Amendment 0004_Geotechinical Report.pdf

PROJECT NO.

W9Y21001

P447: CAAA Explosive Railcar Holding Yard & DLA Site

6.B – GEOTECHINCAL REPORTS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN LETTER

Final Design Submittal

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (NAVFAC)

Naval Support Activity Crane - Crane, Indiana eProject Number: 1596603

18 December 2019

JACOBS / Ewing Cole A Joint Venture

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

CAAA RAILCAR HOLDING YARD

NSA CRANE

CRANE, INDIANA

Prepared for

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

501 NORTH BROADWAY STREET

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 63102

By

EARTH EXPLORATION, A TERRACON COMPANY

7770 WEST NEW YORK STREET

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46802

October 31, 2019

October 31, 2019

Ms. Jean Maue, AIA Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

501 North Broadway Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Jean.Maue@jacobs.com

Re: Geotechnical Evaluation CAAA Railcar Holding Yard NSA Crane Crane, Indiana EEI Project No. CJ185034

Dear Jean:

We are pleased to submit our geotechnical evaluation for the referenced portion of the project. This report presents the results of our exploratory field and laboratory testing programs and provides geotechnical discussion and recommendations for the proposed design and construction at the railcar holding yard. As you are aware, the work for this project was formally authorized via a Subconsulting Agreement prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs), and our work was performed in general accordance with Earth Exploration, A Terracon Company (EEI) Proposal No.

PCJ185034.

The opinions and recommendations submitted in this report are based, in part, on our interpretation of the subsurface information revealed at the exploratory locations as indicated on the attached plan.

Understandably, this report does not reflect variations in subsurface conditions beyond or between those locations. Therefore, variations in the subsurface conditions should be expected, and fluctuation of the groundwater levels will occur with time. Other important limitations of a geotechnical evaluation are discussed in Appendix A.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

We understand that representatives of NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic are planning to make improvements at their facility in Crane. As part of the improvements, a new railyard is planned at the location of the current DRMO Storage site. Other planned elements of a geotechnical interest associated with this project include new storm sewers and underdrains.

Based on our review of the plans, all existing elements will be demolished and/or removed. The new rail lines are planned to be established near El. 532 to 534. As such, grade changes are anticipated to require 1 to 3 ft of cut in the west and central portions of the site in order to establish the subgrade for the new ballast. The existing grades near the east side of the site are near the proposed grades. The finished surface is planned to be railroad ballast (crushed stone) at and immediately adjacent to the new rails. Re-use of the existing surface materials is being considered around the perimeter of the railyard where occasional passenger vehicular traffic will occur. We understand that no structures are planned.

Ms. Jean Maue, AIA October 31, 2019 Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Page 3 CAAA Railcar Holding Yard – Crane, IN

FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Field Exploration

Subsurface conditions were explored by performing 13 test borings. Refer to the plan in Appendix C for the approximate exploratory locations. The number, depth and location of the exploratory borings were determined by EEI, Jacobs’s team, and representatives of Crane so as to avoid known utilities, unexploded ordnance/munitions and explosives of concern (UXO/MEC), and other site elements and features. A Jacobs representative was present during exploratory efforts to scan the area for anomalies prior to drilling. The scan was completed using a handheld metal detector, and we adjusted the boring locations at their direction. During drilling, the Jacobs representative also scanned the borehole using the metal detector in 6-in. depth increments to a depth of 2 ft. If an anomaly was detected, the boring was abandoned and offset. The exploratory locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to locate them (e.g., GPS equipment). The ground surface elevations at the exploratory locations were provided by Jacobs’s survey subconsultant.

The field activities were performed by EEI during the week of August 5, 2019. Representative samples of the soil conditions were taken using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Shelby tube procedures.

During the field work, soil samples were also screened using a photoionization detector (PID).

Prior to transferring each split-spoon sample to a storage jar, the PID was inserted into the soil, and the maximum instrument response was recorded on the respective boring log. Soil samples were also collected for analytical testing at locations exhibiting the highest PID values which were at Boring B-07 from the surface to a depth of 2 ft and at Boring B-10 from the surface to a depth of 2 ft and also from a depth of 4 ft to 6 ft. The soil was collected using laboratory-supplied 4-oz glass containers.

After obtaining groundwater observations, each borehole was backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chips placed near the surface. Additional details of the drilling and sampling procedures are provided in Appendix B.

Laboratory Testing

Following the field activities, the soil samples were visually classified by an EEI engineering technician or geologist. After visual classification of the soils, representative samples were selected and submitted for testing which included natural moisture content, unconfined compression, Atterberg limit determinations, moisture-density relations, California bearing ratio (CBR), unit weight determinations, and hand penetrometer readings. The results of these tests are provided on the boring logs and/or laboratory reports and summaries in Appendices C & D. For your information, soil descriptions on the boring logs are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), and general notes pertaining to the USCS are also included in Appendix C. The boring logs represent our interpretation of the individual samples and field logs and results of the laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the boring logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types;

although, the transition may actually be gradual.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Page 4 CAAA Railcar Holding Yard – Crane, IN

The soil samples collected for analytical testing, along with a chain-of-custody, were submitted on ice to a laboratory in Indianapolis for analysis of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) and Diesel Range Organics (DRO). The analytical testing also consisted of Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) Metals which include Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg), Selenium (Se), and Silver (Ag). The laboratory analytical results are provided in Appendix E in both a summary table and the laboratory-provided report.

SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Discussion of Known Historical Use of Site

Based on historical information provided by Jacobs, the site has been in operation since the late 1940’s as a material processing center. Historically, the primary delivery method to the site was via rail. Currently, the site is an active recycling facility that processes scrap metal, wood, cardboard, and paper, and the railroad is no longer used. According to information in the Explosives Safety Submission Determination Request (ESSDR), the site has never operated as an open burn/open detonation site, a weapons handling facility, or an ordnance production facility. The facility processed inert munitions for scrap metal until approximately 5 yrs ago.

According to a Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) map provided by Jacobs, the site is listed as SMU-21 – DRMO Storage Lot. The SWMU is currently active. Recycling operations were observed on site during our field activities. Metal debris was observed at the surface over the majority of the site.

Results of Environmental Testing

Elevated PID measurements were observed in Borings B-07, B-08, and B-10 primarily in the upper 5 ft of the subsurface profile. PID measurements in the remaining borings were at or near ambient background levels. Details on recorded PID measurements are provided on the boring logs contained in Appendix C.

Analytical testing of two samples collected from Borings B-07 and B-10 (intervals 0 to 2 ft and 4 to 6 ft below the ground surface, respectively) indicated results below the laboratory detection limits for BTEX, TPH GRO, As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Se, Ag, and Hg. Elevated results of TPH-DRO and TPH- GRO in both samples and lead at Boring B-07 were reported; however, the detected results in these samples were below the applicable regulator screening levels. A summary of the laboratory analytical results compared to regulatory actions limits is contained in Appendix E. It is important to note that the TPH results and associated comparison to the 2006 action levels are intended as a client directed screening tool as TPH no longer has an action limit provided by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

Surface Conditions

The site consists of crushed stone/concrete parking areas, single-story buildings, a truck scale, abandoned railroad tracks, metal debris piles, equipment, and storage bins. The site is bounded

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Page 5 CAAA Railcar Holding Yard – Crane, IN to the south by Highway 58 and wooded areas to the east, west and north. A metal fence surrounds most of the site. At the boring locations, the stone thickness ranged from 3 to 6 in.

Soil Conditions

Fill was suspected during our site visit as likely having been placed at the site, and the conditions exposed at most of the boring locations confirmed that fill had been placed. Based on the field and laboratory test results, the fill typically consisted of sand and gravel overlying lean clay. The lean clay fill contained debris such as brick, concrete, metal, and wood fragments and cinders. Generally, the fill was observed at and south of Boring B-11 and was thicker in the central portion of the site where buildings are present. Auger refusal on suspected concrete foundation elements was encountered at Borings B-04 and B-07 at a depth of approximately 6 ft below the surface.

The consistency of the lean clay was typically observed to be medium stiff or better based on the hand penetrometer readings. The dry unit weight was determined to be in the range of 96 to 106 lbs/cu ft (pcf). The moisture content of the lean clay ranged from 12 to 30 percent. As a matter of comparison, the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content as determined by a standard Proctor effort were about 113 pcf and 14 percent, respectively. For your information, we considered a standard Proctor for comparison purposes anticipating that to have been the standard of practice at the time the fill was likely placed (i.e., in the 1940’s).

Naturally occurring conditions consisting of silty sand (SM; likely residual soil) were observed overlying weathered bedrock in the northern portion of the site. The relative density of the sand was typically medium dense. Bedrock was encountered ranging from 4 to 10 ft below the ground surface (El. 529 to 523) with the shallowest occurrences being in the northern portion of the site. The bedrock consisted of sandstone and was described as soft and weathered based on observations of the drilling action and the samples recovered.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions and results of the laboratory tests are provided in Appendices C and D. Discussion of these soil conditions as it relates to the planned improvements is provided below.

Groundwater Observations

Groundwater level observations made during, upon completion, and “24 hrs” after completion of the sampling process are noted at the bottom of the boring logs. Where observed, groundwater was present at depths of about 4 to 10 ft below the existing ground surface. An exception was noted at Boring B-04 where groundwater was present near 3 ft below existing ground. In our opinion, these observations likely represent a perched condition.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation

As an initial step in preparing the site, we concur with the removal of all buildings and utilities to be abandoned. We recommend the removal of the buildings also include all foundation elements and other below-grade components, such as those at the truck scale. We recommend that excavations

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Page 6 CAAA Railcar Holding Yard – Crane, IN resulting from these activities be backfilled in accordance with the recommendations provided in Appendix F. (The existing sand and gravel fill at the site may meet this requirement.) Backfilling will require grading the excavation sidewalls to facilitate proper placement and compaction. With regard to risks of settlement of the planned tracks, care in workmanship of the backfilling is a critical component of the site preparation.

Subgrade Preparation

As noted in our project description, the grading plan is such that 1 to 3 ft of cut is anticipated to establish subgrades in the western and central portions of the site. Cuts of this depth are anticipated to remove all or most of the existing sand and gravel fill in some areas which will expose the underlying lean clay. The table below provides you a summary of the thickness of the existing sand and gravel fill.

Table 1. Summary of Depth of Sand and Gravel Fill Boring Location Depth (ft) Boring Location Depth (ft)

B-01 2 B-08 2 B-02 2½ B-09 2½ B-03 2 B-10 2 B-04 4½ B-11 2½ B-05 5 B-12* 5½ B-06 2 B-13* 4 B-07 No less than 6

*The sand at Borings B-12 and B-13 is not fill but is naturally occurring (likely residual soil)

We recommend the subgrade for the railroad ballast be established, compacted, and proofrolled.

Because of the moisture content and typically-low density of the underlying lean clay, we anticipate a yielding subgrade condition will be exposed during the proofroll where less than 1 ft of sand and gravel fill remains in place. If construction takes place during the months of July, August, or September, persistent dry weather prevails, and the schedule allows, improvement of the yielding subgrade could be successful with traditional discing and drying for recompaction to a depth of no less than 12 in. If field observations at that time suggest there is a risk of being successful in this manner and because of the size of the site, we are of the opinion that chemical drying and modification represents an economical alternative to correct yielding subgrade conditions.

As a second alternative since the cut soil is anticipated to be primarily sand and gravel, smaller areas of yielding subgrade conditions could be undercut and replaced with the on-site sand and gravel.

From our experience, this may not be economical if the extents of the yielding subgrade are widespread.

From planning and construction cost purposes, we recommend you include a quantity of undercutting based on a depth of 12 in. over the area where less than 12 in. of the sand and gravel remains in place after the cut is made to establish the railroad subgrade. Similarly, we recommend you include a contingency for chemical drying and modification of the subgrade for the same area.

These quantities will provide options for the contractor, but they should be used as needed and where needed only after an attempt has been made to traditionally disc for aeration and recompact the subgrade.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Page 7 CAAA Railcar Holding Yard – Crane, IN

If a yielding subgrade is not exposed after the initial compaction and proofroll observation, no additional action is anticipated to be necessary from a geotechnical perspective. For your use in design/evaluation of the ballast thickness, a CBR value of 3.5 may be considered for the in-situ lean clay. If ballast is to be placed directly on a lean clay subgrade, we recommend INDOT Type 2A geotextile fabric be placed first over the subgrade.

Embankment Considerations

Upon satisfactory completion of site preparation and improvement if necessary, embankment (engineered) fill placement (if any is needed) may proceed to establish grades. We recommend engineered fill be compacted to and consist of soil as recommended in Appendix F (General Specification No. 1). With the exception of soil with organic matter or otherwise deleterious soil exposed during construction to be determined by others, the onsite sand and gravel is anticipated to be suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they satisfy the recommendations in Appendix F. All soil will require moisture conditioning prior to placement for compaction. Moisture conditioning is typically accomplished by continuously discing the soils to reduce the moisture content and breakdown soil clods. Any imported fill will require verification testing that it meets the criteria for engineered fill. Borrow source(s) in unexplored areas should be evaluated via test pits and confirmed as suitable.

We recommend that the engineered fill be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 in. in loose lift thickness and compacted to the required density summarized in the specification in Appendix F. It should also be noted that the acceptable thickness of loose lifts of engineered fill and/or the number of passes required by the compaction equipment to achieve compaction to the density recommended in this report will be a function of the type of compaction equipment and techniques used, the soil type, and proper control of the soil moisture content as well as the season in which construction takes place. In addition, periodic field density tests performed by EEI during fill placement are recommended to determine the adequacy of compactive effort.

We recommend permanent sideslopes be established no steeper than 3H:1V and vegetation be immediately established to reduce the risk of erosion and sloughing. In addition, where surface drainage is permitted to drain over the face of slopes, erosion and rills will occur. We recommend you take appropriate measures to counter this effect.

Underground Utility Considerations

In general, the placement of buried utility elements within the soil profile does not increase the load on the underlying soil above that anticipated from the existing overburden or proposed embankment.

Understandably, though, it is important to have a firm subgrade to provide uniform support. The condition of the subgrade will be, in part, a function of the care and workmanship of the contractor in protecting the subgrade from water. Cohesive soils, especially those with relatively high silt content, are moisture-sensitive, and the consistency will degrade to soft when exposed to water. This soil will also quickly become disturbed due to foot traffic. Undercutting in areas of poor subgrade conditions will require judgement in the field during construction. We recommend that a representative of EEI observe the subgrade prior to the placement of bedding material to confirm the presence of a suitable bearing stratum.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Page 8 CAAA Railcar Holding Yard – Crane, IN

We recommend you plot the boring locations onto your site plan and assess the risk of sewer excavations hitting bedrock. If adjustments to the sewer can be made to reduce the risk of rock excavation, we recommend you do so. Otherwise, we recommend excavation of rock be made at least 6 in. below the bottom of the pipe so that a bedding surface can be established.

Since the storm sewers and underdrains are planned beneath the railyard, granular soils are recommended for backfill. This is because of their ease of compaction as compared to cohesive soils which reduces the risk of settlement. In addition, periodic field density tests and observations by EEI are recommended during backfill placement to verify the adequacy of compactive effort. For bedding and backfilling purposes, we recommend the use of a granular soil satisfying a USCS symbol of "SP", "SW", “SW-SM”, or “SP-SM”. Understandably, an open-grade stone (INDOT No. 8) will be used for the underdrain backfill, but compaction of the stone via a means and methods specification should be considered. A larger quantity of backfill could be required if the excavation slopes are laid back. Additionally, granular backfill should be placed and compacted around pipe in uniform layers, not exceeding 6 in. in loose lift thickness. Furthermore, the use of cohesive soils for backfill above utilities, if considered, should be limited to areas outside of pavement, other utilities, and non-settlement sensitive areas.

We recommend that the granular soil placed at the base of the excavation, for the bedding material, and that used for backfill surrounding pipe elements be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557. If INDOT No. 8 stone (or any open-graded coarse aggregate) is used for backfill, a geotextile fabric should be utilized to line the trench including the bottom. In addition, we recommend that the pipe manufacturer be contacted to discuss special bedding and backfill requirements. The granular backfill above the utility and up to grade, in our opinion, should also be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.

In other areas, the backfill could be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density, provided some settlement of the backfill is tolerable.

Additional Construction Considerations

Because cohesive subgrade soils (or soils with an otherwise high fraction of fines) will soften when exposed to water, surface run-off should be diverted from the subgrade and areas of exposed subgrade and ponding of water from rainfall should be minimized. Due to the sensitive nature of the fine-grained soils, travel on the subgrades with construction equipment should be minimized. To minimize general deterioration of the subgrade soils, appropriate construction sequencing of earthwork and concrete placement activities are recommended. No fill or backfill should be placed in a frozen condition or over frozen subgrade.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to read and interpret the subsurface information as it relates to excavation safety. All excavations are to conform with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements.

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Page 9 CAAA Railcar Holding Yard – Crane, IN

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In closing, we recommend that EEI be provided the opportunity to review the plans and special provisions to confirm that earthwork requirements have been properly interpreted and implemented in the contract documents. We also recommend that EEI be retained to provide construction observation services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. This will allow us to verify that the construction proceeds in compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations. It will also allow design changes to be made in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. Feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or need further assistance with the project.

Sincerely, EARTH EXPLORATION, INC.

Stephen E. Brellenthin, L.P.G.

Senior Staff Geophysicist

Michael S. Wigger, P.E.

Principal Engineer

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Important Information about This Geotechnical Engineering Report APPENDIX B - Field Methods for Exploring and Sampling Soils and Rock APPENDIX C - Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. CJ185034.A3)

Exploratory Location Plan (Drawing No. CJ185034.B4) Unified Soil Classification System/General Notes Log of Test Boring (15)

APPENDIX D - Unconfined Compression Test (2) Moisture-Density Relations (1) California Bearing Ratio (1)

APPENDIX E Summary of Analytical Results Laboratory Analytical Report

APPENDIX F General Specification No. 1

APPENDIX A

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one

— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you;

• not prepared for your project;

• not prepared for the specific site explored; or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;

man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation.

To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited;

encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/ or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.

To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant;

none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

APPENDIX B

FIELD METHODS FOR EXPLORATION AND SAMPLING SOILS AND ROCK

EARTH EXPLORATION, INC.

FIELD METHODS FOR EXPLORING AND SAMPLING SOILS AND ROCK

A. Boring Procedures Between Samples

The boring is extended downward, between samples, by a hollow stem auger, continuous flight auger, driven and washed-out casing, or rotary boring with drilling mud or water.

B. Standard Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM* Designation: D 1586)

This method consists of driving a 2-in. outside diameter split-barrel sampler using a 140-lb weight falling freely through a distance of 30 in. The sampler is first seated 6 in. into the material to be sampled and then driven 12 in. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 in.

is recorded on the Log of Test Boring and known as the Standard Penetration Resistance or N-value. Recovered samples are first classified as to texture by the field personnel. Later in the laboratory, the field classification is reviewed by a geotechnical engineer who observes each sample.

C. Thin-walled Tube Sampling of Soils (ASTM* Designation: D 1587)

This method consists of hydraulically pushing a 2-in. or 3-in. outside diameter thin wall tube into the soil, usually cohesive types. Relatively undisturbed samples are recovered.

D. Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings (ASTM* Designation: D 1452)

This method consists of augering a hole and removing representative soil samples from the auger flight or bucket at 5-ft intervals or with each change in the substrata. Relatively disturbed samples are obtained and its use is therefore limited to situations where it is satisfactory to determine approximate subsurface profile.

E. Diamond Core Drilling for Site Investigation (ASTM* Designation: D 2113)

This method consists of advancing a hole in rock or other hard strata by rotating downward a single tube or double tube core barrel equipped with a cutting bit. Diamond, tungsten carbide, or other cutting agents may be used for the bit. Wash water is used to remove the cuttings.

Normally, a 3-in. outside diameter by 2-in. inside diameter coring bit is used unless otherwise noted. The rock or hard material recovered within the core barrel is examined in the field and laboratory. Cores are stored in partitioned boxes and the length of recovered material is expressed as a percentage of the actual distance penetrated.

* American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA

APPENDIX C

SITE VICINITY MAP

(Drawing No. CJ185034.A3 – CAAA Railcar Holding Yard)

EXPLORATORY LOCATION PLAN

(Drawing No. CJ185034.B4 – CAAA Railcar Holding Yard)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM/GENERAL NOTES

LOG OF TEST BORING (15)

NOTES LEGEND

1. Base map developed from USGS 7.5-minute Quadrangle - Indian Springs

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

EEI PROJECT NO.:

SCALE:

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

Crane, Indiana

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

CJ185034

1" = 2000'

PROJECT ENG:

APPROVED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

DRAWING NO.:

MSW

MSW

DAB

9/9/2019

CJ185034.A3

SITE VICINITY MAP

SITE LOCATION

100+00

102+00

103+00

104+00

105+00

106+00

107+00

108+00

109+00

110+00

111+00

112+00

113+00

114+00

H

I G

H

W

A

Y

B-13

B-12

B-11 B-10

B-08

B-07

B-09

B-04

B-05

B-06

B-01

B-03

B-02

NOTESLEGEND

1. Base map developed from an electronic file provide by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. on July 11, 2019. and

Maps.Indiana.edu.

2. Borings were located in the field by Earth Exploration, Inc. on July 31, 2019.

3. Ground surface elevations at the test boring locations were provided by Bledsoe Riggert Cooper James.

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

CLIENT:

EEI PROJECT NO.:

SCALE:

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

Crane, Indiana

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

CJ185034

1" = 120'

PROJECT ENG:

APPROVED BY:

DRAWN BY:

DATE:

DRAWING NO.:

MSW

MSW

DAB

9/9/2019

CJ185034.B4

EXPLORATORY LOCATION PLAN

Soil Boring Location and DesignationB-01

LOI

Fine 4.75 mm to 3/4-in.

2.00 to 4.75 mm

0.425 to 2.00 mm

0.075 to 0.425 mm

*The penetration resistance, N, is the summation of the number of blows required to effect two successive 6" penetrations of the 2" O.D. split-spoon sampler. The sampler is driven with a 140 lb weight falling 30" and is seated to a depth of 6" before commencing the standard penetration test.

- Hydrogen-Ion Concentration

- Percent Passing a No. 200 Sieve

N-VALUE*

(Blows/ft)

0 - 4 4 - 10

10 - 30

CH or OH

CL or OL

ML or OL

MH or OH

For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils.

Equation of "A" line Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5, then PI=0.73 (LL-20)

Equation of "U" line Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, then PI=0.9 (LL-8)

0 - 5% 5 - 12%

Sedimentary Peat Fibrous and Woody Peat

12 - 35%

SOIL FRACTION PARTICLE SIZE

Stiff Very Stiff

Hard

STRENGTH (tsf)

UNCONFINED

<0.25

0.25 - 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0 - 4.0

- Shrinkage Limit, %

- Loss on Ignition, %

- Dry Unit Weight, pcf

P200 pH

U LINE

>4.0

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS & DESCRIPTIONS

More than 50% of material coarser than No. 200 sieve

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS

0.005 to 0.075 mm

Smaller than 0.005 mm

Larger than 12-in.

3 to 12-in.

3/4 to 3-in.

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS USED FOR BORDERLINE CLASSIFICATIONS

Little or no fines

GP

GM

GC

Very Dense

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

SOIL

DESCRIPTION

- Peat Sample

- 3-in. O.D. Piston Sample

- Borehole Pressuremeter Test

CONSISTENCY

Very Soft LOI

LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONSEXPLORATORY SAMPLING ABBREVIATIONS

Coarse

- Rock Bit

Trace Little Some And

DEFINING RANGE BY

% OF WEIGHT

A LINE

SAND AND

SANDY SOILS

GRAVEL AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

GRAVELS

WITH FINES

Appreciable amount of fines

CLEAN

GRAVELS

Little or no fines

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

FINE-

GRAINED

SOILS

- Recovery

SL

PI

PL

LL

W

SILTS AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN

SILTS AND

CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

CLEAN SANDS

SANDS WITH

FINES

Appreciable amount of fines

- Flight Auger

- Drilling Mud

- Driven Casing

FINE-GRAINED SOILS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

- Rock Core

- Casing: Size 2½-in., NW; 4-in., HW

GW

P L A S T I C I T Y

US STANDARD

Fine

Silt Clay

- Thin-Walled Tube Sample

- 2-in. O.D. Split-Spoon Sample

- Soil Sounding

- Rock Sounding

- Rock Quality Designation

MH

S

SS

ST

VS

WPT - Water Pressure Test

- Vane Shear Test

0 - 5 5 - 12

12 - 35 35 - 5030 - 50

Loose

LIQUID LIMIT

AS - Auger Sample

BF

BS

C

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM / GENERAL NOTES

ORGANIC CONTENT BY

COMBUSTION METHOD

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH

ORGANIC CONTENT

Larger than 12-in.

3 to 12-in.

3/4 to 3-in.

qp

- Moisture Content, %

- Liquid Limit, %

- Plastic Limit, %

- Plasticity Index, %

PLASTICITY CHART

qu

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

More than 50% of material finer than

No. 200 sieve

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

#40 to #10

TERM

CH

OH

35 - 50% 50%±

Organic Silt/Clay Little Organic Matter

Med

NW

COA

50+

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY

MIXTURES

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

I N D E X

PMT

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,

ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SAND

OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM

PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS SANDY

CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY

CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY

SOILS, ELASTIC SILT

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,

FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH

PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

CS

CW

DC

DM

FA

FT

HA

HSA - Hollow Stem Auger

- Hand Auger

- Fish Tail

PID - Photo-Ionization Detector

RELATIVE

DENSITY

Very Loose

Sand Coarse

#200 to #40

Smaller than #200

Smaller than #200

Plasticity characteristics differentiate between silt and clay.

Soft Medium

#4 to 3/4-in.

#10 to #4

More than 50% of coarse fraction passing No. 4 sieve

PT

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

80 90 100

- Backfilled Upon Completion

SM

SC

Medium Dense Dense

SW

SP

OL

- No Water Encountered

RC

REC

RQD

RS

SIEVE SIZE

Boulders Cobbles Gravel

- Clear Water

- Continuous Sampler

- Clean-Out Auger

- Bag Sample PT

PTS

RB

ML

CL

CL-ML

Trace Organic Matter

- Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf

- Hand Penetrometer Reading, tsf

20 13

0.9

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.2

>4½

2½

AS-1

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

CRUSHED STONE

SAND AND GRAVEL (fill)

CL, LEAN CLAY, stiff to hard, brown to gray, silty below 6 ft (fill)

WEATHERED SANDSTONE

End of Boring at 10 ft

16.8

24.2

18.9

18.8

3-5-5-4

6-5-3-3

3-3-3-2

2-3-3-5

To Water Remarks

8/6/19

Drilling Method 3¼" I.D. HSACompletion 8/6/19

Drilling

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil/rock types and the transition may be gradual.

Rig

Backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chip plug near surface.5½ 4

Depth

GENERAL NOTES

End

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

To Cave-in

Upon CME 55 Truck

While ft

Start24 hr

NWNW NW

After Drilling

Project No. Clear

SOIL PROPERTIES

Blow of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Offset

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

LL

Counts qu

LOG OF TEST BORING

tsfft Elev % W

Weather

Crane, IN

SAMPLE

Project

Struct. No.

ppm*

Sheet tsf %

CJ185034

PL

Driller

DESCRIPTION/CLASSIFICATION

and REMARKS PIDq No.

Location p

NAVD 88

Inspector

Depth

Station

Client

B-01

Elevation

Rec

Datum

J.S.

T y p e

--- Temp.

PI

Boring No.

90° F

317-273-1690 / 317-273-2250 (Fax)

EEI Proj. No.

7770 West New York Street - Indianapolis, Indiana 46214

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1½

3½

AS-1

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

CRUSHED STONE

SAND AND GRAVEL (fill)

CL, LEAN CLAY, stiff to very stiff, brown to gray, with silt, coal/cinders near 7 ft (fill)

WEATHERED SANDSTONE

End of Boring at 10 ft

23.2

22.2

17.2

19.6

9-3-2-4

3-3-3-5

3-5-6-8

3-3-6-7

To Water Remarks

8/6/19

Drilling Method 3¼" I.D. HSACompletion 8/6/19

Drilling

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil/rock types and the transition may be gradual.

Rig

Backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chip plug near surface.6 5

Depth

GENERAL NOTES

End

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

To Cave-in

Upon CME 55 Truck

While ft

Start24 hr

NWNW NW

After Drilling

Project No. Clear

SOIL PROPERTIES

Blow of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Offset

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

LL

Counts qu

LOG OF TEST BORING

tsfft Elev % W

Weather

Crane, IN

SAMPLE

Project

Struct. No.

ppm*

Sheet tsf %

CJ185034

PL

Driller

DESCRIPTION/CLASSIFICATION

and REMARKS PIDq No.

Location p

NAVD 88

Inspector

Depth

Station

Client

B-02

Elevation

Rec

Datum

J.S.

T y p e

--- Temp.

PI

Boring No.

90° F

317-273-1690 / 317-273-2250 (Fax)

102.7 1.5

0.5ST-1

Blank drilled to 2 ft at an offset location from boring B-2

CL, LEAN CLAY, medium to stiff, brown

End of Boring at 4 ft

--- 22.220 ---

To Water Remarks

8/6/19

Drilling Method 3¼" I.D. HSACompletion 8/6/19

Drilling

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil/rock types and the transition may be gradual.

Rig

Backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chip plug near surface.6 5

Depth

GENERAL NOTES

End

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

To Cave-in

Upon CME 55 Truck

While ft

Start24 hr

NWNW NW

After Drilling

Project No. Clear

SOIL PROPERTIES

Blow of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Offset

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

LL

Counts qu

LOG OF TEST BORING

tsfft Elev % W

Weather

Crane, IN

SAMPLE

Project

Struct. No.

ppm*

Sheet tsf %

CJ185034

PL

Driller

DESCRIPTION/CLASSIFICATION

and REMARKS PIDq No.

Location p

NAVD 88

Inspector

Depth

Station

Client

B-02A

Elevation

Rec

Datum

J.S.

T y p e

--- Temp.

PI

Boring No.

90° F

317-273-1690 / 317-273-2250 (Fax)

0.6

0.1

0.1

1.1

2½

AS-1

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

CRUSHED STONE

SAND AND GRAVEL (fill)

CL, LEAN CLAY, very stiff, brown to gray, trace coarse sand, mottled, wood fragments near 7 ft and 10 ft (fill)

End of Boring at 10 ft

1.72

21.8

20.1

15.9

5-5-5-7

4-3-3-6

6-7-4-2

2-2-4-6

To Water Remarks

8/6/19

Drilling Method 3¼" I.D. HSACompletion 8/6/19

Drilling

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil/rock types and the transition may be gradual.

Rig

Backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chip plug near surface.5 5

Depth

GENERAL NOTES

End

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

To Cave-in

Upon CME 55 Truck

While ft

Start24 hr

NWNW NW

After Drilling

Project No. Cloudy

SOIL PROPERTIES

Blow of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Offset

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

LL

Counts qu

LOG OF TEST BORING

tsfft Elev % W

Weather

Crane, IN

SAMPLE

Project

Struct. No.

ppm*

Sheet tsf %

CJ185034

PL

Driller

DESCRIPTION/CLASSIFICATION

and REMARKS PIDq No.

Location p

NAVD 88

Inspector

Depth

Station

Client

B-03

Elevation

Rec

Datum

J.S.

T y p e

--- Temp.

PI

Boring No.

90° F

317-273-1690 / 317-273-2250 (Fax)

1.9

0.3

0.4

1½

AS-1

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

CRUSHED STONE

SAND AND GRAVEL (fill)

SP-SM, SILTY SAND, loose, brown (fill)

CL, LEAN CLAY, stiff, brown, mottled (fill)

CONCRETE, metal fragments* (fill)

End of Boring at 6.2 ft

Auger refusal at 6.2 ft

*Possible former building foundation

27.9

10-6-6-3

6-4-2-2

50/.2

To Water Remarks

8/6/19

Drilling Method 3¼" I.D. HSACompletion 8/6/19

Drilling

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil/rock types and the transition may be gradual.

Rig

Backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chip plug near surface.3 4½

Depth

GENERAL NOTES

End

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

To Cave-in

Upon CME 55 Truck

While ft

Start24 hr

NW3 3

After Drilling

Project No. Clear

SOIL PROPERTIES

Blow of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Offset

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

LL

Counts qu

LOG OF TEST BORING

tsfft Elev % W

Weather

Crane, IN

SAMPLE

Project

Struct. No.

ppm*

Sheet tsf %

CJ185034

PL

Driller

DESCRIPTION/CLASSIFICATION

and REMARKS PIDq No.

Location p

NAVD 88

Inspector

Depth

Station

Client

B-04

Elevation

Rec

Datum

J.S.

T y p e

--- Temp.

PI

Boring No.

80° F

317-273-1690 / 317-273-2250 (Fax)

19 12

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1½

AS-1

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

CRUSHED STONE

SAND AND GRAVEL (fill)

CL, LEAN CLAY, stiff to very stiff, brown to gray, mottled, brick fragments near 5.5 ft, with silt below 6 ft, weathered sandstone near 10 ft (fill)

End of Boring at 10 ft

23.0

19.9

17.5

20-6-4-3

2-4-3-4

5-4-5-7

10-8-6-12

To Water Remarks

8/6/19

Drilling Method 3¼" I.D. HSACompletion 8/6/19

Drilling

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil/rock types and the transition may be gradual.

Rig

Backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chip plug near surface.6 5

Depth

GENERAL NOTES

End

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

To Cave-in

Upon CME 55 Truck

While ft

Start24 hr

NWNW NW

After Drilling

Project No. Clear

SOIL PROPERTIES

Blow of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Offset

CAAA Railcar Holding Yard

LL

Counts qu

LOG OF TEST BORING

tsfft Elev % W

Weather

Crane, IN

SAMPLE

Project

Struct. No.

ppm*

Sheet tsf %

CJ185034

PL

Driller

DESCRIPTION/CLASSIFICATION

and REMARKS PIDq No.

Location p

NAVD 88

Inspector

Depth

Station

Client

B-05

Elevation

Rec

Datum

J.S.

T y p e

--- Temp.

PI

Boring No.

80° F

317-273-1690 / 317-273-2250 (Fax)

0.6

0.0

0.0

1.0

3½

½

AS-1

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

CRUSHED STONE

SAND with GRAVEL (fill)

CL, LEAN CLAY, trace gravel, very stiff, brown to gray, mottled, coal fragments near 8 ft (fill)

ML, SANDY SILT, medium stiff, gray, wood fragments near 9.7 ft

End of Boring at 10 ft

2.01

30.1

17.9

22.8

4-5-5-3

3-3-5-8

4-4-6-7

3-2-2-4

To Water Remarks

8/6/19

Drilling Method 3¼" I.D. HSACompletion 8/6/19

Drilling

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil/rock types and the transition may be gradual.

Rig

Backfilled with auger cuttings and bentonite chip plug near surface.5 2½

Depth

GENERAL NOTES

End

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

To Cave-in

Upon CME 55 Truck

While ft

Start24 hr

NWNW NW

After Drilling

Project No. Cloudy

SOIL PROPERTIES

Blow of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Offset

CAAA…