(psi)1

R-Value, Mr

(psi)

B-43 SB 4¾ - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) 46,1002 -

B-44 NB 2¼ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - 44,000

Kelso-Cima Road

B-45 SB 3½ 6 Silty sand with gravel (SM) 32,5002 -

B-46 NB 4¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-47 SB 4 - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) 29,400 -

B-48 NB 6½ - Silty sand with gravel (SM) - -

B-49 SB 5 - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) - -

B-50 NB 3¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 26,300 -

B-51 SB 4¼ - Sand with silt and occ. gravel (SP-SM) - -

B-52 NB 3¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 20,000 42,900

B-53 SB 4¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-54 NB 4 - Silty sand with gravel (SM) 18,600 -

B-55 SB 5¼ - Silty sand with gravel (SM) - -

B-56 NB 3¾ - Sand with silt and gravel and occ.

cobbles (SP-SM)

37,1002 44,600

B-57 SB 4¼ - Silty sand with gravel and occ. cobbles

(SM)

B-58 NB 5½ 3 Sand with silt and gravel and occ.

cobbles (SP-SM)

25,800 -

B-59 SB 3 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 13,700 -

B-60 NB 4¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-61 SB 3¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 17,300 -

B-62 NB 2¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) -

B-63 SB 3¾ - Silty sand (SM) 19,400 -

B-64 NB 2¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - 38,000

B-65 SB 3 - Sand with silt and occ. gravel (SP-SM) 25,300 -

B-66 NB 3½ - Sand with silt and occ. gravel (SP-SM) - -

B-67 SB 2¼ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 31,8002 -

B-68 NB 3 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-69 SB 5 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-70 NB 3 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 23,600 -

B-71 SB 5½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-72 NB 4½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 52,4002 20,900

February 27, 2024| Page 11

Boring Lane

Existing

AC

Surfacing (inches)

Existing Aggregate

Base (inches) Subgrade Soil

DCP

Average

Subgrade Mr

(psi)1

R-Value, Mr

(psi)

B-73 SB 3¼ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) -

B-74 NB 4 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 15,800 -

B-75 SB 4 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-76 NB 2 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 15,000 -

B-77 SB 3¼ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - 22,000

B-78 NB 3½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 14,900 -

B-79 SB 4¼ - Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) 16,300 -

B-80 NB 3½ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-81 SB 4 - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) 16,600 16,000

B-82 NB 4¾ - Silty sand with occ. gravel (SM) - -

B-83 SB 3¾ - Silty sand with gravel (SM) 43,6002 -

Notes:

1 DCP test only conducted at locations where Mr is noted.

2 Not considered in average.

3.3.4. Subgrade Soil

In general, the soil encountered below the existing pavement in our explorations consisted of sand with variable silt and gravel content. The SPT N-values from the relatively shallow (2½- to 4-foot-depth interval) samples in our borings ranged from about 5 to 68 blows per foot. In isolated areas, where sandstone subgrade was encountered, the SPT N-values were typically over 50 blows per foot. We also encountered sand and gravel fill, however, the fill type was generally similar to native soils we encountered. Logs of soil borings are included in Appendix A.5

Table 1 above provides estimated subgrade modulus at the time of testing. After removal of higher “outlier” values, the average resilient modulus value is approximately 20,000 psi. This value was about the same for both Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road, except between B-34 and B-43, along Kelbaker Road, where the modulus tended to be higher. Based on anticipated precipitation and temperatures in the area, we assumed that the seasonal modulus would range from about 70 to 80 percent of this value. Using procedures outlined in Section 2.3.1 of the AASHTO 1993 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, we estimate an average seasonally corrected subgrade resilient modulus of about 16,000 psi.

Based on the results of our recent explorations, we characterized the existing subgrade soil as having generally moderate strength, low compressibility, moderate to high permeability and low to moderate moisture sensitivity.

3.3.5. Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. We do not anticipate that regional groundwater will impact the project; however, depending on precipitation conditions, wet soil and areas of minor perched groundwater could be present.

February 27, 2024| Page 12

3.3.6. Climate

We obtained climate data from the Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) station No. 138334, located roughly 2 miles southeast of the intersection of Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road. The weather station elevation is listed as 2,361.6 feet. The weather station provides hourly climate data from January 1, 1985, to December 31, 2022. The data is summarized in Table 2 below. The project ranges in elevation from roughly 2,100 feet to 4,200 feet. For these years, the average precipitation was approximately 9.4 inches, ranging between about 2.8 and 16.1 inches per year.

TABLE 2. CLIMATE SUMMARY

Month

Average Temperature

(oF)

Max Temperature

(oF)

Min Temperature

(oF) Average High (oF)

Average Low (oF)

Average Precipitation

(in)

January 44 78 21 56.6 34.6 1.71

February 47 83 17 59.6 36.3 1.82

March 53 87 24 66.5 40.6 0.94

April 60 94 29 74.2 45.9 0.45

May 69 104 35 83.0 53.7 0.22

June 79 111 42 94.1 63.2 0.10

July 85 111 52 98.0 70.9 0.86

August 84 110 53 96.4 70.7 0.54

September 76 110 42 89.7 63.8 0.45

October 65 98 29 78.2 53.0 0.39

November 52 85 23 65.3 41.6 0.54

December 43 75 10 55.6 34.0 1.39

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Pavement Design

4.1.1. Pavement Alternatives

Based on our observations during the pavement survey, the results of the exploration program, and our collaboration with the design team, three alternatives were identified for consideration during pavement design:

■ Alternative 1: Full-depth Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP) Reconstruction. This option consists of a full reconstruction of the pavement section using plant-mix ACP and base course. Removal of unsuitable subgrade soils is also included.

■ Alternative 2: Full-depth Reclamation with Cement. This alternative includes full-depth reclamation rehabilitation using cement as an additive to stabilize and strengthen the reclaimed layers. The process would include pulverizing the existing ACP and a portion of the existing subgrade (or base as applicable), and then mixing cement into and compacting the pulverized existing surface, followed by placing a new plant-mix ACP overlay.

February 27, 2024| Page 13

■ Alternative 3: Full-depth Reclamation without Cement. This alternative includes full-depth reclamation rehabilitation but without mixing cement into the reclaimed layer. The process would include pulverizing the existing ACP and a portion of the existing subgrade (or base as applicable), compacting the pulverized existing surface, followed by placing a new plant-mix ACP overlay.

In our opinion, based on the limited thickness and relatively poor condition of the existing pavement, mill and inlay or overlay is not a suitable alternative.

4.1.2. Analysis Methods

We completed pavement design using procedures outlined in the AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Guide (AASHTO 93). As discussed in Section 3.3 of this report, we used the DCP data from our explorations to estimate a typical design resilient modulus of 16,000 psi for the existing subgrade soil.

The other input parameters used in the AASHTO 93 method were selected based on guidelines in the March 2008, FHWA Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) and our experience with other similar projects. A summary of the input parameters is presented in Table 3.

The design lane ESAL estimates provided in Table 3 are based on traffic counts provided by the NPS statistics website (USDOI NPS, 2023). Traffic counts are available for Kelbaker Road northbound and Kelbaker Road southbound, but not Kelso-Cima Road. For Kelbaker Road, we summed the northbound and southbound traffic for each of the available years (1997 to 2023). Using this data, we estimated a compound growth rate of about 2.3 percent and a direction lane distribution of about 60 percent. Projecting the average annual daily traffic (AADT) to 2024, we estimate AADT at Kelbaker Road is about 514 vehicles per day. AADT was converted to ESALS using truck factors in accordance with Exhibit 11.2-A of the PDDM.

Vehicle class information was not available, so we assumed 95 percent Class 1 through 3 vehicles, 3 percent Class 5 trucks, 1 percent Class 6 trucks, and 1 percent Class 9 trucks. We understand Kelso-Cima Road is part of the main route through the Preserve, so we used the same traffic as Kelbaker Road for Kelso-Cima Road pavement design calculations.

TABLE 3. AASHTO 93 PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUT PARAMETERS

Parameter Value

Design Lane ESALs (PDDM 11.2.1.2) Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road 176,000 – Reconstruction (25-year design life) 132,000 – Rehabilitation (20-year design life)

Design Life (PDDM 11.2.1.2) (Increase Structural Capacity)

25 years - Reconstruction 20 years - Rehabilitation

Direction Distribution (PDDM 11.2.1.1) 60%

Growth Rate (PDDM 11.2.1.1) 2.3% Volume, 0% Loads

Initial Serviceability Index (Pi) (PDDM 11.2.1.1) 4.2

Terminal Serviceability Index (Pt) (PDDM 11.2.1.1) 2.5 – (ADT 500 to 5,000)

Reliability (PDDM 11.2.2) (ADT less than 2,500)

75%

Overall Deviation (So) (PDDM 11.2.2) 0.49

February 27, 2024| Page 14

Parameter Value

ACP Surfacing Structural Coefficient (a1) New - 0.44

Base Structural Coefficient (a2) (PDDM Exhibit 11.2-C)

New Crushed Aggregate – 0.12 FDR With Cement Stabilization – 0.18 FDR Without Cement Stabilization – 0.12

Base Resilient Modulus New Aggregate - 30,000 psi FDR with Cement Stabilization – 100,000 psi FDR without Cement Stabilization – 30,000 psi

Drainage Coefficients (m) 1.0

Subgrade Resilient Modulus (Mr) (Section 3.3 of this report)

16,000 psi

Notes:

FDR=Full-depth Reclamation

4.1.3. Recommended Pavement Rehabilitation Treatment

Results of our pavement analysis and pavement section thicknesses for each alternative are presented in Table 4. Calculations for the flexible pavement analysis are provided in Appendix D. Given the relatively low anticipated traffic volumes for both roads, the calculated pavement sections were generally the same for both roads.

Our recommended alternative for each roadway segment is described below:

■ Alternative 3 for Kelbaker Road

■ Alternative 3 for Kelso-Cima Road

TABLE 4. PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN THICKNESS

Alternative Roadway

ACP

Surfacing 1 (inches)

Base 1 (inches) Notes

Alternative 1: Full Pavement Reconstruct with ACP and Base

Kelbaker Road 3½ 42 --

Kelso-Cima Road 3½ 42 --

Alternative 2: Full-depth Reclamation with Cement

Kelbaker Road 33 64 Base consists of cement mixed with existing pulverized AC and subgrade to depth of 6 inches.

Augment and reshape, as necessary. 6

Kelso-Cima Road 33 64

Alternative 3: Full-depth Reclamation without Cement

Kelbaker Road 35 64 Base consists of existing pulverized AC and subgrade mixed to depth of 6 inches. Augment and reshape, as necessary. 6, 7

Kelso-Cima Road

35 64

Notes:

1 See Section 4.2 of this report for additional material recommendations.

2 Minimum base layer thickness recommended in PDDM is 4 inches. ACP surfacing thickness calculated using the AASHTO 93 top-down method, with the minimum ACP thickness governed by the Mr of the base layer. Actual structural number (SN) exceeds the

February 27, 2024| Page 15 required design SN.

3 Results indicate 2-inches of ACP satisfy the required design SN but based on discussions with FHWA, a minimum 3-inch ACP surfacing layer is preferred for constructability and performance.

4 Minimum FDR thickness in the FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14) is 6 inches. Actual structural number (SN) exceeds the required design SN.

5 ACP surfacing thickness calculated using the AASHTO 93 top-down method, with the minimum ACP thickness governed by the Mr of the base layer. Actual structural number (SN) exceeds the required design SN.

6 All existing AC should be pulverized. Deeper pulverization may be required in areas where the existing AC thickness is greater than the mill depth.

7 Recommended alternatives are in bold.

4.1.4. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

We used FHWA’s pavement design life-cycle cost analysis software RealCost (V 3.0) to perform a limited Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for the three alternatives described previously. We relied on recommendations from the RealCost user’s manual as well as the “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Procedures Manual for RealCost Version 2.5CA” developed by the State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) to select input parameters. Our initial evaluation is intended to only provide a rough approximation of the LCCA differences between the pavement alternatives and considers major components of the construction but does not incorporate all potential project costs. Because section thicknesses provided in Table 4 are the same for Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road, we used the same values in our analysis.

RealCost allows for two approaches to conduct the LCCA: (1) deterministic and (2) probabilistic methods.

The methods differ in the way they address the variability and uncertainty associated with LCCA input parameters. A deterministic approach assigns fixed input variables based on the value most likely to occur for each input parameter. We completed a deterministic LCCA. The results are summarized in Table 5.

These estimates are normalized to a per-mile basis. Given the limited traffic at the Preserve, we did not consider user costs in the analysis, though we anticipate either Alternative 2 or 3 should have a faster construction schedule and less impact to the traveling public. Details for each input parameter are discussed in the sections below.

Based on the results of our limited LCCA we recommend Alternative 3 for both roads.

TABLE 5. DETERMINISTIC REALCOST LCCA SUMMARY

Pavement Alternative Initial Cost

Total 40-Year Life-Cycle

Cost EUAC

Total Net Present Value at 4 Percent

Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road

Alternative 1: Full Pavement Reconstruct with ACP and Base $2,085,410 $3,081,220 $127,030 $2,514,330

Alternative 2: Full-depth Reclamation with Cement $1,543,160 $2,870,910 $108,580 $2,149,130

Alternative 3: Full-depth Reclamation without Cement $1,427,040 $2,754,790 $102,710 $2,033,010

Notes:

Costs normalized to a per-mile basis.

Agency costs used in the LCCA are based on the unit rates summarized in Table 6 below. The LCCA costs are for comparison purposes only.

February 27, 2024| Page 16

Agency Construction Costs

For our evaluation, we used the estimated agency costs summarized in Table 6 below. These costs are based on our experience with similar projects. Material quantities have been normalized to a per-mile basis.

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF ASSUMED AGENCY COSTS

Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road—Alternative 1: Full Pavement Reconstruct with ACP and Base

ACP 2,743 ton $190/ton $521,170

ACP Haul 250 miles $1.50/ton mile $1,028,625

Aggregate Base Course 2,985 ton $20/ton $59,700

Base Haul 100 miles $1.50/ton mile $447,750

Sealcoat 14,080 yd2 $2/yd2 $28,160

3” ACP Overlay at year 25 2,350 ton $190/ton $446,500

Haul for Overlay 250 miles $1.50/ton mile $881,250

Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road—Alternative 2: Full-depth Reclamation with Cement

ACP 2,350 ton $190/ton $446,500

ACP Haul 250 miles $1.50/ton mile $881,250

FDR with Cement 14,225 yd2

(120 tons cement) $10/yd2 $142,250

Haul for Cement3 250 miles $1.50/ton mile $45,000

Sealcoat 14,080 yd2 $2/yd2 $28,160

3” ACP Overlay at year 20 2,350 ton $190/ton $446,500

Haul for Overlay 250 miles $1.50/ton mile $881,250

Kelbaker Road and Kelso-Cima Road—Alternative 3: Full-depth Reclamation without Cement

ACP 2,350 ton $190/ton $446,500

ACP Haul 250 miles $1.50/ton mile $881,250

FDR without Cement 14,225 yd2 $5/yd2 $71,125

Sealcoat 14,080 yd2 $2/yd2 $28,160

3” ACP Overlay at year 20 2,350 ton $190/ton $446,500

Haul for Overlay 250 miles $1.50/ton mile $881,250

Notes:

1 The LCCA costs are for comparison purposes only.

2 The LCCA does not include all costs that are common to each alternative.

3 Assuming 3 percent application rate by weight, 6-inch depth, and 125 pcf unit weight of ACP plus subgrade soil.

Analysis Period

We selected an analysis period of 40 years for the LCCA based on a 20-year design life for the rehabilitated pavement, plus an assumed overlay at year 20, adding an additional 20 years to the design life.

February 27, 2024| Page 17

Discount Rate

We used a discount rate of 4 percent in our analysis based on recommendations in the 2013 CALTRANS manual and the RealCost user’s manual.

Maintenance and Rehabilitation

We assumed maintenance costs for the initial design period would be similar between all of the alternatives and did not include these costs in our analysis. We assumed a 3-inch ACP overlay at year 25 for the reconstruction alterative and year 20 for the rehabilitation alternatives.

Remaining Service Life Value

No residual salvage value was included in our LCCA, though the reconstruction alternative includes 5 years of remaining serviceable life.

4.2. Materials

We anticipate material placement and specifications will be in accordance with the FHWA Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-14), FP-14. We anticipated ACP will be from a mixing plant in Las Vegas, Nevada, roughly 125 miles from the site.

4.2.1. FDR Cement Treated Base Mix Design

We completed testing to estimate the percentage of cement for Alternative 2, FRD with cement. However, we understand that cement treatment is not the preferred Alternative and therefore, we did not provide an estimated cement content. The lab results are presented in Appendix B.

4.2.2. Asphalt Binder

We recommend ACP for this project consist of performance grade (PG) 70-10. The design traffic volumes are estimated to be less than 3 million ESALs. Output from the LTTPBind version 3.1 computer application is included in Appendix B. PG binder grade was determined based on LTPP Bind criteria and weather data from the Mitchel Cavern weather station (CA5721). Additionally, we understand this binder grade is used by Caltrans.

4.2.3. Pavement Roughness

We recommend that pavement roughness be evaluated as Type III-A in accordance with FP-14 Section 401.16(d) and Table 301-5 for both roadways.

4.2.4. Bid Items

Suggested FP-14 pay items for the proposed structural section are shown in Table 7.

February 27, 2024| Page 18

TABLE 7. RECOMMENDED PAY ITEMS

Item Number Item Description Unit

30101-0000 Aggregate Base Course Ton

30401-5300 Full Depth Reclamation, Method 2, 6-Inch Depth Mile

40101-0600 Asphalt Concrete Pavement, Gyratory Mix, ½-Inch Nominal Maximum Size Aggregate, 0.3 To <3 Million ESAL Ton

40105-3000 Antistrip Additive, Type 3 Ton

40601-0000 Fog Seal Ton

41102-1000 Prime Coat, Method 1 Square Yard

41105-0000 Blotter Ton

41201-0000 Tack Coat Ton

4.2.5. Prime and Tack Coats, Fog Seal and Blotter

We recommend a prime coat and blotter be applied to the base prior to asphalt placement and a fog seal be applied to the final pavement surface. Additionally, a tack coat should be applied between asphalt lifts if multiple lifts are used.

4.3. General Considerations

4.3.1. Paving

ACP should not be placed on wet, soft, muddy, or frozen subgrade or during rainfall, sand or dust storms or before imminent storms that might damage the construction. The engineer should have the discretion as to whether the surface and materials are dry enough to proceed with construction. We recommend the placement of ACP should follow FP-14 Section 401.

4.3.2. Construction Considerations

The native surficial soils are somewhat moisture sensitive along most of the alignment. Accordingly, we recommend earthwork activities do not take place during periods of heavy precipitation and subgrades that are prepared before inclement weather should be re-inspected to identify areas requiring repair. Any such areas are to be repaired at the direction of the geotechnical engineer.

Additionally, we encountered cobbles in several of our borings within about a foot of the pavement surface.

In our experience, cobbles and boulders within the zone of planned pulverization can create difficulties for the FDR contractor. We recommend that contingency plans be incorporated into the contract documents to handle processing of oversized material, such as overexcavation and replacement with Aggregate Base Course where cobbles and boulders are encountered within the zone of pulverization, or to allow fill to be imported and placed on top of the existing pavement prior to milling to reduce the likelihood of encountering cobbles.

February 27, 2024| Page 19

4.4. Drainage Considerations

All paved areas should be graded so surface drainage is directed to appropriate drainage features. Proper drainage reduces the potential for fatigue failure of the asphalt surface because of a saturated subgrade and road section.

4.5. Corrosion Considerations

Representative soil samples were collected in areas distributed throughout the project site for resistivity and pH testing. This testing was performed by Anatek Labs, Inc. in Spokane, Washington. The laboratory results for pH, resistivity, soluble sulfates and chloride testing are presented in Table 8. We recommend non-metallic pipe, bituminous-coated aluminum pipe or bituminous-coated aluminized steel pipe be used when:

■ Soil pH is less than 5 or greater than 10; or

■ Soil resistivity is less than 1,000 ohm-cm and the pH is greater than 5.

We recommend the drainage engineer evaluate and select appropriate pipe materials for corrosion protection based on the laboratory test results presented below.

TABLE 8. ANALYTICAL TEST RESULTS SUMMARY

Exploration Sample Depth (feet)

Soil Classification pH Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)

B-9 2½ – 4 Sand with silt (SP-SM) 8.0 7,950 12.4 2.6

B-32 5 – 6½ Sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) 8.8 16,500 9.8 5.4

B-55 5 – 6 Silty sand with gravel (SM) 8.9 2,980 71.4 122

B-67 2½ – 4 Sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM) 8.5 4,660 22.7 4.8

B-80 5 – 6½ Silty sand (SM) 9.1 2,210 96.1 18.9

5.0 LIMITATIONS

We have prepared this report for HDR, Inc. (HDR) for the CFL NP MOJA Pavement Design Project in San Bernardino County, California. HDR may distribute copies of this report to Department of Transportation— Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and CFLHD’s authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.

Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments should be considered a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record.

February 27, 2024| Page 20

Please refer to Appendix C, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use, for additional information pertaining to use of this report.

6.0 REFERENCES

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

Caltrans. 2022. Site Investigation Guide for Mechanistic -Empirical Design of California Pavement.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-13-092.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP). Version

3.1 Beta.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). LTPP InfoPave: Tools. MERRA Climate Data for MEPDG Inputs, available online at https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Data/MEPDGInputsFromMERRAMap#.

Accessed January 2024.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2023. National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. Traffic Counts by Location. Available at https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Data/MEPDGInputsFromMERRAMap https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park

FIGURES

P :\2

\2

\G

IS

\2

_P ro je ct

\2

_P ro je ct

.a pr x\

4_ P ro je ct

D at e E xp or te d:

9/

/2 b y cc ab re ra

Vicinity and Geology Map

CFL CA NP MOJA Pavement Design San Bernardino County, California

Figure 1

Ke ls o Ci m a

R d

4926 ft

MARL

MOUNTA INS

K el s o

Wa sh

WILDCATE

BUTTE

M o rn in g S ta r

M in e R d

Rainbow Wells

Cima

Chase

K e ls o W as h

GLOBE CANYON

K el so Cim a R d

Hayden

Elora

5648 ft

D E V

IL

' S

P L A Y G R O U N DKelso

Kelso Wash

COLUMB IA

MOUNTA IN

PROV IDENCE

MOUNTA INS

Qia+Qya

Qha/fp

Qmc

Qhs/ca

Qha/ca

Qha/mr QyadQia

Qyae+Qaa Qaw+Qyw

Qyw+Qye Qyae

Qyay Qyao

Qye+Qae

QToa

Qoa

Qya/Qia

Qya+Qaa

Qoa Qoa+Qya

QyaQiaoQaed+Qyed Qya+Qye

QToa

Qha/fv Qyed Qha/fv

Qia

Qyae+Qaa Qha/caQToa

Qha/mp

Qymc

Qia+QyaQha/fp Qia

Qaa

Qha/pcQyad

Qhs/ca

Qoa Qya+Qia

Qha/fv

Qyw+Qye

Qia

Qya+Qaa

Qha/ca Qya+Qaa

Qha/fpg

Qya Qyae

Qia+QyaQiag Qha/sl

Qha/mp

Qyag+Qaag

Qiag+Qyag

Qyag+Qiag

Qyw

Qya+Qia QoaQia+Qoa

Qaa+Qya

Qoag Qha/fpQha/fp

Qia

Qiag

Qaag+Qyag

Qya/Qia

Qya

Qyag/Qiag

Qha/mr

Qya/fpg Qyag

Qpv-fpg

Qpi-fpg

Qha/mr

Qha/mr

Qha/fpg

Qyag+Qiag

Qiag

Qyag+Qaag

Qyag+Qiag

Qiag+Qyag

Qpi-fpg Qoag

Qha/mp

Qia

Qha/fpg

Qyw

Qya+Qia

Qyag+Qaag

Qha/pc

Qyag/Qiag

Qoa

Qha/fpg

Qha/ca Qha/fpg

Qha/mr

Qyag

Qiag Qaag+Qyag

Qyag+Qiag

Qaw+Qyw

Qya+Qaa

Qiag+Qyag Qaa+Qya

Qyag

Qpi-fv Qia/QoaQyag+Qaag

Qoa Qia

Qpd-mr

Qha/pc

Qya

Qha/mv

Qpi-fpg

Qha/mr

Qha/fpg

Qpv-fpg

Qha/pc

Qyag+Qiag

Qmv

Qyag

Qha/fpg

Qia+Qya

Qyag

Qiag

Qpv-fpg

Qyag+Qiag

Qpi-fpg

Qaw+Qyw

Qiag+Qyag Qyw+Qaw

Figure 18

Figure 17

Figure 16

Figure 15

Figure 14

Figure 13

Figure 12

Figure 11

Figure

K el ba ke r R d Ke lb ak er R d

3097 ft

2770 ft

K e ls o W as h

DE V IL ' S P LAYGROUND

Flynn

5862 ft

3801 ft

B IGHORN

BAS IN

WIL LOW

SPR ING

BAS IN

SHEEP

CORRAL

GRAN ITE

MOUNTA IN

BU

LL

C A N Y O N

3859 ft

Needles Fwy BROWN

BUTTES

Saltus

EDGAR

PEAK

FOUNTA IN

PEAK

WINSTON

BAS IN

FOSHAY

PASS

D E V

IL

' S

P L A Y G R O U N D

K e lb a k e r R d

6598 ft

Qua il Spring Wash

GRAN ITE

COVE

H IDDEN

H IL L

HORSE

H IL LS

QUA IL

SPR ING

BAS IN

VAN WINKLE

MOUNTA IN

K elbaker

R d

Needles Fwy

M IDDLE

H IL LS

Qhs/ca Qha/ca

Qha/mrQyad

Qyae+QaaQaw+Qyw Qyw+Qye

Qyae+Qia

Qyae Qia

Qyay Qyao

Qye+Qae

Qya+Qaa

Qiao Qaed+QyedQya+Qye

Qye/Qyvo

Qyed

Qyed+Qaed

Qaw+Qyw

Qha/fv

Qia

Qoa Qye/Qyao

Qaed+Qyed

Qoa?QToa

Qya

Qye Qyao+Qya

Qyag+Qye

Qie

Qye/Qiag

Qyea

Qiag+Qyae

Qiag

QiaQye/Qyag

Qiag+QyagQha/pc

Qyao

Qyad

Qya+Qaa

Qoa

QToaQie+Qya

Qya

Qhs/fp Qya

Qha/mp

Qyw

Qha/mp?

Qyag+Qiag

Qha/mp

Qhs/fpg Qyag/Qiag

Qha/fp

Qia+Qya Qya+Qaa

Qha/mr

Qha/fpg

Qiao

Qia?

Qyag

Qha/ca

Qia+Qoa

Qpd-fpg Qoa

Qyag+Qaag Qhs/fpg

Qya

Qyag+Qiag

Qiag/fpg

Qaag

Qiag

Qha/fv

Qya/Qia

Qoag

Qpv-fpgQhs/fpg

Qpd-fpg Qpi-fpg

Qiag

Qia+Qya

Qia

Qha/fp

Qyag Qha/mv

Qyag/Qoa

Qha/fp?

ml Qya/Qoa

Qha/pc

Qiag+Qyag Qya

Qia

Qya+Qia Qyag/Qiag

Qha/fv Qia

Qiao+Qoa

Qyag+Qiag Qyw+Qaw

Qyag

Qiao

Qya+Qaa

Qyag

Qya+Qia

Qha/fp

Qaag+Qyag

Qha/fpg

Qawg+Qywg

Qywg+Qawg

Qya+Qyao

Qyay+Qaa

Qyay

Qyae+QaaQyae+Qiae Qya+QaaQia QToaQiaQyad

Qyae

Qaa Qha/mrQoa QyaQya+QiaQia+Qya Qya Qha/caQyw+Qye QyaeQaw+Qyw

Figure 11

Figure 10

Figure 9

Figure 8

Figure 7

Figure 6

Figure 5

Figure 4

Figure 3

California

Legend Kelbaker Road Kelso-Cima Road Site Plan Extents

Data Source: Geologic Map data from USGS, https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3206/ and https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3109/.

Kel so

-C im a Rd

Ke ls o- Ci m a

R d

1,00001,000Feet

Legend Surficial Geologic Units of the Amboy 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle

QToa: Extremely old alluvial fan deposit

Qaag: Active alluvial deposit composed of grus

Qaag+Qyag: Active alluvial deposit composed of grus+Young alluvial fan deposit composed of grus

Qaed+Qyed: Active eolian sand dune deposit+Young eolian sand dune deposit

Qaw+Qyw: Active wash deposi+Young wash deposit

Qawg+Qywg: Active wash deposit composed of grus +Young wash deposit composed of grus

Qha/ca: Abundant hillslope deposits/Carbonate rocks

Qha/fp: Abundant hillslope deposits/Felsic plutonic rocks

Qha/fp?: Abundant hillslope deposits/Felsic plutonic rocks

Qha/fpg: Abundant hillslope deposits/Felsic plutonic rocks that weather to grus

Qha/fv: Abundant hillslope deposits/Felsic volcanic rocks

Qha/mp: Abundant hillslope deposits/Mafic plutonic rocks

Qha/mp?: Abundant hillslope deposits/Mafic plutonic rocks

Qha/mr: Abundant hillslope deposits/Metamorphic rocks

Qha/mv: Abundant hillslope deposits/Mafic volcanic rocks

Qha/mv?: Abundant hillslope deposits/Mafic volcanic rocks

Qha/pc: Abundant hillslope deposits/Partly consolidated deposits and rocks

Qhs/ca: Sparse hillslope deposits/Carbonate rocks

Qhs/fp: Sparse hillslope deposits/Felsic plutonic rocks

Qhs/fpg: Sparse hillslope deposits/Felsic plutonic rocks that weather to produce grus

Qia: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit

Qia+Qaa: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit/Active alluvial fan deposit

Qia+Qoa: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit+Old alluvial fan deposit

Qia+Qya: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit+Young alluvial fan deposit +Young alluvial fan deposit

Qia/fp: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit/Felsic plutonic rocks

Qia/pc: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit/Partly consolidated deposits and rocks

Qia?: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit

Qiag: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit composed of grus

Qiag+Qyae: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit composed of grus+Young mixed alluvial and eolian sand deposit

Qiag+Qyag: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit composed of grus+Young alluvial fan deposit composed of grus

Qiag/fpg: Intermediate alluvial fan deposit composed of grus/Felsic plutonic rocks that weather to produce grus

Qiao: Older intermediate alluvial fan deposit

Qiao+Qoa: Older intermediate alluvial fan deposit+Old alluvial fan deposit

Qie: Intermediate eolian sand deposit

Qie+Qya: Intermediate eolian sand deposit+Young alluvial fan deposit

Qmc: Mass-movement colluvial deposits, undivided

Qoa: Old alluvial fan deposit

Qoa+Qya: : Old alluvial fan deposit +Young alluvial fan deposit

Qoa/mr: Old alluvial fan deposit /Metamorphic rocks

Qoa?: Old alluvial fan deposit

Qoag: Old alluvial fan deposit composed of grus

Qoag/fv: Old alluvial fan deposit composed of grus/Felsic volcanic rocks

Qpd-fpg: Deeply dissected pediment-Felsic plutonic rocks that weather to produce grus

Qpi-fpg: Incised pediment-Felsic plutonic rocks that weather to produce grus

Qpv-fpg: Veneered pediment-Felsic plutonic rocks that weather to produce grus

Qya: Young alluvial fan deposit

Qya+Qaa: Young alluvial fan deposit

Qya+Qia: Young alluvial fan deposit+Intermediate alluvial fan deposit

Qya+Qoa: Young alluvial fan deposit+Old alluvial fan deposit

Qya+Qyao: Young alluvial fan deposit+Older young alluvial fan deposit

Qya+Qye: Young alluvial fan deposit+Young eolian sand deposit

Qya/Qia:Young alluvial fan deposit+Intermediate alluvial fan deposit

Qyad: Young alluvial fan composed of debris-flow deposits

Qyae: Young mixed alluvial and eolian sand deposit

Qyae+Qaa: Young mixed alluvial and eolian sand deposit+Active alluvial fan deposit

Qyae+Qia: Young mixed alluvial and eolian sand deposit+Intermediate alluvial fan deposit

Qyag: Young alluvial fan deposit composed of grus

Qyag+Qaag: Young alluvial fan deposit composed of grus+Active alluvial deposit composed of grus

Qyag+Qiag: Young alluvial fan deposit composed of grus+Intermediate alluvial fan deposit composed of grus

Qyag+Qye: Young alluvial fan deposit composed of grus+Young eolian sand deposit

Qyag/Qia: Young alluvial fan deposit composed of grus/Intermediate alluvial fan deposit

Qyag/Qoa:Yo…