Specifications- FT Richardson Solicitation Issue Specifications COMBINED-R SM.pdf

IMAGE UPGRADE:

BURGER KING

FORT RICHARDSON AK

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001 Quorum Project No. 23036

17 JANUARY 2024

PROJECT MANUAL

SOLICITATION ISSUE

MEP Engineer http://www.dc4mep.com

Architect

825 W. Vickery Blvd., Suite 100

Fort Worth, Texas 76104

(817) 738-8095

David Duman

2024.01.17 11:12:08-06'00'

IMAGE UPGRADE: BURGER KING, FORT RICHARDSON, AK

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

SOLICITATION ISSUE 05 JAN 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS

IMAGE UPGRADE: BURGER KING, FORT RICHARDSON, ALASKA

EXCHANGE Project No: 9184-23-000001/Quorum Project No. 23036

VOLUME 1

DIVISION 00 – PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 10 13 SUMMARY OF PROJECT

01 10 17 EXCHANGE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED EQUIPMENT

01 10 18 EXCHANGE FURNISHED CONTRACTOR INSTALLED EQUIPMENT

01 32 00 OPTIONS

01 10 60 SAFETY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

01 10 60.1 SAMPLE SAFETY PLAN

01 10 60.2 SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION HAZARD PLAN

01 12 16 CONSTRUCTION PHASING

01 13 00 SAFETY REGULATIONS AND CODES

01 13 10 WASTE DISPOSAL

01 14 50 CUTTING AND PATCHING

01 25 00 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

01 31 00 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

01 32 00 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION

01 33 00 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

01 33 10 TIME EXTENSION-WEATHER TABLE

01 35 43 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

01 40 00 QUALITY CONTROL

01 50 00 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

01 51 00 TEMPORARY UTILITIES

01 59 00 FIELD OFFICES AND SHEDS

01 65 00 STARTING OF SYSTEMS

01 65 00.1 DOD 1354 INSTRUCTION.PDF

01 71 00 CLEANING

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

01 77 00 PROJECT CLOSEOUT

01 78 23 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE DATA

01 78 36 WARRANTIES AND BONDS

01 78 39 PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

DIVISION 2 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 16 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION

DIVISION 3 – CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE

DIVISION 4 – MASONRY

04 48 40 THIN BRICK/PANEL BRICK VENEER

DIVISION 5 – METALS

05 50 00 METAL FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 6 – WOOD AND PLASTICS

06 10 00 MISCELLANEOUS ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 20 00 FINISH CARPENTRY & MILLWORK

DIVISION 7 – THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 25 00 WEATHER BARRIERS

07 42 43 COMPOSITE WALL PANELS

07 62 00 METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 8 – OPENINGS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

DIVISION 9 – FINISHES

09 22 16 NON LOAD-BEARING STEEL FRAMING

09 24 00 STUCCO REPAIR

09 29 00 GYPSUM BOARD

09 30 00 TILING

09 51 13 ACOUSTICAL PANEL CEILINGS

09 90 00 PAINTING

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 28 13 TOILET ACCESSORIES

10 73 16 FLAT SOFFIT CANTILEVERED CANOPY

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 00 00 PLUMBING

22 01 00 START-UP CLEANING TESTING_ADJUSTING

22 05 00 BASIC MATERIALS_METHODS FOR PLUMBING

22 13 00 FACILITY SANITARY SEWERAGE

22 40 00 PLUMBING FIXTURES

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

23 00 00 HVAC - GENERAL PROVISIONS

23 01 00 START-UP CLEANING TESTING _ ADJUSTMENT

23 05 00 BASIC MATERIALS _ METHODS FOR HVAC

23 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 00 HVAC INSULATION

23 21 13 HYDRONIC PIPING

23 31 00 HVAC DUCTS AND CASINGS

23 33 00 AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES

23 37 00 AIR OUTLETS AND INLETS

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 05 00 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL

26 05 19 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

26 05 26 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 33 RACEWAY AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 27 26 WIRING DEVICES

26 51 00 LIGHTING

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 12 36 ASPHALT SLURRY SEAL COAT

32 92 00 TURF AND GRASSES

32 13 13 CONCRETE PAVING

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

VOLUME II

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY OTHERS

OWNERS DRINK FOUNTAIN INSTRUCTIONS

CANOPY INFORMATION.

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

VOLUME III

EXISTING FACILITY PHOTOGRAPHS

NOTE: THESE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND NOT INTENDED TO

REPLACE A PRE-BID SURVEY TRIP AS REQUIRED BY OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CONTRACT

DOCUMENTS.

AAFES Project No: 9184-23-001

SUBMITTED TO:

Quorum Architects 825 West Vickery Road Fort Worth, Texas 76104

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

5430 Fairbanks Street Anchorage, Alaska 99518

(907) 561-2120 www.shannonwilson.com

AECC 125

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Fort Richardson Burger King Upgrades

JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, ALASKA

December 2023

Shannon & Wilson No: 111984-001 http://www.shannonwilson.com/

Fort Richardson Burger King Upgrades Geotechnical Engineering Report

111984-001 December 2023

PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR DOUBLE-SIDED PRINTING

12/4/2023-JBER Burger King.docx i

Submitted To: Quorum Architects 825 West Vickery Road Fort Worth, Texas 76104 Attn: Mr. Jaren Dahl

Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT, FORT RICHARDSON BURGER

KING UPGRADES, JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, ALASKA

Shannon & Wilson prepared this report and participated in this project as a subconsultant to Quorum Architects (Quorum). Our scope of services was specified in our September 13, 2023 proposal and approved by Mr. David Duman on September 21, 2023. This report presents the results of our geotechnical explorations and geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of pavement upgrades to the drive-through area and was prepared by the undersigned.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions concerning this report, or we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Forrest Dobson, EIT Geotechnical Staff

RDC/FED:KLB

Kyle Brennan, PE Vice President ii

CO

NT

EN

TS

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

4 LABORATORY TESTING

5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Site Preparation and Subgrade Development

6.2 Asphalt Pavement Structural Section

6.3 Drainage

6.4 Structural Fill and Compaction

7 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site Plan Figure 3: Soil Description and Log Key (3 sheets) Figure 4: Frost Classification Legend Figure 5: Log of Boring B-1 Figure 6: Grain Size Classification Figure 7: Gradation Requirements

Appendices Important Information

111984-001 December 2023

1 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of subsurface explorations, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering studies conducted by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. to support the design of improvements to an existing Burger King (Building 9) on Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson (JBER), Alaska. The purpose of this geotechnical study was to gather subsurface geotechnical data and make geotechnical engineering recommendations for pavement improvements in the existing drive-through area. To accomplish this, we advanced one geotechnical boring near the existing drive-through. Selected soil samples recovered from the boring were tested in our Anchorage laboratory. Presented in this report are descriptions of the site and project, subsurface exploration and laboratory test results, an interpretation of subsurface conditions, and our geotechnical engineering recommendations for design of the pavement improvements.

2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project is located at Building 9, near the intersection of Akutan Avenue and 5th Street in JBER, Alaska. The existing building consists of a one-story structure with a nearby equipment shed and paved parking and drive-through areas. The surrounding area is developed with residential, retail, and recreational facilities. The remaining portions of the lot are landscaped with grass. The topography of the area is generally flat. A vicinity map showing the general project area is included as Figure 1.

We understand the project generally consists of upgrades to the Burger King restaurant and drive-through area. Our studies were focused on pavement upgrades to the drive-through area and did not include explorations or recommendations for the restaurant building. We understand the drive-through upgrades generally include removing and replacing existing pavement and structural sections. The locations of our boring and existing site features are shown on the site plan in Figure 2.

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

Subsurface explorations for this study consisted of drilling and sampling one boring, designated Boring B-1, at the site on October 9, 2023. The general boring location was selected by Quorum and positioned in the field by Shannon and Wilson to avoid conflicts with buried utilities and provide clear access for the drill rig. The boring location, shown on Figure 2, was recorded with a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit that is

111984-001 December 2023 generally considered accurate to within 20 feet horizontally. It should be noted that GPS accuracy may be affected by geographic features, tree canopies, and atmospheric anomalies.

The surface elevation shown on the boring log was extrapolated from topographic contours provided the Municipality of Anchorage. Therefore, the boring location shown on the site plan and the elevation reported on the boring log should be considered approximate.

Drilling services for this project were provided by Discovery Drilling of Anchorage, Alaska, using a track-mounted, Geoprobe 6712 DT drill rig. A representative from our firm was present during drilling to locate the borings, observe drill action, collect samples, log subsurface conditions, and observe groundwater conditions. Prior to drilling, we coordinated with JBER to obtain a work clearance and clear the boring location of buried public and private utilities.

The boring was advanced with 3 1/4-inch inner diameter (ID), continuous flight, hollow-stem augers to a depth of about 17 feet below the ground surface (bgs). As the boring was advanced, samples were recovered using modified penetration test (MPT) methods at 2.5-foot intervals for the first 10 feet bgs, and then at 5-foot intervals to the bottom of the boring.

In the MPT method, samples are recovered by driving a 3-inch outer diameter (OD) split-spoon sampler into the bottom of the advancing hole with blows of a 340-pound hammer free falling 30 inches onto the drill rod. For each sample, the number of blows required to drive the sampler the the middle 12 inches of a 24-inch penetration (MPT) into undisturbed soil is recorded. Blow counts are shown graphically on the boring log figures as “penetration resistance” and are displayed adjacent to sample depth. The penetration resistance values give a measure of the relative density (compactness) or consistency (stiffness) of cohesionless or cohesive soils, respectively. In addition to the split spoon samples, a grab sample of the near-surface soils was collected from the auger cuttings in the upper 2 feet of the boring.

The soil samples recovered during drilling were observed and described in the field in general accordance with the classification system described by ASTM International (ASTM) D2488. Selected samples recovered during drilling were tested in our laboratory to refine our soil descriptions in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Figure 3. Frost classifications were also estimated for samples based on laboratory testing (sieve analyses) and are shown on the boring log. The frost classification system is presented in Figure 4. A summary log of the boring is presented in Figure 5.

Soil samples recovered during drilling were headspace screened for volatile organic vapors (VOC) using a Thermo Instruments OVM 580B photoionization detector (PID). The PID was calibrated before screening activities with 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene standard gas. Field screening was conducted by collecting samples and taking a reading

111984-001 December 2023 within the sample container after the sample had warmed to approximately 40 degrees Farenheit and within approximately 1 hour of collection. Field screening results are discussed briefly in Section 5. Upon completion of the drilling, the boring was backfilled with drill cuttings removed during drilling.

4 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples recovered from the boring to confirm our field classifications and to estimate the index properties of the typical materials encountered at the site. The laboratory testing was formulated with emphasis on determining gradation properties, natural water content, and frost characteristics.

Water content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D2216. The results of the water content measurements are presented graphically on the boring log in Figure 5.

Grain size classification (gradation) testing was performed to estimate the particle size distribution of selected samples from the boring. The gradation testing generally followed the procedures described in ASTM C136/C117. The test results are presented in Figure 6 and summarized on the boring log as percent gravel, percent sand, and percent fines.

Percent fines on the boring log are equal to the sum of the silt and clay fractions indicated by the percent passing the No. 200 sieve. Note that sieve testing indicates particle size only and visual classification under USCS designates the entire fraction of soil finer than the No. 200 sieve as silt. Plasticity characteristics (Atterberg Limits results) are required to differentiate between silt and clay soils under USCS.

5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in our explorations are described in the following section and presented graphically on the boring log in Figure 5.

In general, our boring at the site encountered approximately 1 foot of silty sand with gravel intermingled with plant roots overlying native well- and poorly-graded gravels with silt and sand. From approximately 13 feet bgs to the bottom of the boring, our drilling encountered silty sand. Based on laboratory testing, fines contents in the soils recovered in the upper foot were about 31 percent and fines contents in the gravels range from about 5 to 6 percent. Moisture contents were approximately 18 percent in the near-surface siltier materials and ranged between 2 and 3 percent in the underlying gravels.

Based on penetration resistance values ranging from 18 to greater than 50 blows per foot (bpf), the soil encountered in the borings would be considered medium dense to very dense.

111984-001 December 2023

It is our opinion that some penetration resistance values recorded during MPT sampling are likely biased high due to the gravelly nature of the materials encountered, as evidenced by the presence of fractured rock pieces that were observed in the sampler during drilling.

Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. Groundwater levels may fluctuate by several feet seasonally or vary during periods of high precipitation and rapid snow melt.

Soil samples recovered during drilling were field screened for VOC using a PID. The highest screening result was 0.3 ppm, which is within typical background levels for soils in the JBER area and suggests that the soils were not impacted by hydrocarbon contaminants.

6 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS

Geotechnical considerations associated with this project consist of site preparation, developing pavement structural sections, structural fill and compaction, reuse of existing materials, and site drainage. Based on the conditions encountered by our boring, the soils near the existing drive-through of the project area generally consist of 1 foot of silty soils overlying native, predominantly granular soils. The native soils below the surficial silty material are generally non frost susceptible with a frost classification of NFS, excluding soils with higher fines contents (more frost susceptible soils) encountered below approximately 13 feet bgs. In our opinion, these soils should be adequate to support the proposed pavement improvements if the pavement structural section is designed to accommodate the expected frost conditions. Proper control of excavation, fill quality, and fill placement will also be paramount in achieving a well-constructed project.

6.1 Site Preparation and Subgrade Development

We assume that the parking and drive-through pavement upgrades will be constructed at or near the grade of the existing pavements. To prepare the site for construction, existing pavements and near-surface silty soils containing organics should be removed. Based on our borings at the site, these near-surface soils are anticipated to be about 1 foot thick. Soil material containing organics and silty materials should not be re-used as fill beneath the pavement structural section and should be removed from under the footprint of the improvements or used as topsoil in landscaping. The prepared area should extend a minimum of 4 feet beyond the outer edge of the area to be paved.

Once these unsuitable soils are removed, the area should be excavated, as required, to the design elevation of the bottom of the structural section fill. The base of the excavation should then be observed and proof rolled to identify loose or unsuitable subgrade materials.

If loose zones or other unsuitable conditions are observed, these spots should be re-

111984-001 December 2023 compacted or removed and replaced with Type II/IIA fill, as defined by the Municipality of Anchorage Standard Specifications (MASS). If areas of the site need to be filled prior to developing the structural section, the fill should consist of Type II/IIA fill. All fills should be placed and compacted as described in Section 6.4. The goal of this process is to attain a relatively uniform, firm and unyielding subgrade upon which to construct the pavement system. Based on the results of our explorations, it is unlikely that groundwater will be encountered in the excavations. However, drainage of the surface water around the excavation should be considered as described in Section 6.3.

6.2 Asphalt Pavement Structural Section

New asphalt pavements must be able to support the anticipated applied loads from vehicles and should provide protection from frost-related distress. We assume that traffic in the drive-through area will generally consist of relatively light, slow moving, cars and trucks with occasional traffic by buses, delivery vehicles, or snow removal and maintenance equipment. Design of the pavement section requires consideration of the density of soils, site drainage, and frost susceptibility of the existing and subgrade soils.

We assume that the new pavements will not need to meet the local, state or Federal government requirements, which would include developing the structural section based on established standards. As such, we have developed the following structural section based on our engineering judgement and experience with similar developments in the JBER area that should support the anticipated traffic loads, provided the silty soils encountered in the upper 1 foot of our borings are removed as outlined in Section 6.1.

Exhibit 6-1: Recommended Structural Section

Thickness (inches) Material

2 Asphalt

2 Leveling Course

6 Type IIA Base

18 Type II/IIA Subbase

Our recommended structural section for asphalt pavements can generally be applied to rigid concrete pavements, i.e. curb and pedestrian travelways. The thickness of the concrete layer above the structural section should be designed depending on the structural requirements to accommodate expected loading and assuming a subgrade reaction modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The materials should conform to the gradation requirements presented in the MASS and should be placed in accordance with the recommendations included in Section 6.4. Based on our borings, some on-site materials

111984-001 December 2023 may meet or come close to meeting the gradation requirements for the Type II/IIA subbase.

However, we do not recommend relying on on-site soils as the source of these materials.

MOA gradation requirements are presented in Figure 7.

The performance of the pavement section is controlled by the details of construction and will depend on the quality (gradation characteristics) of the materials used to develop the needed structural section, drainage details, and the extent to which seasonal frost action causes softening of the subgrade during breakup. Quality control inspection is strongly recommended, with subgrade probing, support soil compaction, and asphalt testing at regular intervals to be sure that the intent of the specification is met. Our recommended sections assume that site improvements will maintain appropriate drainage to direct surface waters away from the area and not into the subsurface pavement section. The owner should be aware that some contingency will be necessary for future maintenance to remediate pavement distress from aging and seasonal movements.

6.3 Drainage

Site drainage should be considered during design and construction. Groundwater was not encountered during our geotechnical explorations. Therefore, excavations to prepare the site for the pavement structural section are not anticipated to encounter groundwater.

Dewatering with sumps and pumping equipment is likely to be sufficient to control potential isolated pockets of groundwater or surface water, if encountered, during excavation.

In general, excavation and backfill work should be closely coordinated such that seepage and surface runoff is not allowed to collect and stand in open excavations. Likewise, the ground surface around excavations should be contoured to drain away from the excavation and the excavation bottoms should be graded to drain to a sump or topographic low. If excavations remain open for an extended duration or during periods of high rainfall or rapid snow melting, shoring and/or dewatering with sumps and pumps in the excavation bottom may be necessary to maintain stable slope and bottom conditions. It should be noted that groundwater levels are subject to variation and may fluctuate by several feet seasonally.

Drainage around the pavements should be provided to reduce the effects of seasonal frost in the new paved surfaces. Positive drainage should be maintained such that surface water is directed off the pavement surface and away from the structural section.

111984-001 December 2023

6.4 Structural Fill and Compaction

Structural fill will be needed to develop the structural section. Structural fill that is placed should be clean, well-graded, granular soil to provide drainage and frost protection.

Generally, Type II/IIA structural fill, as defined by the MASS, meets these requirements and works well for this application and as the subbase layer. Gradation requirements for the classified materials mentioned above are included in Figure 7.

Based on laboratory test results from our boring in the project area, the existing granular soils encountered in the upper 10 feet generally consisted of well-and poorly-graded gravels with sand with fines contents ranging between about 5 and 6 percent. Therefore, it appears that some of the materials encountered in our explorations may meet or come close to meeting the gradation requirements for Type II/IIA classified fill as shown on Figure 7.

These materials may be reused for backfill beneath the pavement structural section and in nonstructural areas. The amount of material that will actually be able to be re-used as Type II/IIA classified fill will depend greatly on the contractor’s ability to identify material that will qualify as classified during excavation, and to segregate it from material that would not qualify as classified. We do not recommend relying on on-site soils as the source of these materials, although the existing subsurface materials may be adequate for non-structural fill.

Structural fills beneath the new pavement area or in other structural applications should be placed in lifts not to exceed 12 inches loose thickness and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by the Modified Proctor compaction procedure (ASTM D1557). During fill placement, we recommend that large cobbles or boulders with dimensions in excess of 8 inches be removed from any structural fills. Non-structural fills should be placed in similar lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum density. We recommend that our services be retained to inspect the quality of fill compaction during construction.

7 CLOSURE AND LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their representatives for evaluating the site as it relates to the geotechnical aspects discussed herein. The conclusions and interpretation contained in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist. It is assumed that the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, i.e., the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the explorations.

If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in these explorations are observed or appear to be present, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. should be

111984-001 December 2023 advised at once so that these conditions can be reviewed. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submittal of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions considering the changed conditions and time lapse.

Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot fully be determined by merely taking soil samples or advancing test holes. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. Please read the Important Information section at the back of this report to reduce your project risks.

We recommend that we be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications pertaining to earthwork to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations. In addition, we should be retained to observe construction, particularly the installation of piles and/or site excavations, preparation of subgrade, compaction of structural fill, and also to make field measurements of ground displacements and other such field observations as may be necessary.

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Fort Richardson Burger King Upgrades Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

December 2023

VICINITY MAP

FIG. 1

111984-001

N

Approximate Project Location

Anchorage

0 2 4

Miles

JBER CANADA

ALASKA

Glenn Highway

JBER

Knik Arm

B-1

Existing Drive-Through Burger King

Akutan Ave

SITE PLAN

FIG. 2

Fort Richardson Burger King Upgrades Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

December 2023 111984-001

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

LEGEND

Approximate Location of Boring B-1, Advanced by Shannon & Wilson, October 2023

B-1

NOTES

1. Map adapted from aerial imagery provided from Google Earth, June 2023.

December 2023 111984-001

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. 3

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil identification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of the USCS and other definitions are provided on this and the following pages. Soil descriptions are based on visual-manual procedures (ASTM D2488) and laboratory testing procedures (ASTM D2487), if performed.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

1All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.

2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on boring logs are as recorded in the field and have not been corrected for hammer efficiency, overburden, or other factors.

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

30% or more total coarse-grained and lesser coarse-grained constituent is 15% or more:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

1Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead 2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm

NOTE: If automatic hammers are used, blow counts shown on boring logs should be adjusted to account for efficiency of hammer.

10 to 30 inches long Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches Barrel O.D. = 2 inches

Sum blow counts for second and third 6-inch increments.

Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or less; 10 blows for 0 inches.

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

15% or more of a second coarse-grained constituent:

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

Sheet 1 of 3

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)

#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)

#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)

3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

G

IN

T T

E M

P

LA

T E

7.

G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

1/

/2

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

(50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve)

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

(more than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Silt

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

OL

(less than 5% fines)

GW

(less than 5% fines)

PT

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay

NOTES

1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types are a combination of the two graphic symbols (e.g., SP and SM).

2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML, Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between two groups.

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Sheet 2 of 320

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

G

IN

T T

E M

P

LA

T E

7.

G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

1/

/2

NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within the range of grain sizes present, one or more sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Full range and even distribution of grain sizes present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.

Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure Will not crumble or break with finger pressure

Weak

Moderate

Strong

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled at any water content.

A thread can barely be rolled and a lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.

A thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. A lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.

It take considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit.

A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

FIG. 3

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick; singular: bed.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick; singular:

lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;

sometimes striated.

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps that resist further breakdown.

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay.

Same color and appearance throughout.

At Time of Drilling Diameter Elevation Feet Iron Oxide Gallons Horizontal Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter Inches Pounds Magnesium Oxide Millimeter Manganese Oxide Not Applicable or Not Available Nonplastic Outside Diameter Observation Well Pounds per Cubic Foot Photo-Ionization Detector Pressuremeter Test Parts per Million Pounds per Square Inch Polyvinyl Chloride Rotations per Minute Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification System Unconfined Compressive Strength Vibrating Wire Piezometer Vertical Weight of Hammer Weight of Rods Weight

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

STRUCTURE TERMS1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

1Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt and/or clay matrix.

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

ADDITIONAL TERMS

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

APPROX.

PLASITICTY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Sheet 3 of 3

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

G

IN

T T

E M

P

LA

T E

7.

G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

1/

/2

Bottom of Boring Boring Completed 10/9/23

Medium dense, dark brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; trace roots (approximately 1 inch diameter) [FILL]

Medium dense to dense, dark brown, Well-Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GW-GM) to Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand (GP-GM); moist

Very dense, light brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist

1.0

13.0

17.0

S1: 31.4% Fines (F3)

S2: low recovery

S3: 65% Gravel, 29% Sand, 5% Fines (NFS)

S5: 73% Gravel, 22% Sand, 6% Fines (NFS)

S6: low recovery

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

LOG OF BORING B-1

Water Content (%)

S ym bo l

Fort Richardson Burger King Upgrades Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

1. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and the transition may be gradual.

Grab Sample

3. Water level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.

Liquid Limit

FIG. 5

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , F t.

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

LEGEND 25

111984-001

2. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface materials.

Plastic Limit

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

3" O.D. Split Spoon Sample

D ep th , F t.

* Sample Not Recovered

S am pl es

December 2023

299 Ft. GAAB 72

Natural Water Content

Penetration Resistance (340 lb. weight, 30" drop)

Blows per foot Water Content (%)

NOTES

Long.: 149°41'34.25" WLat.: 61°15'8.45" N

G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt e re d du ri ng d ri lli ng o n

0/

/2

Approx. Elevation:

Version 1.0 - FINAL

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L L

O G

G

IN

T T

E M

P

LA

T E

7.

G

P J

S

W _G

E O

1.

G

D T

2/

4/

010203040506070809010

0.

0.

0.

1, #6

1/

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

#2

#4 fin e

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

S

IL

T O

R C

LA

Y

G R

A

IN

S

IZ

E

IN

M

IL

LI

M

E T

E R

S fin e

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

C O

B B

LE

S

U .S

. S

IE

V E

N U

M B

E R

S

3/

S A

N D

3/

#1

#2 m ed iu m

#4

U .S

. S

IE

V E

O P

E N

IN

G

IN

IN

C H

E S

1/ co ar se co ar se

H Y

D R

O M

E T

E R

#1

G R

A V

E L

1/

P I

.0

.8

5.

6.

.0

1.

.5

.3

D ep th , F t 5.

6.

.0

1.

50 50

0.

0.

D

C la y

D

FIG. 6

G ra ve l

29 22

S am pl e

C c

D ep th , F t

Fort Richardson Burger King Upgrades Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

December 2023 111984-001

C u

D

S ilt

1.

4.

LL

W el l- G ra d ed G ra ve l w it h S ilt a n d

S an d

G W

-G M

P o o rl y G ra d ed G ra ve l w it h S ilt a n d

S an d

G P

-G M

S am pl e

65 73

3.

5.

D

P L

S an d

B -1

S

B -1

S

5 6

GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION

B -1

S

B -1

S

U S

C S

C la ss ifi ca tio n

TYPE II BACKFILL

PERCENT PASSING

BY WEIGHT

GRADATION REQUIREMENTS

(Adapted from Municipality of Anchorage Standard Specifications, 2015)

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

8 in.

3 in.

1-1/2 in.

3/4 in.

No. 4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 200

75 mm

37.5 mm

19.0 mm

4.75 mm

2.00 mm

0.425 mm

0.075 mm

70 - 100 55 - 100 45 - 85 20 - 60 12 - 50 4 - 30 2 - 6**

* The fraction passing the No. 200 sieve shall not exceed 75 percent of the fraction passing the No. 50 sieve.passing the No. 50 sieve.

** The fraction passing the No. 200 sieve shall not exceed 15 percent of the fraction passing the No. 4 sieve.passing the No. 4 sieve.

TYPE IIA BACKFILL

PERCENT PASSING

BY WEIGHTU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

3 in.

3/4 in.

No. 4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 200

75 mm

19.0 mm

4.75 mm

2.00 mm

0.425 mm

0.075 mm

50 - 100 25 - 60 15 - 50 4 - 30

2 - 6***

*** The fraction passing the No. 200 sieve shall not exceed 20 percent of the fraction passing the No. 4 sieve.

LEVELING COURSE

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING

BY WEIGHT

25.0 mm

19.0 mm

9.5 mm

4.75 mm

2.36 mm

0.30 mm

0.075 mm

70 - 100 50 - 80 35 - 65 20 - 50 8 - 28 0 - 6*

1 in.

3/4 in.

3/8 in.

No. 4 No. 8 No. 50 No. 200

MetricEnglish

GRADATION REQUIREMENTS

FIG. 7

Fort Richardson Burger King Upgrades Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska

December 2023 111984-001

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

111984-001 December 2023 II-i

IM

PO

RT

AN

T

IN

FO

RM

AT

IO

N Important Information

Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report

111984-001 December 2023

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. Depending on the project, these may include the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used

(1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site.

Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors that were considered in the development of the report have changed.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.

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

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

MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.

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

111984-001 December 2023

II-2

IM

PO

RT

AN

T

IN

FO

RM

AT

IO

N your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect.

A REPORT’S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.

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

The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report’s recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.

THE CONSULTANT’S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.

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

BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED

FROM THE REPORT.

Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data.

Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in geotechnical/environmental reports.

These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.

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

READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.

Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims

111984-001 December 2023

II-3

IM

PO

RT

AN

T

IN

FO

RM

AT

IO

N being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem, consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. These responsibility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant’s liabilities to other parties;

rather, they are definitive clauses that identify where the consultant’s responsibilities begin and end.

Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.

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

AF FORM 813, 19990901 (EF-V1) Page 1 of 4THIS FORM CONSOLIDATES AF FORMS 813 AND 814.

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF BOTH FORMS ARE OBSOLETE.

REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

SECTION I - PROPONENT INFORMATION

INSTRUCTIONS: Section I to be completed by Proponent; Sections II and III to be completed by Environmental Planning Function.

Continue on separate sheets as necessary and reference appropriate item number(s).

1. TO (Environmental Planning Function)

673 CES/CEIEC

2. FROM (Proponent organization and functional address symbol) Army and Air Force Exchange Service

2a. TELEPHONE NO.

214-957-5765

Report Control Symbol

RCS: 2023-070

3. TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION

JBER Ft Richardson BK Image Update (Big 9)

4.…