KS FLAP KIN 50(1) 100 Final Pavement Report rev.pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Ste. 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson 1321 Bannock St., Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204

(303)825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

KS FLAP KIN 50(1) Cheney Reservoir Access

KINGMAN COUNTY, KANSAS

June 2022 Shannon & Wilson No: 105834-001

KS FLAP KIN 50(1) Cheney Reservoir Access Pavement Design Report

105834-001 June 2022 ii

CO

NT

EN

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Project and Site Description

3 Subsurface Investigation

4 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

5 Existing Pavements

5.1 Pavement Assessment

5.2 Pavement Cores

6 Subsurface Conditions

6.1 Pavement Subgrade

6.2 Groundwater

7 Pavement Design Recommendations

7.1 Design Methodology

7.2 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

7.3 Design Subgrade R-value

7.4 Traffic Loading

7.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

8 Additional Considerations

8.1 Expansive Subgrade Potential

8.2 PDDM Subexcavation Requirements

8.3 Frost Damage

8.4 Corrosion Testing

9 Construction and Material Specifications

9.1 Site Preparation

9.2 Earthwork

9.2.1 General

9.2.2 Subgrade Preparation and Fill Placement

9.2.3 Proof-Rolling

9.3 Paving Materials

10 Closure

11 References

105834-001 June 2022 iii

CO

NT

EN

TS

Exhibits Exhibit 5-1: Pavement Assessment Exhibit 5-2: Typical Pavement Distress Photographs Exhibit 5-3: Summary of Existing Pavement Sections Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Pavement Sections Exhibit 8-1: Summary of Subgrade Index Testing Exhibit 9-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

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

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

105834-001 June 2022

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and presents pavement design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed improvements to NE 50 Street as part of the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) project KS FLAP KIN 60(1) Cheney Reservoir Access (the Project) located in Kingman County, Kansas, south of Cheney Reservoir. Our scope of services was specified in Task Order 025/1000100061617 of Contract Number 100010021240 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) dated May 27, 2021. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

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

Our understanding of the Project and information provided by HDR;

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

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

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

2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located in Kingman County, Kansas, approximately 20 miles west of Wichita, Kansas (Figure 1). The proposed improvements consist of a 2.1-mile segment of NE 50 Street (RS 607) located between NE 150 Avenue and NE 170 Avenue (located at the eastern extent of Kingman County). NE 50 Street provides access around the southern extent of Cheney Reservoir and serves at the primary access route from Cheney State Park and the Cheney State Park Marina Campground. The alignment of the eastern-most 1-mile segment of NE 50 Street is located directly south of the Cheney Reservoir Dam. NE 50 Street is an approximately 25-foot wide two-lane (a single eastbound and westbound lane) road paved with asphalt concrete pavement (ACP). We understand that the proposed improvements include rehabilitation or reconstruction of the existing road. Based on discussions with HDR and CFLHD, we understand that the preference is to reconstruct the road with full depth reclamation (FDR) and the proposed roadway reconstruction can accommodate a

105834-001 June 2022 pavement grade raise. Based on discussions with HDR, we understand NE 50 Street will generally maintain the existing paved roadway footprint with portions of the alignment to be widened up to 2 feet.

3 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

Shannon & Wilson conducted a field exploration program on July 15, 2021, to explore subsurface conditions along the proposed roadway alignment. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling five borings along NE 50 Street designated as borings SW-01 through SW-05. Refer to Figure 2 for the approximate boring locations. The borings were advanced to an approximate depth of 5.5 feet below the existing roadway grade.

Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used to complete the borings. Appendix A also presents the individual exploration logs and an explanation of the symbols and terminology used.

4 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

We completed geotechnical laboratory tests on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. The index tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. The engineering property tests included corrosion and Hveem stabilometer (R-value). The laboratory test results as well as a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.

5 EXISTING PAVEMENTS

5.1 Pavement Assessment

To evaluate the condition of the existing roadway pavement for potential rehabilitation options, we performed a pavement survey on July 14, 2021 to assess the overall pavement condition and to identify areas of distress and typical crack patterns using the Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Project, (FHWA, revised 2014).

105834-001 June 2022

Exhibit 5-1 summarizes our pavement assessment and Exhibit 5-2 provide typical pavement condition photographs observed along the roadway. Generally, the observed transverse, longitudinal, and fatigue cracking was of low to moderate severity. Asphalt patches were common throughout the existing roadway and were generally considered to be of low to moderate severity. In our opinion, the general pavement condition was fair to poor.

Exhibit 5-1: Pavement Assessment

Roadway Range Approximate Paving

Area Effected Notes

NE 150th to SW-01 15-25% Moderate severity and extent fatigue cracking.

Low severity transverse cracking.

Low severity asphalt patches.

SW-01 to SW-02 15-25% Low to moderate severity fatigue cracking.

Low to moderate severity transverse cracking.

Low to moderate severity asphalt patches.

SW-02 to SW-03 15-25% Moderate severity fatigue cracking.

Moderate to high severity longitudinal and transverse cracking.

Low to moderate severity asphalt patches.

SW-03 to SW-04 15-25% Moderate severity fatigue cracking.

Moderate to high severity longitudinal cracking.

Moderate severity transverse cracking.

Low to moderate severity asphalt patches.

SW-04 to NE 170th 10-20% Moderate severity fatigue cracking.

Low severity longitudinal cracking.

Low to moderate severity transverse cracking.

Low to moderate severity asphalt patches.

Exhibit 5-2: Typical Pavement Distress Photographs

Left – Low to moderate severity fatigue cracking. Right – Typical roadway distress photograph, low severity transverse and longitudinal cracking severity, and low severity patch deterioration.

105834-001 June 2022

5.2 Pavement Cores

Cores of the existing pavement were taken at each boring location. Existing asphalt thicknesses are summarized in Exhibit 5-3, and photographs of the pavement cores are provided in Appendix A. The observed pavements consisted of full depth ACP (paved directly on the subgrade) of varying thicknesses along NE 50 Street. We did note stripping and numerous delaminations from the cores.

Exhibit 5-3: Summary of Existing Pavement Sections

Boring Lane Existing Pavement Section Notes

SW-01 EB 5-1/2 in. Full Depth ACP Stripping observed from 2.5 to 5.5 in

SW-02 WB 6 in. Full Depth ACP

SW-03 EB 9 in. Full Depth ACP Delaminations at 1.5, 3.5, & 6.5 in; Stripping from 0 to 9 in.;

Completely Stripped ACP 3.5 to 6.5 in.

SW-04 WB 5 in. Full Depth ACP Delaminations at 1 & 2 in.; Stripping from 0 to 3 in.

SW-05 EB 8 in. Full Depth ACP Delaminations at 1 & 3.5 in.; Stripping 0 to 8 in.

NOTE:

ACP = Asphalt Concrete Pavement; EB = Eastbound; in. = inches; WB = Westbound

6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Pavement Subgrade

Individual boring logs of our exploration locations are presented in Appendix A. The subgrade along the NE 50 Street varied. Observed subsurface conditions in borings SW-03 and SW-04 consisted of medium stiff to very stiff, fat clay with sand (Association of State Highway Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A-7-6) and stiff, sandy lean clay (AASHTO A-6 soil), respectively. All other borings encountered loose to medium dense, clayey sand and silty, clayey sand (AAASHTO A-2-6, A-4, and A-6 soils).

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

105834-001 June 2022

6.2 Groundwater

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

7 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Based on discussions with CFLHD and HDR, we understand either FDR or FDR with cement are the preferred paving solutions for NE 50 Street. Although, other rehabilitation or reconstruction alternative such as mill and structural overlay, full reconstruction with either a composite pavement section (ACP over crushed aggregate base [CAB]) or a full depth ACP pavement section are feasible, only FDR pavement section is discussed.

7.1 Design Methodology

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

Department of Transportation (USDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM) (2008); and the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) geotechnical/pavement design manual (2007). Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix C.

7.2 Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

In our opinion, NE 50 Street is suitable for FDR. FDR consists of in-place pulverization that becomes the base of a new ACP paving subgrade. The surface of the FDR can then be adjusted to accommodate minor grading adjustments, provided a minimum FDR thickness is maintained. A new ACP pavement surface layer is then paved over the FDR prepared roadway typically resulting in an overall raise to the roadway grades. Rehabilitating the existing roadway with FDR effectively provides a new pavement and eliminates the potential for reflective cracking from the existing pavement. In addition, cement or a bituminous asphalt cement can be added to chemically stabilize the FDR. Based on discussions with CFLHD and HDR, cement stabilized FDR is preferred over bituminous treated FDR.

105834-001 June 2022

As indicated in Exhibit 5-3, the existing ACP thicknesses are variable. For non-chemically stabilized FDR, we recommend an FDR thickness of 6 inches to limit the mixing of subgrade fines into the FDR layer. For FDR chemically stabilized with cement, 8 inches of FDR is recommended. In locations where the NE 50 Street ACP thickness is less than 8 inches, the cement treatment will treat and stabilize subgrade that is mixed into the FDR layer. In widening areas where there is insufficient FDR material, we recommend substituting the FDR with CAB. If FDR with cement is utilized, we recommend treating any substituted CAB material for minor widenings with cement.

7.3 Design Subgrade R-value

The subsurface explorations completed along the roadway primarily consisted of clayey sand and clay subgrade. Due to the variability of subgrade soils along the NE 50 Street and limitations in our scope, we performed a single R-value test on the poorest quality subgrade (boring SW-03 consisting of AASHTO A-7-6 material). The R-value test result indicated a value of 4.1. As FDR is proposed for the site, the existing subgrade is anticipated to be left in place.

For our pavement analysis, we used an AASHTO correlation between R-value and resilient modulus, which calculates a resilient modulus value of approximately 3,200 pounds per square inch (psi) for the R-value of 4.1.

7.4 Traffic Loading

For the NE 50 Street traffic loading, HDR provided an average daily traffic loading of 650 vehicles per day from 2021. The traffic volume was anticipated to be composed of mainly local passenger car traffic with a portion of the traffic composed of recreational vehicles and pickup-trucks hauling boats to the marina. Based on discussions with HDR, we assumed the following traffic distribution:

80% passenger vehicles, 17.5% pick-up trucks hauling boats

1% delivery vehicles, 1.25% large RV, and

0.25% trash trucks.

Refer to Appendix C for the flexible pavement equivalency factors used in 18-kip equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) calculation of NE 50 Street for each of the above design vehicles.

For a 20-year design life and an annually compounded growth rate of 2%, we estimate a design traffic loading for NE 50 Street of 80,000 ESALs.

105834-001 June 2022

7.5 Recommended Pavement Sections

Using the AASHTO procedures and the parameters outlined in Appendix C, we recommend the following pavement sections:

Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Pavement Sections

Location Paving Alternative

Recommended Pavement Section

NE 50 Street Alt. 1 5.5 in. ACP over 6 in. FDR

Alt. 2 4 in. ACP over 8 in. FDR with Cement

NOTE:

If there are insufficient quantities of FDR material, we recommend substituting CAB for FDR. For FDR with cement alternative, the CAB material should also be treated with cement.

ACP = Asphalt Concrete Pavement; in.= inches; FDR = Full Depth Reclamation

8 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Expansive Subgrade Potential

High plasticity soils in Kansas are susceptible to volume change by swelling/shrinking. This geologic phenomenon has the potential to cause substantial damage to lightly loaded structures, such as pavements, when exposed to water. To provide an indication of the swell potential of near surface soils at the site, we performed Atterberg limits, grain size distributions, and moisture contents on soil samples encountered in our explorations;

summarized in Exhibit 7-1.

Exhibit 8-1: Summary of Subgrade Index Testing

Boring Location

Fines Content

Natural Moisture Content

Plastic Limit

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index USCS

AASHTO

Soil

Class

SW-01 24 9.6 13 24 11 SC A-2-6 (0)

SW-02 36 13.7 12 24 12 SC A-6 (1)

SW-03 78 27.4 17 60 43 CH A-7-6 (34)

SW-04 62 13.0 13 28 15 CL A-6 (6)

SW-05 42 12.2 14 19 5 SC A-4 (0)

NOTE:

USCS = Unified Soil Classification System

The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) geotechnical design manual (2007) states: “Swelling soils are a significant cause of pavement distress and failure. One of the best

105834-001 June 2022 indicators for determining the potential for a soil to swell is the plasticity index (PI) and the liquid limit. High PI's (over 25) and liquid limits (over 50) are a strong indicator that the soil will swell.”

Although the PI is a good indication of potential volume change, it does not consider the current moisture content regime for pavement that have been in place for a number of years.

Typically, pavements block evapotranspiration from occurring and the subgrade below the pavement have an overall elevated moisture content after paving. In our experience, one indication of swell potential is to compare the in-situ moisture content of the subgrade to the plastic limit (PL) in each test. Generally, for clayey soils (AASHTO A-6 and A-7-6 soils), if the in-situ moisture content is near or greater than the PL, the subgrade likely has a low swell susceptibility. For example, although the PI value in boring SW-03 does exceed 25, the in-situ moisture content is 10% above the PL and the subgrade is likely in a post-swelling condition. If the subgrade is left in place and not allowed to dry during construction or rehabilitation, the subgrade is likely to have a low volume change. In our opinion, borings SW-02 and SW-04 also have in-situ moisture contents at or above the PL and in our opinion a low swell potential.

For boring SW-01, the in-situ moisture content is 3% below the PL, but the subgrade sample primary consists of non-swell susceptible material (up to 76% sand and gravel). Similar, in boring SW-05 the in-situ moisture content is 2% below the PL, but the overall PI of the sample is 5 and is considered a low swell potential.

In summary, based on the borings and laboratory tests, we do not anticipate significant swell-related damage or heaving of the proposed rehabilitated pavement.

8.2 PDDM Subexcavation Requirements

To mitigate against potential constructability issues (pumping subgrade and or achieving compaction of subgrade), as well as reducing long-term swell potential, guidance from Section 11.3.2.1.3 of the PDDM indicates:

2 feet of subexcavation (overexcavation and removal of excavated material from the site) for subgrades with a PI ranging from 15 to 25, 2 to 4 feet of subexcavation for subgrades with a PI ranging from 25 to 35 or a LL ranging from 50 to 60, and

4 to 6 feet of subexcavation for subgrades with a PI greater than 35 or a LL greater than 60.

Based on the data provided in Exhibit 7-1, boring SW-04 would require a subexcavation depth of 2 feet and boring SW-03 would require 4 to 6 feet of subexcavation. The PDDM

105834-001 June 2022 does note that the subexcavation requirements should account for the traffic volume and project significance when selecting a subexcavation depth.

Subgrade conditions in and near boring SW-03 likely will exhibit pumping and difficulty in compaction. In our opinion, the subexcavation depth is likely excessive for a rehabilitation project with only minor widening. Additional discussion is provided in Section 9.2.

8.3 Frost Damage

Frost susceptible soils can lead to pavement performance issues due to heaving or deformation from ice lenses in the underlying soil and pavement fatigue damage due to thaw-weakened subgrade of the springtime freeze-thaw cycle (USDOT, FHWA, 2008). Frost susceptible soils typically include fine grained soils such as silts and clays. In accordance with the PDDM, typical treatment for frost susceptible soils consists of assuring there is an adequate pavement layer structure to account for the loss of bearing capacity during the spring thaw and removing or replacing highly frost susceptible soil for a portion of the expected frost depth. As FDR is proposed, and based on our experience on past CFLHD projects, we understand it is cost prohibitive to provide protection against frost heave on such projects. If this is not the case, we recommend partial removal and replacement (up to about 70% of the frost depth of 24 inches) and we should be contacted to provided alternative pavement sections.

8.4 Corrosion Testing

The soil encountered at the project site can be corrosive to substructure elements. To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, a clay sample was tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides from boring SW-03. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B and discussed in further details below.

The resistivity measured in the sample was 820 ohm-centimeters. Based on correlations developed by Roberge (2012), these values suggest extremely corrosive subsurface conditions for metal in contact with subsurface materials across the site.

The concentration of water-soluble sulfates measured in the samples were 0.026 percent by weight. Based on classifications as defined by ACI-318-19 (ACI, 2019), these test results suggest an exposure class S0 on concrete exposed to site soils.

The test results and the above discussion are provided to assist the designer in the selection of project materials, concrete type, or other features with respect to corrosion.

105834-001 June 2022

9 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 7 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assumed that this project is constructed according to FP-14 U.S. Customary Units (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) construction standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

9.1 Site Preparation

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

9.2 Earthwork

9.2.1 General

Earthwork, including placement of fill and subgrade preparation, should conform to the requirements provided in the FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) and the recommendations provided in the following sections.

9.2.2 Subgrade Preparation and Fill Placement

Proper subgrade preparation is required for adequate pavement performance. Areas of exposed subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11. All subgrade material and fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition.

On-site subgrade and fill materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T 180 or T 99, as presented in FP-14 Section 204. Fill should be placed in uniform, horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness for heavy, self-propelled compactors, or 4 inches for hand-operated mechanical compactors.

The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the Contractor’s equipment as well as the moisture content and quality of the fill material.

105834-001 June 2022

9.2.3 Proof-Rolling

We recommend proof-rolling or probing excavation areas in widenings to determine suitability of the subgrade. In areas that are identified as being loose, soft, or yielding during proof-rolling or probing, we recommend:

1. Overexcavating the pavement section a depth of 24 inches below the pavement section.

2. Backfilling and moisture treating 24 inches of either (a) ¾-inch minus crushed aggregate consisting of well graded sand with silt and gravel or (b) a CAB conforming to FP-14 U.S. Customary Units (USDOT and FHWA, 2014) construction standards.

9.3 Paving Materials

The following exhibit summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection using the FP-14 specifications. Based on the project estimated paving quantities, we understand that the ACP material will utilize FP-14 Section 403, which uses the local department of transportation mix design. Exhibit 7-1 below reflects a KDOT (2015) mix design for the ACP.

Exhibit 9-1: Recommended Materials for Pavements

Material FP-14 Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

CAB Section 302 Use Gradation C, D, or E

FDR Section 304 -

FDR with Cement Section 305 -

ACP Section 403 (FP-14) Using KDOT Section 611

(2015)

Aggregate Gradation: Grade A, 1/2-inch NMAS PG Binder: PG 64-22 Gyratory Number (N): 75

Stabilization Geogrid 714.03 Tensar BX-1200 or equivalent product

NOTE:

ACP = Asphalt Concrete Pavement; CAB = Crushed Aggregate Base; FDR = Full Depth Reclamation; KDOT = Kansas Department of Transportation; NMAS = Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size; PG = Performance Grade;

To determine an appropriate HMA binder for the site, we used software developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Bind (2021). The LTPP Bind software indicated a performance grade (PG) of PG 70-22 for a 98% reliability for the top lift of ACP for the site and anticipated traffic loading. However, a PG 70-22 binder is not available in Kansas. For both the top and bottom lifts, we recommend using a PG 64-22 binder which result in an approximate reliability of 85% for the top lift.

We recommend a gyratory number of 75 be used for the mix design. In addition, we recommend using a 0.5 inch nominal maximum aggregate size for the ACP mix. A tack coat should be placed between subsequent lifts if the underlying lift will be used for traffic or left uncovered for a 24-hour period.

105834-001 June 2022

10 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and the Central Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the Cheney Reservoir Access improvements project. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

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

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

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

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

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

105834-001 June 2022

11 REFERENCES

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

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

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2021, LTPP InfoPave: Tools: LTPPBind Online, accessed August 2021; available:

https://infopave.fhwa.dot.gov/Tools/LTPPBindOnline

Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), 2015, Standard Specifications at for State Road & Bridge Construction’ available:

https://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burConsMain/specprov/2015specprov.asp

KDOT, 2007, Geotechnical Manual, Vol. 1; available:

https://kart.ksdot.org/Download/DownloadDetail.aspx?FileID=470

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of corrosion engineering, Second Edition: McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2014, Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program, Publication No. FHWA-HRT-13-092 Revised May 2014.

USDOT, FHWA, 2014, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal Highway projects, FP-14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available:

https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/specs

USDOT, FHWA, 2008, Federal Lands Highway project development and design manual (PDDM): U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration; available: https://highways.dot.gov/federal-lands/pddm

Cheney Reservoir

NE 50 St

Kansas

105834-001 June 2022 6/1/2022-105834-001_R1_AA.docx A-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

IO

NS

Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

A.3 Pavement Cores..................................................................................................................... A-2

Figures Figure A-1: Soil Description and Log Key Figures A-2 through A-6: Log of Borings SW-01 through SW-05 Figures A-7: Pavement Core Photographs Figures A-8 through A-12: Borings SW-01 through SW-05 Exploration Photographs

105834-001 June 2022 A-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

IO

NS

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson’s field exploration program was conducted on July 15, 2021 and consisted of drilling 5 borings at the locations shown on Figure 2. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below. Laboratory testing procedures and results are presented in Appendix B.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination, utility locates, permitting, and traffic control) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A-2 to A-6. The exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field log and select results of laboratory testing.

Boring locations were pre-marked by Woolpert, Inc. prior to mobilization to the site. With the exception of boring SW-01, the borings were generally drilled within 5 feet of the pre-marks located approximately in the center of either the eastbound or westbound lane.

Boring SW-01 was located approximately 7 feet east of the pre-mark. Refer to Figures A-8 through A-12 for the locations of the borings relative to the pre-marks. The borings were drilled by GSI Engineering of Wichita, Kansas (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a CME 45 truck mounted drill rig. Prior to drilling, pavement cores were obtained (Section A.3). The borings were advanced to depths of approximately 5.5 feet using 6-inch diameter solid-stem auger. Drill cuttings were used to backfill the bore holes up to the base of the existing pavement. The roadway surface was then repaired using cold-patch asphalt.

A.2.1 Soil Classification System

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

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter (O.D.), 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-

105834-001 June 2022 A-2

AP

PE

ND

IX

A : S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E

EX

PL

OR

AT

IO

NS

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 the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Bulk Sampling

Bulk soil samples were obtained by collecting the drill cuttings from select borings.

Approximately 20 to 30 pounds of cuttings from each location were placed in a plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. The bulk samples are composite samples sometimes spanning over several soil layers. The UCSC classification of the composite bulk samples has not been incorporated into the boring logs for this reason.

A.3 PAVEMENT CORES

A portable electric-powered coring machine fitted with a 4-inch-diameter core barrel was used to obtain pavement cores of the existing pavement. The cores were brought to the Shannon & Wilson laboratory where they were measured and then photographed. A summary of the individual core thicknesses and photographs of the cores are provided in Figure A-7.

To p of C or e

To p of C or e

KS FLAP KIN 50(1)

Cheney Reservoir Access Kingman County, Kansas

FIG. A-7

Core SW-02 - Westbound lane, Measured Thickness of 6 inches

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

PAVEMENT CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

Core SW-01 - Eastbound lane, Measured Thickness of 5-1/2 inches

Sheet 1 of 3 p of C or e

To p of C or e

Core SW-04 - Westbound lane, Measured Thickness of 5 inches

Core SW-03 - Eastbound lane, Recovered Thickness of 5.5 inches, 9 inches cored, Completely Stripped asphalt 3.5 to 6.5 inches.

KS FLAP KIN 50(1)

Cheney Reservoir Access Kingman County, Kansas

PAVEMENT CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-7

Sheet 2 of 3

Core SW-05 - Eastbound lane, Measured Thickness of 8 inches p of C or e

KS FLAP KIN 50(1)

Cheney Reservoir Access Kingman County, Kansas

PAVEMENT CORE PHOTOGRAPHS

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-7

Sheet 3 of 3

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

BORING SW-01 EXPLORATION

PHOTOGRAPH

KS FLAP KIN 50(1)

Cheney Reservoir Access Kingman County, Kansas

FIG. A-8

KS FLAP KIN 50(1)

Cheney Reservoir Access Kingman County, Kansas

BORING SW-02 EXPLORATION

PHOTOGRAPH

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-9

Kingman County, Kansas

BORING SW-03 EXPLORATION

PHOTOGRAPH

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

FIG. A-10

Kingman County, Kansas

BORING SW-04 EXPLORATION

PHOTOGRAPH

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

FIG. A-11

Kingman County, Kansas

BORING SW-05 EXPLORATION

PHOTOGRAPH

105834-001

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

FIG. A-12

KS FLAP KIN 50(1), Cheney Reservoir Access

105834-001 June 2022 6/1/2022-1058345-001_AB.docx B-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

UL

TS

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

CONTENTS

B.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................B-1

B.2 Geotechincal Index Tests.......................................................................................................B-1

Water Content............................................................................................................B-1

Grain Size Analysis ...................................................................................................B-1

Atterberg Limits ........................................................................................................B-1

B.3 Geotechnical Engineering Property Tests...........................................................................B-2

Corrosion....................................................................................................................B-2

R-Value .......................................................................................................................B-2

Tables Table B-1: Summary of Laboratory Test Results by Boring

Figures Figure B-1: Grain Size Distribution Figure B-2: Plasticity Chart Figure B-3: R-Value Test Report, Boring SW-03, Sample B-1

105834-001 June 2022 B-1

AP

PE

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

UL

TS

B.1 INTRODUCTION

Laboratory tests were completed on soil samples retrieved from the borings in general accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and American Society of Testing and Materials International International (ASTM) testing methods. 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 by our laboratory in Denver, Colorado, Vine Laboratories, Inc. of Commerce City, Colorado, and Colorado Analytical Laboratories, Inc. of Commerce City, Colorado. A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Table B-1. The following sections describe the laboratory testing procedures.

B.2 GEOTECHINCAL INDEX TESTS

Water Content

Water content was determined for selected samples in general accordance with AASHTO T265, 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.

Grain Size Analysis

The grain size distribution of selected samples was determined in general accordance with AASHTO T311, Standard Method of Test for Grain-Size Analysis of Granular Soil Materials.

Results of these analyses are presented as grain size distribution curves by boring number series on Figure B-1 and summarized in Table B-1.

Selected samples were tested for the percentage of material passing the No. 200 sieve in general accordance with ASTM D1140, Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75-μm) Sieve. 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.

Atterberg Limits

Soil plasticity was determined by performing Atterberg limits tests on selected fine-grained samples. The tests were completed in general accordance with AASHTO T89, Standard Test

105834-001 June 2022 B-2

AP

PE

ND

IX

B : L

AB

OR

AT

OR

Y

TE

ST

R

ES

UL

TS

Method for Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils and AASHTO T90, Standard Test Method for Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils. The Atterberg limits include liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity index (PI equals LL minus PL) and are generally used to assist in classification of soils, to indicate soil consistency (when compared to natural water content), and to provide correlation to soil properties. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are plotted on a plasticity chart on Figure B-2, shown graphically on the boring logs in Appendix A, and summarized in Table B-1.

B.3 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROPERTY TESTS

Corrosion

Corrosion testing of select samples was performed for pH, resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride content by Colorado Analytical Laboratories, Inc. Testing for pH was completed in general accordance with AASHTO T289-91, Standard Test Method for Measuring pH of Soil for Use in Corrosion Testing. Resistivity testing was completed in accordance with AASHTO T288-91, Standard Method of Test for Determining Minimum Laboratory Soil Resistivity. Sulfate content testing was completed in general accordance with AASHTO T290-91, Standard Method of Test for Determining Water-Soluble Sulfate Ion Content in Soil. Chloride content testing was completed in general accordance with AASHTO T291-91, Standard Method of Test for Determining Water-Soluble Chloride Ion Content in Soil. Test results for sulfate and chloride content are given in units of percent by weight. The test results are summarized in Table B-1.

R-Value

Hveem Staboilometer (R-value) test was completed by Vine Laboratories, Inc., of Commerce City, Colorado on a bulk subgrade sample. The test was completed in general accordance with AASHTO T190, Standard Method of Test for Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils. The R-value test results are summarized in Table B-1 and presented on Figure B-3.

KS FLAP KIN 50(1), Cheney Reservoir Accesst

Gravel Sand Fines Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index pH Resistivity Sulfate

Content Chloride Content R-Value Exudation

Pressure

Top Bottom (%) (%) (%) (%) (ohm-cm) (%) (%) (psi)

S-1 0.5 2.0 SM A-2-6 (0) 9.6 24 24 13 11

S-2 4.0 5.5 8.6

S-1 0.5 2.0 SC A-6 (1) 13.7 36 24 12 12

S-2 4.0 5.5 12.3

B-1 0.8 4.0 CH A-7-6 (34) 27.4 1 22 78 60 17 43 7.6 820 0.026 0.006 4.1 300

S-1 0.8 2.3 27.5 S-2 4.0 5.5 15.6

S-1 0.4 1.9 CL A-6 (6) 13.0 62 28 13 15

S-2 4.0 5.5 15.6

S-1 0.7 2.2 SC A-4 (0) 12.2 0 58 42 19 14 5

S-2 4.0 5.5 10.6

NOTES:

Table B-1 - Summary of Laboratory Test Results by Boring

SAMPLE DATA GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS3 ATTERBERG LIMITS

Boring Sample Depth (feet)

CORROSION

USCS

Symbol¹

Natural Moisture Content

1 Refer to Appendix A, Figure A-1 for definitions.

ohm-cm = ohm centimeters; psi = pounds per square inch.

3 Gravel defined as particles larger than the No. 4 sieve size, Sand as particles between the No. 4 and No. 200 sieve sizes, and Fines as particles passing the No. 200 sieve.

2 AASHTO soil classification and group index indicated in parenthesis

AASHTO Soil Classification and Group Index2

SW-05

SW-01

SW-02

SW-04

SW-03

R-Value

105834-001 Page 1 of 1 105834-001_T1-LabSum.xlsx - 6/1/2022

R-VALUE TEST REPORT

R-VALUE TEST REPORT

Vine Laboratories Date: 7/30/2021

Project No.: 105834-001

Project: CFL KS Cheney Reservoir

Location: SW-03 B-1 Bulk / 0.8-4.0'

Sample Number: S2608 Depth: 0.8-4.0'

Remarks:

Checked by: Clay Hollowell Tested by: Juan Romero

SW-03 B-1 Bulk / 0.8-4.0'

Material DescriptionTest Results

No.

Compact.

Pressure psi

Density pcf

Moist.

Expansion Pressure psi

Horizontal Press. psi @ 160 psi

Sample Height in.

Exud.

Pressure psi

R Value

R Value Corr.

Resistance R-Value and Expansion Pressure - AASHTO T 190

R-value at 300 psi exudation pressure = 4.1

1 50 91.8 29.2 0.00 147 2.59 452 4.9 5.1 2 60 92.8 28.8 0.00 144 2.56 585 6.1 6.3 3 30 87.2 33.1 0.00 150 2.47 238 3.8 3.8

Exudation Pressure - psi

R -v al ue

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

FIG. B-3

105834-001 June 2022 6/8/2022-105834-001_AC.docx C-i

AP

PE

ND

IX

D : P

AV

EM

EN

T

DE

SI

GN

F

IL

ES

Appendix D: Pavement Design Files

Appendix C

Pavement Design Calculations Exhibits Exhibit C-1: Flexible Pavement 18-kip [Equivalent Single-Axle Loading (ESAL) Worksheet Exhibits C-2: Flexible Pavement Design Worksheets

Project No: 105834-001 Location: NE 50 St Comment: Analysis based on Table D.21 of the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures 20 year Design Life

Traffic Study Year: 2021 Equations Paving Year: 2023 b = 2023 ADT * (a/100)

Pavement Design Life (D): 20 years c = b * 365 2021 Two-way Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 650.0 vehicles per day (vpd) d = [(1+r/100)^20-1]/(r/100)

2023 ADT: 676.3 vpd = 2021 ADT (1+r/100)^2 e = c * d Estimated 2043 ADT: 1,005 vpd = 2021 ADT (1+r/100)^22 g = e * f

Growth Rate (r) : 2.00 % j = g * h * i a b c d e f g h i j

Traffic Percentage

ADT

Total

Traffic

Growth Factors

20 yr Design Traffic Volume (total two-way volume)

Flexible Pavement

Equivalency Factor

Roadway Design

18k ESAL

Directional Distribution

Factor

Traffic Lane

Factor

Design Lane

18k ESAL

1. Motorcycles 0 0 0 24.30 0 0 0 0.60 1.0 0

2. Passenger Cars 80.0 541.0 197,468 24.30 4,797,951 0.0006 2,879 0.60 1.0 1,727

Pickup, Single Axle Boat Trailer 17.5 118.3 43,196 24.30 1,049,552 0.0180 18,892 0.60 1.0 11,335

3. Pickups, vans 0 0 0 24.30 0 0.0022 0 0.60 1.0 0

4. Busses 0 0 0 24.30 0 1.250 0 0.60 1.0 0

5. 2-axle, 6-tire Single-Unit Truck 0 0 0 24.30 0 0.50 0 0.60 1.0 0

6. 3-axle, Single-Unit Truck (Delivery) 1.0 6.8 2,468 24.30 59,974 0.75 44,981 0.60 1.0 26,989

Large RV 1.25 8.5 3,085 24.30 74,968 0.50 37,484 0.60 1.0 22,490 Trash Truck 0.25 1.7 617 24.30 14,994 1.50 22,490 0.60 1.0 13,494

7. 4 or more axle Single-Unit Truck 0 0.0 0 24.30 0 1.50 0 0.60 1.0 0

8. 4 or less axle Single-Trailer Truck 0 0 0 24.30 0 1.75 0 0.60 1.0 0

9. 5 axle Single-Trailer Truck 0 0 0 24.30 0 2.15 0 0.60 1.0 0

10. 6 or more axle Single-Trailer Trucks 0 0 0 24.30 0 2.15 0 0.60 1.0 0

11. 5 or less axle Multi-Trailer Truck 0 0 0 24.30 0 3.00 0 0.60 1.0 0

12. 6 axle Multi-Trailer Truck 0 0 0 24.30 0 3.00 0 0.60 1.0 0

13. 7 or more axle Multi-Trailer Truck 0 0 0 24.30 0 3.00 0 0.60 1.0 0

100.0 676 246,835 5,997,439 126,726 76,035

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

Flexible Pavement 18-kip Equivalent Single-Axle Loading (ESAL) Worksheet

FHWA Vehicle Classification and Description

Total

Calculated ESAL 77,000The ADT is from 2018 traffic study provided by HDR.

Exhibit 11.2-A of the Federal Lands Highway, Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), provides common truck factor ranges for each FHWA vehicle classification. The average value was assumed in our analysis.

Design

ESAL 77,000

The minimum design life for an R-3 project is 20 years based on the PDDM Traffic distribution for NE 50 St. (percent of passenger cars, single unit trucks, vehicles with boats, large RVs, and trash trucks) were assumed.

6/3/2022 ESAL Calc per 93 AASHTO (FHWA)_rev2.xlsx Page 1 of 1 FIG. C-1

Job No.: 105834-001 Location: NE 50 St. (NE 150 Ave. to N 407 St. W.)

Comment: Analysis follows design procedures form 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures

Alt. 4, HMA over FDR

1. Pavement Design Life: (PDDM) for Reconstruction Projects 20.0 years

2. Traffic Loading (W18): (PDDM minimum) ESALs: per lane

3. Serviceability:

p0: 4.2 (PDDM) PSI: 1.7 pt: 2.5 (PDDM) for ADT between 500 and 5,000 vehichles per day

4. Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR):

Eqn 1.5.3 of the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures MR = 1,000 + 555 (R-value) = 3,276 psi

R-value 4.1 MR: 3,276 psi

5. Reliability:

R: 75 % (PDDM) for ADT less than 2500 vehicles per day ZR: -0.674

6. Design Standard Deviation (So):

So: 0.49 (PDDM)

7. Required Structural Numbers (SNi):

SN1: 1.149 0.0

SN2: 2.845 0.0

SN3: -NA- #VALUE!

Layer Analysis

8. Pavement Materials Characterization:

Layer

1 a1: 0.39 2 a2: 0.12 m2: 1.00 3 a3: m3:

9. Solutions for Thicknesses: [ Figure 3.2, Part II of 1993 AASHTO] SN*1 = a1D*1 >= SN1

SN*2 = a1D*1 + a2D*2m2 >= SN2

SN*3 = a1D*1 + a2D*2m2 + a3D*3m3 >= SN3

Layer SN*i SNi

1 5.5 inches 2.145 1.149 2 6.0 inches 2.865 2.845 3 inches

Note: Required SN <= Pavement SN, Design is Acceptable

ACP

FDR

Recommended Thicknesses Material Thickness (D*i)

ACP (Sec. 403) - -

FDR 30,000

-NA-

Material Structural Layer Coefficients

Drainage Coefficients

Layer Modulus (psi)

Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet

77,000

Analysis MR

30,000

3,276 07.8)(log32.2

)1( 109440.0

5.12.4 log

20.0)1(log36.9)(log 10

19.5

101810 RoR M

SN

PSI

SNSZW

AASHTO_1993_HMA-Cheney_Rev2.xlsm Page 1 of 2 FIG. C-2

Job No.: 105834-001 Location: NE 50 St. (NE 150 Ave. to N 407 St. W.)

Comment: Analysis follows design procedures form 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures

Alt. 2, HMA over FDR with Cement

1. Pavement Design Life: (PDDM) for Reconstruction Projects 20.0 years

2. Traffic Loading (W18): (PDDM minimum) ESALs: per lane

3. Serviceability:

p0: 4.2 (PDDM) PSI: 1.7 pt: 2.5 (PDDM) for ADT between 500 and 5,000 vehichles per day

4. Subgrade Resilient Modulus (MR):

Eqn 1.5.3 of the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures MR = 1,000 + 555 (R-value) = 3,276 psi

R-value 4.1 MR: 3,276 psi

5. Reliability:

R: 75 % (PDDM) for ADT less than 2500 vehicles per day ZR: -0.674

6. Design Standard Deviation (So):

So: 0.49 (PDDM)

7. Required Structural Numbers (SNi):

SN1: 1.149 0.0

SN2: 2.845 0.0

SN3: -NA- #VALUE!

Layer Analysis

8. Pavement Materials Characterization:

Layer

1 a1: 0.39 2 a2: 0.17 m2: 1.00 3 a3: m3:

9. Solutions for Thicknesses: [ Figure 3.2, Part II of 1993 AASHTO] SN*1 = a1D*1 >= SN1

SN*2 = a1D*1 + a2D*2m2 >= SN2

SN*3 = a1D*1 + a2D*2m2 + a3D*3m3 >= SN3

Layer SN*i SNi

1 4.0 inches 1.560 1.149 2 8.0 inches 2.920 2.845 3 inches

Note: Required SN <= Pavement SN, Design is Acceptable

Material Structural Layer Coefficients

Drainage Coefficients

Layer Modulus (psi)

Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet

77,000

Analysis MR

30,000

3,276

-NA-

Recommended Thicknesses Material Thickness (D*i)

ACP (Sec. 403) - - FDR with Cement 30,000

ACP

FDR with Cement

07.8)(log32.2

)1( 109440.0

5.12.4 log

20.0)1(log36.9)(log 10

19.5

101810 RoR M

SN

PSI

SNSZW

AASHTO_1993_HMA-Cheney_Rev2.xlsm Page 2 of 2 FIG. C-2

105834-001 June 2022 II-i

IM

PO

RT

AN

T

IN

FO

RM

AT

IO

N Important Information

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report

105834-001 June 2022

II-1

IM

PO

RT

AN

T

IN

FO

RM

AT

IO

N

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.