Geotech Report MI ARNG GAAF RC.pdf

REPORT COVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Grayling Army-Air Force Readiness Center

Grayling, Michigan June 15, 2022

Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Prepared for:

Atkins Global

Denver, Colorado

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants-MI, Inc.

Niles, Michigan

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

FLOOR SLABS

PAVEMENTS

GENERAL COMMENTS

FIGURES

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the

GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUC TION

Geotechnical Engineering Report Grayling Army-Air Force Readiness Center

NW Corner of Intersection of MI-93 and Bataan Avenue

Grayling, Michigan Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

June 15, 2022

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed readiness center to be located at the northeast corner of

Flight Line Loop to the north of Bataan Avenue at the Grayling Army-Air Force Base in Grayling, Michigan. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Foundation design and construction

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Floor slab design and construction

■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Seismic site class per IBC

■ Pavement design and construction

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of nine borings to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 25 feet below existing site grades.

Maps showing the site and boring locations are shown in the Site Location and Exploration

Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included on the boring logs in the

Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available aerial imagery.

Item Description

Parcel Information

The project is located at the Grayling Army-Air Force Base on MI-93 in

Grayling, Michigan. The project site is to the northeast of Flight Line Loop to the north of Bataan Avenue.

See Site Location

Existing

Improvements None - vacant parcel

Grayling Army-Air Force Readiness Center ■ Grayling, Michigan

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Current Ground

Cover Grass and weeds

Existing Topography

(Google Earth)

The site is relatively flat with surface elevations ranging from about 1146 to

1151 feet at the boring locations.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal, and our current understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Information Provided Statement of Work for Grayling Army-Air Force (GAAF) Readiness Center

Project Description

A new National Guard readiness center is planned to be constructed at the existing Grayling Army Airfield facility. Paved parking and driveways will also be constructed as a part of this project.

Proposed Structure

The project includes a one to two-story building with a footprint totaling about 40,000 square feet. The building will be slab-on-grade (non-basement).

Building Construction

■ Load-bearing masonry walls or steel frame

■ Slab-on-grade

Finished Floor Elevation Not provided but anticipated to be within 3 feet of existing grade. For the purpose of preparing this report, an FFE of 1146 feet has been considered.

Maximum Loads

■ Columns: 150 kips

■ Walls: 10 kips per linear foot (klf)

■ Slabs: 150 pounds per square foot (psf)

Grading Up to about 3 feet of cut and/or fill is anticipated to develop final grade.

Below Grade Structures None

Free-Standing Retaining

Walls None

Pavements

■ Paved driveway and parking will be constructed on the parcel.

■ We assume both rigid (concrete) and flexible (asphalt) pavement sections are being considered.

■ Anticipated traffic has not been provided.

■ The pavement design period is 20 years.

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Subsurface Profile

We have developed a general characterization of the subsurface conditions based upon our review of the subsurface exploration, laboratory data, geologic setting and our understanding of the project. This characterization, termed GeoModel, forms the basis of our geotechnical calculations and evaluation of site preparation and foundation options. Conditions encountered at each exploration point are indicated on the individual logs. The individual logs can be found in the

Exploration Results section and the GeoModel can be found in the Figures section of this report.

As part of our analyses, we identified the following model layers within the subsurface profile. For a more detailed view of the model layer depths at each boring location, refer to the GeoModel.

Model Layer Layer Name General Description

1 Topsoil Topsoil – about 6 to 18 inches

Poorly Graded

Sand Poorly graded sand with variable amounts of silt, generally loose

Well Graded

Sand Well graded sand, generally medium dense

Groundwater Conditions

The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. The water levels observed in the boreholes can be found on the boring logs in the

Exploration Results section. Groundwater was encountered in each boring except B-7 and B-8 and ranged in depth from about 6.5 to 10 feet below grade.

The United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA

NRCS) Soil Survey of Crawford County, Michigan was also reviewed for information relating to anticipated seasonally high groundwater levels. In undisturbed areas, the native soils are reported to have apparent seasonal high groundwater level greater than 6 feet below their natural grades.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Loose native sands were encountered in each of the soil borings performed at this site. These soils are considered suitable for support of new foundations and floor slabs for the new readiness center, though a relatively low net allowable bearing pressure is recommended due to the loose nature of the soils. Prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete for the new foundations, we recommend that the native sands be surficially recompacted in place to improve the relative density to at least a medium dense condition. However, we anticipate that this could be challenging to accomplish in the field due to the relatively clean sands in the borings. If very loose sands cannot be suitably densified in place, we recommend that the very loose materials be removed and replaced with lean concrete. Additional design recommendations are provided in the Shallow Foundations section.

As loose sands are present near the ground surface at the site, subgrade stabilization could be required prior to floor slab and pavement construction. Information regarding subgrade stabilization methods are given in the Earthwork section, and design recommendations are shown in the Floor

Slabs and Pavements sections.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include quality criteria necessary to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation for foundations, floor slabs, and pavements.

Site Preparation

Prior to placing fill, existing vegetation and root mat should be removed. Complete stripping of the topsoil should be performed in the proposed building and parking/driveway areas.

After completing the rough grading operations, the exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled (under the observation of Terracon personnel) with a vibratory drum roller weighing at least 10 tons to locate any zones that are very loose or unstable. Where excessive rutting or pumping occurs during proofrolling, the exposed subgrade should be removed and replaced or scarified/reworked and recompacted in place to our recommendations for structural fill (see below for details) prior to the placement of new fill.

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Subgrade Stabilization

A Terracon representative should observe subgrade preparation and could assist in developing appropriate stabilization procedures based on conditions encountered during construction.

Methods of stabilization could include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction, removal of unstable materials and replacement with granular fill (with or without geosynthetics) or chemical stabilization. The appropriate method of improvement, if required, would be dependent on factors such as schedule, weather, the size of area to be stabilized, and the nature of the instability. More detailed recommendations can be provided during construction as the need for subgrade stabilization occurs. Performing site grading operations during warm seasons and dry periods would help reduce the amount of subgrade stabilization required.

Fill Material Types

Earthen materials used for structural fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Locations for Placement

On-site soils SP, SP-SM, SM The on-site soils typically appear suitable for reuse as fill.

Granular

GW, GM, GC

SW, SP, SM, SC

Structural fill below foundations

Fill in other areas

1. Structural fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site.

Fill Compaction Requirements

Structural fill should meet the following compaction requirements.

Item Structural Fill

Maximum Lift

Thickness

■ 8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used

■ 4 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used

Minimum Compaction

Requirements 1, 2

■ 95 percent below foundations and within 3 feet of finished pavement subgrade

■ 92 percent above foundations, below floor slabs, and more than 3 feet below finished pavement subgrade

Water Content Range 1 ■ Granular: -3 percent to +3 percent of optimum

1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557).

2. If the granular material is a coarse sand or gravel, or of a uniform size, or has a low fines content, compaction comparison to relative density may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should be compacted to at least 70% relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254).

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Grading and Drainage

All grades must provide effective drainage away from the building during and after construction and should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Water retained next to the building can result in soil movements greater than those discussed in this report. Greater movements can result in unacceptable differential floor slab and/or foundation movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks. The roof should have gutters/drains with downspouts that discharge onto splash blocks at a distance of at least 10 feet from the building.

Exposed ground should be sloped and maintained at a minimum 5 percent away from the building for at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building. Locally, flatter grades may be necessary to transition ADA access requirements for flatwork. After building construction and landscaping have been completed, final grades should be verified to document effective drainage has been achieved. Grades around the structure should also be periodically inspected and adjusted, as necessary, as part of the structure’s maintenance program. Where paving or flatwork abuts the structure, a maintenance program should be established to effectively seal and maintain joints and prevent surface water infiltration.

Earthwork Construction Considerations

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade water content prior to construction of floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrades should be avoided. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. Water collecting over or adjacent to construction areas should be removed. If the subgrade freezes, desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or the materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to floor slab and pavement construction.

Groundwater was observed at depths of about 6.5 to 10 feet below existing grades (corresponding to approximately elevation 1139 to 1141 feet, per Google Earth) at the time the borings were drilled. Based on the water levels encountered at the time of our field exploration, we anticipate that groundwater will not unduly influence construction activities at this site.

Depending on weather and seasonal conditions, groundwater control and dewatering become necessary and could complicate the construction activities and affect the long-term performance of the structure. Due to the granular soils at the site, groundwater control would likely require more substantial equipment beyond a series of simple wells and pumps. The groundwater level should be maintained at least 2 feet below the excavation level.

As a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, and/or state regulations.

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who controls the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. Under no circumstances shall the information provided herein be interpreted to mean Terracon is assuming responsibility for construction site safety, or the contractor's activities; such responsibility shall neither be implied nor inferred.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be observed and tested by a representative of the Geotechnical

Engineer. Observation and testing should include documentation of adequate removal of vegetation and topsoil, proofrolling, and mitigation of areas delineated by the proofroll to require mitigation.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, until approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and water content in the building and pavement areas. In areas of foundation excavations, the bearing subgrade should be evaluated under the direction of the Geotechnical

Engineer. If unanticipated conditions are encountered, the Geotechnical Engineer should be contacted to provide improvement options.

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

As described earlier in this report, loose sands are present across the site including in the borings within the building footprint. These soils are suitable for supporting new foundations; however, we recommend that they be surficially recompacted to a medium dense condition prior to the placement of concrete. The recompaction should be performed using a ho-pac or other large plate compactor. If the soils cannot be suitably recompacted in place, we recommend that they be overexcavated and replaced with lean concrete. Foundations for the building will require formwork due to the loose granular materials onsite.

If the site has been prepared in accordance with the requirements noted in Earthwork, the following design parameters are applicable for shallow foundations.

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Shallow Foundation Design Parameters

Item Description

Maximum Net Allowable Bearing

Pressure 1, 2 2,000 psf

Required Bearing Stratum 3 Native sands after surficial recompaction

Minimum Foundation Dimensions Columns: 30 inches

Continuous: 18 inches

Ultimate Passive Resistance

(equivalent fluid pressures) 360 pcf (granular backfill)

Ultimate Coefficient of Sliding Friction 5 0.40 (granular material)

Minimum Embedment below

Finished Grade for Frost Protection

Footings in unheated areas: 54 inches

Interior footings in heated areas: 20 inches

Estimated Total Settlement from

Structural Loads 2 Less than about 1 inch

1. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. An appropriate factor of safety has been applied.

2. Values provided are for maximum loads noted in Project Description.

3. Unsuitable or soft soils should be overexcavated and replaced per the recommendations presented in the

Earthwork.

4. Use of passive earth pressures require the sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation to be nearly vertical and the concrete placed neat against these vertical faces or that the footing forms be removed and compacted structural fill be placed against the vertical footing face.

5. Can be used to compute sliding resistance where foundations are placed on suitable soil/materials. Should be neglected for foundations subject to net uplift conditions.

Foundation Construction Considerations

As noted in Earthwork, the footing excavations should be evaluated by a representative of the

Geotechnical Engineer. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil, prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Care should be taken to prevent wetting or drying of the bearing materials during construction. Excessively wet or dry material or any loose/disturbed material in the bottom of the footing excavations should be removed/reconditioned before foundation concrete is placed.

Foundations should be formed for this project; trenched foundations are not recommended due to the presence of loose granular soils. Backfilling around foundations should be performed once the formwork has been removed.

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the base of the planned footing excavation, the excavation should be extended deeper to suitable soils, and the footings could bear directly on these soils at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations.

Overexcavation for structural fill placement below footings should be conducted as shown below.

The overexcavation should be backfilled up to the Design Footing Level with compacted granular structural fill placed as recommended in the Earthwork section. This is illustrated on the sketches below.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design

Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Class is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7 and the International Building Code (IBC). Based on the soil properties encountered at the site and as described on the exploration logs and results, it is our professional opinion that the Seismic Site Class is D. Subsurface explorations at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 25 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depths.

Description Value

2015 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC)

D

Assumed Risk Category III

Approximate Site Latitude N 44° 40' 49.96"

Approximate Site Longitude W 84° 43' 10.98"

SDS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 3 0.054g

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

Description Value

SD1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 3 0.052g

1. In general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code. IBC Site Class is based on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile.

2. The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) uses a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of

100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include a 100-foot soil profile determination. Borings extended to a maximum depth of 25 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that medium dense sand continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration.

Additional exploration to deeper depths, or seismic velocity testing would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration.

3. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by the USGS

(https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/ibc-2015.html). The values are based on IBC 2015 design methodology.

FLOOR SLABS

Design parameters for floor slabs assume the requirements for Earthwork have been followed.

Specific attention should be given to positive drainage away from the structure and positive drainage of the aggregate base beneath the floor slab.

Floor Slab Design Parameters

Item Description

Floor Slab Support 1 Per ACI

Estimated Modulus of

Subgrade Reaction 2 140 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for point loads

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. Modulus of subgrade reaction is an estimated value based upon our experience with the subgrade condition, the requirements noted in Earthwork, and the floor slab support as noted in this table. It is provided for point loads. For large area loads the modulus of subgrade reaction would be lower.

Joints should be constructed in slabs at regular intervals as recommended by the American

Concrete Institute (ACI) to help determine the location of cracks. Joints or cracks should be sealed with a water-proof, non-extruding compressible compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs-on-grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder.

Where floor slabs are tied to perimeter walls or turn-down slabs to meet structural or other construction objectives, our experience indicates differential movement between the walls and slabs will likely be observed in adjacent slab expansion joints or floor slab cracks beyond the length of the structural dowels. The Structural Engineer should account for potential differential settlement through use of sufficient contraction joints, appropriate reinforcing or other means.

Floor Slab Construction Considerations

Finished subgrade, within and for at least 10 feet beyond the floor slab, should be protected from traffic, rutting, or other disturbance and maintained in a relatively moist condition until floor slabs are constructed. If the subgrade should become damaged or desiccated prior to construction of floor slabs, the affected material should be removed and structural fill should be added to replace the resulting excavation. Final conditioning of the finished subgrade should be performed immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course.

The Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the condition of the floor slab subgrades immediately prior to placement of the floor slab support course, reinforcing steel, and concrete. Attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier, and to areas where backfilled trenches are located.

PAVEMENTS

General Pavement Comments

A critical aspect of pavement design is subgrade preparation and the parameters given in this section assume that the subgrade has been prepared as discussed in the Earthwork section.

Traffic load information was not available at the time of this report; therefore, a formal pavement design is not provided. We have provided design parameters in this section for use in pavement thickness design by others.

Pavement Design Parameters

The following are the pavement design parameters and assumptions we recommend be used for evaluating pavement thicknesses.

■ California Bearing Ratio (CBR): 5 percent

■ Resilient modulus MR: 7,000 psi

■ Modulus of subgrade reaction for compacted soil subgrade, K: 140 pci

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

All concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi, and be placed with a maximum slump of 4 inches. Although not required for structural support, a minimum 4-inch thick base course layer is recommended to help reduce potential for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade “pumping” through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer.

Where practical, we recommend “early-entry” cutting of contraction joints in Portland cement concrete pavements. Cutting of the concrete in its “green” state typically reduces the potential for micro-cracking of the pavements prior to the joints being formed, compared to cutting the joints after the concrete has fully set. Micro-cracking of pavements may lead to crack formation in locations other than the sawed joints, and/or reduction of fatigue life of the pavement.

Openings in pavements, such as decorative landscaped areas, are sources for water infiltration into surrounding pavement systems. Water can collect in the islands and migrate into the surrounding subgrade soils thereby degrading support of the pavement. This is especially applicable for islands with raised concrete curbs, irrigated foliage, and low permeability near-surface soils. The civil design for the pavements with these conditions should include features to restrict or to collect and discharge excess water from the islands. Examples of features are edge drains connected to the storm water collection system, longitudinal subdrains, or other suitable outlet and impermeable barriers preventing lateral migration of water such as a cutoff wall installed to a depth below the pavement structure.

Terracon has observed dishing in some parking lots surfaced with ACC. Dishing is usually observed in frequently-used parking stalls (such as near the front of buildings), and occurs under the wheel footprint in these stalls. The use of higher-grade asphaltic cement, or surfacing these areas with PCC, should be considered. The dishing is exacerbated by factors such as irrigated islands or planter areas, sheet surface drainage to the front of structures, and placing the ACC directly on a compacted clay subgrade.

Pavement Drainage

Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section. Appropriate sub-drainage or connection to a suitable daylight outlet should be provided to remove water from the granular subbase.

Pavement Maintenance

Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement investment. Maintenance consists of both localized

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13 maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the priority when implementing a pavement maintenance program. Additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost-effective program. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required.

Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements:

■ Slope final grade adjacent to paved areas down from the edges at a minimum 2%

■ Promote proper surface drainage by providing a minimum 2% slope on the subgrade and pavement surface

■ Install below pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting

■ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately

■ Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through the GeoReport system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client, and is not

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14 intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Site safety, cost estimating, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

FIGURES

Contents:

GeoModel

1,124

1,126

1,128

1,130

1,132

1,134

1,136

1,138

1,140

1,142

1,144

1,146

1,148

1,150

1,152

E L E V A T

IO

N M S L (f e e t)

Grayling�Army-Air�Force�Readiness�Center�������Grayling,�MI Terracon�Project�No.�CK225001

Layering�shown�on�this�figure�has�been�developed�by�the�geotechnical engineer�for�purposes�of�modeling�the�subsurface�conditions�as required�for�the�subsequent�geotechnical�engineering�for�this�project.

Numbers�adjacent�to�soil�column�indicate�depth�below�ground�surface.

NOTES:

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

GEOMODEL

This�is�not�a�cross�section.�This�is�intended�to�display�the�Geotechnical�Model�only.�See�individual�logs�for�more�detailed�conditions.

Groundwater�levels�are�temporal.�The�levels�shown�are�representative�of�the�date and�time�of�our�exploration.�Significant�changes�are�possible�over�time.

Water�levels�shown�are�as�measured�during�and/or�after�drilling.�In�some�cases, boring�advancement�methods�mask�the�presence/absence�of�groundwater.�See individual�logs�for�details.

�����First�Water�Observation

�����Second�Water�Observation

Well�graded�sand,�generally�medium�dense3

LEGEND

Topsoil

Poorly-graded�Sand�with Silt

Poorly-graded�Sand

Well-graded�Sand

Poorly-graded�Sand�with Gravel

Model�Layer General�DescriptionLayer�Name

Topsoil�-�about�6�to�18�inches1

Poorly�graded�sand�with�variable�amounts�of�silt,�generally loose

Well�Graded�Sand

Topsoil

Poorly�Graded�Sand

0.5

9.59.5

0.5

7.5

0.5

0.5

7.5

0.5

7.5

0.5

6.5

1.5

0.5

7.5

ATTACHMENTS

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Location

6 20 to 25 Building footprint

3 10 Pavement area

Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon used handheld GPS equipment to locate borings with an estimated horizontal accuracy of +/-20 feet. Approximate elevations were obtained from

Google Earth.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with an ATV-mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight hollow stem augers. Samples were obtained at 2.5-foot intervals in the upper 10 feet of each boring with additional samples obtained at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths.

We observed and recorded groundwater levels during drilling and sampling. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after their completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by an engineer or geologist. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Computer-generated boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The boring logs represent the Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Laboratory Testing

The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. The following tests were performed for this project.

■ Water content

June 15, 2022 ■ Terracon Project No. CK225001 (Rev. 1)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2

Based on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location

Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

S

IT

E L

O C

A T

IO

N

G ra y lin g A rm y-

A ir F o rc e R e a d in e ss

C e n te r G ra yl in g M ic h ig a n

Ju n e

T e rr a co n P ro je c t N o C

K

R ev

N o te t o P re p a re r:

T h is i s a l a rg e t a b le w it h o u ts id e b o rd e rs

J u s t c li c k i n s id e t h e t a b le a b o v e t h is t e x t b o x th e n p a s te y o u r G

IS

T o o lb o x i m a g e

W h e n p a ra g ra p h m a rk e rs a re t u rn e d o n y o u m a y n o ti c e a l in e o f h id d e n t e x t a b o v e a n d o u ts id e t h e t a b le p le a s e l e a v e t h a t a lo n e

L im it e d it in g t o i n s id e t h e t a b le

T h e l in e a t th e b o tt o m a b o u t th e g e n e ra l lo c a ti o n i s a s e p a ra te t a b le l in e Y o u c a n e d it it a s d e s ir e d b u t tr y t o k e e p t o a s in g le l in e o f te x t to a v o id r e fo rm a tt in g t h e p a g e

S

IT

E L

O C

A T

IO

N

D

IA

G R

A M

I S

F O

R G

E N

E R

A L L

O C

A T

IO

N

O N

L Y

A

N D

I S

N O

T I

N T

E N

D E

D F

O R

C O

N S

T R

U C

T

IO

N P

U R

P O

S E

S M

A P

P R

O V

ID

E

D B

Y M

IC

R

O S

O F

T B

IN

G

M A

P

E X

P L

O R

A T

IO

N

P L

A N

G ra yl in g A rm y-

A ir F o rc e R e a d in e ss C e n te r G ra yl in g

M ic h ig a n

Ju n e

T e rr a co n P ro je ct N o

C K

R e v

N o te t o P re p a re r:

T h is i s a l a rg e t a b le w it h o u ts id e b o rd e rs

J u s t c li c k i n s id e t h e t a b le a b o v e t h is t e x t b o x th e n p a s te y o u r

G

IS

T o o lb o x i m a g e

W h e n p a ra g ra p h m a rk e rs a re t u rn e d o n y o u m a y n o ti c e a l in e o f h id d e n t e x t a b o v e a n d o u ts id e t h e t a b le p le a s e l e a v e t h a t a lo n e

L im it e d it in g t o i n s id e t h e t a b le

T h e l in e a t th e b o tt o m a b o u t th e g e n e ra l lo c a ti o n i s a s e p a ra te t a b le l in e

Y o u c a n e d it it a s d e s ir e d b u t tr y t o k e e p t o a s in g le l in e o f te x t to a v o id r e fo rm a tt in g t h e p a g e

E X

P L

O R

A T

IO

N P

L A

N

D

IA

G R

A M

I S

F O

R G

E N

E R

A L

L O

C A

T

IO

N O

N L

Y A

N D

I S

N O

T I

N T

E N

D E

D F

O R

C O

N S

T R

U C

T

IO

N P

U R

P O

S E

S M

A P

P R

O V

ID

E

D B

Y M

IC

R

O S

O F

T B

IN

G

M A

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Boring Logs (B-1 through B-9)

3-4-4 N=8

2-2-4 N=6

5-3-4 N=7

3-2-3 N=5

3-4-6 N=10

9-4-9 N=13

6"�Topsoil

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�WITH�SILT�(SP-SM),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�(SP),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose�to�medium�dense

WELL�GRADED�SAND�(SW),�fine�to�coarse�grained,�grayish�brown,�medium�dense

Boring�Terminated�at�20�Feet

0.5

5.5

18.0

20.0

1148.5+/-

1143.5+/-

1131+/-

1129+/-

Hammer�Type:��AutomaticStratification�lines�are�approximate.�In-situ,�the�transition�may�be�gradual.

T H

IS

�B O R

IN

G �L O G �I S �N

O T �V A L

ID

�I F �S E P A R A T E D �F R O M �O

R

IG

IN

A L �R

E P O R T G E O �S M A R T �L O G -N

O �W

E L L C K �G

R A Y L

IN

G �A R M Y -A

IR

.G

P J� �T E R R A C O N D A T A T E M P L A T E .G

D T /1 /2

D E P T H F t.

W A T E R �L E V E L

O B S E R V A T

IO

N S

F

IE

L D �T E S T

R E S U L T S

LOCATION See�Exploration�Plan

Latitude:�44.6808°�Longitude:�-84.7198°

G R A P H

IC

�L O G

M O D E L �L A Y E R

DEPTH ELEVATION�(Ft.)

�Approximate�Surface�Elev.:�1149�(Ft.)�+/-

Page�1�of�1

Advancement�Method:

3¼�H.S.A.

Abandonment�Method:

Boring�backfilled�with�auger�cuttings�upon�completion.

Notes:

Project�No.:�CK225001

Drill�Rig:�Acker

BORING�LOG�NO.�B-1

Atkins�GlobalCLIENT:

Denver,�CO

Driller:�Pearson�-�RF

Boring�Completed:�05-16-2022

PROJECT:��Grayling�Army-Air�Force�Readiness�Center

Elevation�from�Google�Earth

See�Exploration�and�Testing�Procedures�for�a description�of�field�and�laboratory�procedures used�and�additional�data�(If�any).

See�Supporting�Information�for�explanation�of symbols�and�abbreviations.

��������������������MI-93�and�Bataan�Avenue ��������������������Grayling,�MI

SITE:

Boring�Started:�05-16-2022

2204�Yankee�St Niles,�MICave�in�at�9½'

9½'�after�drilling

Cave�in�at�9½'

WATER�LEVEL�OBSERVATIONS

9½'�while�drilling9½'�while�drilling

9½'�after�drilling

R E C O V E R Y In

S A M P L E �T Y

3-2-3 N=5

1-2-4 N=6

4-3-2 N=5

4-2-2 N=4

2-2-3 N=5

5-7-10 N=17

6"�Topsoil

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�(SP),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose�to�medium�dense becoming�grayish�brown�in�sample�at�about�18.5�feet

Boring�Terminated�at�20�Feet

0.5

20.0

1147.5+/-

1128+/-

Hammer�Type:��AutomaticStratification�lines�are�approximate.�In-situ,�the�transition�may�be�gradual.

T H

IS

�B O R

IN

G �L O G �I S �N

O T �V A L

ID

�I F �S E P A R A T E D �F R O M �O

R

IG

IN

A L �R

E P O R T G E O �S M A R T �L O G -N

O �W

E L L C K �G

R A Y L

IN

G �A R M Y -A

IR

.G

P J� �T E R R A C O N D A T A T E M P L A T E .G

D T /1 /2

D E P T H F t.

W A T E R �L E V E L

O B S E R V A T

IO

N S

F

IE

L D �T E S T

R E S U L T S

LOCATION See�Exploration�Plan

Latitude:�44.6808°�Longitude:�-84.7194°

G R A P H

IC

�L O G

M O D E L �L A Y E R

DEPTH ELEVATION�(Ft.)

�Approximate�Surface�Elev.:�1148�(Ft.)�+/-

Page�1�of�1

Advancement�Method:

3¼�H.S.A.

Abandonment�Method:

Boring�backfilled�with�auger�cuttings�upon�completion.

Notes:

Project�No.:�CK225001

Drill�Rig:�Acker

BORING�LOG�NO.�B-2

Atkins�GlobalCLIENT:

Denver,�CO

Driller:�Pearson�-�RF

Boring�Completed:�05-16-2022

PROJECT:��Grayling�Army-Air�Force�Readiness�Center

Elevation�from�Google�Earth

See�Exploration�and�Testing�Procedures�for�a description�of�field�and�laboratory�procedures used�and�additional�data�(If�any).

See�Supporting�Information�for�explanation�of symbols�and�abbreviations.

��������������������MI-93�and�Bataan�Avenue ��������������������Grayling,�MI

SITE:

Boring�Started:�05-16-2022

2204�Yankee�St Niles,�MICave�in�at�8'

8'�after�drilling

Cave�in�at�8'

WATER�LEVEL�OBSERVATIONS

7½'�while�drilling7½'�while�drilling

8'�after�drilling

R E C O V E R Y In

S A M P L E �T Y

4-2-4 N=6

4-3-4 N=7

3-2-3 N=5

3-2-2 N=4

3-1-2 N=3

5-2-2 N=4

9-5-4 N=9

6"�Topsoil

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�(SP),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown�and�dark�brown,�loose

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�WITH�GRAVEL�(SP),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose

Boring�Terminated�at�25�Feet

0.5

22.5

25.0

1149.5+/-

1127.5+/-

1125+/-

Hammer�Type:��AutomaticStratification�lines�are�approximate.�In-situ,�the�transition�may�be�gradual.

T H

IS

�B O R

IN

G �L O G �I S �N

O T �V A L

ID

�I F �S E P A R A T E D �F R O M �O

R

IG

IN

A L �R

E P O R T G E O �S M A R T �L O G -N

O �W

E L L C K �G

R A Y L

IN

G �A R M Y -A

IR

.G

P J� �T E R R A C O N D A T A T E M P L A T E .G

D T /1 /2

D E P T H F t.

W A T E R �L E V E L

O B S E R V A T

IO

N S

F

IE

L D �T E S T

R E S U L T S

LOCATION See�Exploration�Plan

Latitude:�44.6805°�Longitude:�-84.7200°

G R A P H

IC

�L O G

M O D E L �L A Y E R

DEPTH ELEVATION�(Ft.)

�Approximate�Surface�Elev.:�1150�(Ft.)�+/-

Page�1�of�1

Advancement�Method:

3¼�H.S.A.

Abandonment�Method:

Boring�backfilled�with�auger�cuttings�upon�completion.

Notes:

Project�No.:�CK225001

Drill�Rig:�Acker

BORING�LOG�NO.�B-3

Atkins�GlobalCLIENT:

Denver,�CO

Driller:�Pearson�-�RF

Boring�Completed:�05-16-2022

PROJECT:��Grayling�Army-Air�Force�Readiness�Center

Elevation�from�Google�Earth

See�Exploration�and�Testing�Procedures�for�a description�of�field�and�laboratory�procedures used�and�additional�data�(If�any).

See�Supporting�Information�for�explanation�of symbols�and�abbreviations.

��������������������MI-93�and�Bataan�Avenue ��������������������Grayling,�MI

SITE:

Boring�Started:�05-16-2022

2204�Yankee�St Niles,�MICave�in�at�10'

10'�after�drilling

Cave�in�at�10'

WATER�LEVEL�OBSERVATIONS

9'�while�drilling9'�while�drilling

10'�after�drilling

R E C O V E R Y In

S A M P L E �T Y

2-3-3

3-2-3 N=5

2-3-3 N=6

2-2-3 N=5

2-2-3 N=5

4-6-10 N=16

6"�Topsoil

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�WITH�SILT�(SP-SM),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�(SP),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose

WELL�GRADED�SAND�(SW),�fine�to�coarse�grained,�grayish�brown,�medium�dense

Boring�Terminated�at�20�Feet

0.5

3.0

17.0

20.0

1146.5+/-

1144+/-

1130+/-

1127+/-

Hammer�Type:��AutomaticStratification�lines�are�approximate.�In-situ,�the�transition�may�be�gradual.

T H

IS

�B O R

IN

G �L O G �I S �N

O T �V A L

ID

�I F �S E P A R A T E D �F R O M �O

R

IG

IN

A L �R

E P O R T G E O �S M A R T �L O G -N

O �W

E L L C K �G

R A Y L

IN

G �A R M Y -A

IR

.G

P J� �T E R R A C O N D A T A T E M P L A T E .G

D T /1 /2

D E P T H F t.

W A T E R �L E V E L

O B S E R V A T

IO

N S

F

IE

L D �T E S T

R E S U L T S

LOCATION See�Exploration�Plan

Latitude:�44.6806°�Longitude:�-84.7190°

G R A P H

IC

�L O G

M O D E L �L A Y E R

DEPTH ELEVATION�(Ft.)

�Approximate�Surface�Elev.:�1147�(Ft.)�+/-

Page�1�of�1

Advancement�Method:

3¼�H.S.A.

Abandonment�Method:

Boring�backfilled�with�auger�cuttings�upon�completion.

Notes:

Project�No.:�CK225001

Drill�Rig:�Acker

BORING�LOG�NO.�B-4

Atkins�GlobalCLIENT:

Denver,�CO

Driller:�Pearson�-�RF

Boring�Completed:�05-16-2022

PROJECT:��Grayling�Army-Air�Force�Readiness�Center

Elevation�from�Google�Earth

See�Exploration�and�Testing�Procedures�for�a description�of�field�and�laboratory�procedures used�and�additional�data�(If�any).

See�Supporting�Information�for�explanation�of symbols�and�abbreviations.

��������������������MI-93�and�Bataan�Avenue ��������������������Grayling,�MI

SITE:

Boring�Started:�05-16-2022

2204�Yankee�St Niles,�MICave�in�at�8'

8'�after�drilling

Cave�in�at�8'

WATER�LEVEL�OBSERVATIONS

7½'�while�drilling7½'�while�drilling

8'�after�drilling

R E C O V E R Y In

S A M P L E �T Y

2-3-3

3-2-3 N=5

2-3-3 N=6

2-2-3 N=5

2-2-3 N=5

4-6-10 N=16

6"�Topsoil

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�(SP),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose

WELL�GRADED�SAND�(SW),�fine�to�coarse�grained,�grayish�brown,�medium�dense

Boring�Terminated�at�20�Feet

0.5

18.0

20.0

1145.5+/-

1128+/-

1126+/-

Hammer�Type:��AutomaticStratification�lines�are�approximate.�In-situ,�the�transition�may�be�gradual.

T H

IS

�B O R

IN

G �L O G �I S �N

O T �V A L

ID

�I F �S E P A R A T E D �F R O M �O

R

IG

IN

A L �R

E P O R T G E O �S M A R T �L O G -N

O �W

E L L C K �G

R A Y L

IN

G �A R M Y -A

IR

.G

P J� �T E R R A C O N D A T A T E M P L A T E .G

D T /1 /2

D E P T H F t.

W A T E R �L E V E L

O B S E R V A T

IO

N S

F

IE

L D �T E S T

R E S U L T S

LOCATION See�Exploration�Plan

Latitude:�44.6804°�Longitude:�-84.7194°

G R A P H

IC

�L O G

M O D E L �L A Y E R

DEPTH ELEVATION�(Ft.)

�Approximate�Surface�Elev.:�1146�(Ft.)�+/-

Page�1�of�1

Advancement�Method:

3¼�H.S.A.

Abandonment�Method:

Boring�backfilled�with�auger�cuttings�upon�completion.

Notes:

Project�No.:�CK225001

Drill�Rig:�Acker

BORING�LOG�NO.�B-5

Atkins�GlobalCLIENT:

Denver,�CO

Driller:�Pearson�-�RF

Boring�Completed:�05-16-2022

PROJECT:��Grayling�Army-Air�Force�Readiness�Center

Elevation�from�Google�Earth

See�Exploration�and�Testing�Procedures�for�a description�of�field�and�laboratory�procedures used�and�additional�data�(If�any).

See�Supporting�Information�for�explanation�of symbols�and�abbreviations.

��������������������MI-93�and�Bataan�Avenue ��������������������Grayling,�MI

SITE:

Boring�Started:�05-16-2022

2204�Yankee�St Niles,�MICave�in�at�7½'

7½'�after�drilling

Cave�in�at�7½'

WATER�LEVEL�OBSERVATIONS

7'�while�drilling7'�while�drilling

7½'�after�drilling

R E C O V E R Y In

S A M P L E �T Y

3-3-4 N=7

1-3-2 N=5

2-2-3 N=5

1-2-2 N=4

5-3-3 N=6

8-13-12 N=25

6"�Topsoil

POORLY�GRADED�SAND�(SP),�fine�to�medium�grained,�brown,�loose

WELL�GRADED�SAND�(SW),�fine�to�coarse�grained,�grayish�brown,�medium�dense

Boring�Terminated�at�20�Feet

0.5

18.0

20.0

1146.5+/-

1129+/-

1127+/-

Hammer�Type:��AutomaticStratification�lines�are�approximate.�In-situ,�the�transition�may�be�gradual.

T H

IS

�B O R

IN

G �L O G �I S �N

O T �V A L

ID

�I F �S E P A R A T E D �F R O M �O

R

IG

IN

A L �R

E P O R T G E O �S M A R T �L O G -N

O �W

E L L C K �G

R A Y L

IN

G �A R M Y -A

IR

.G

P J� �T E R R A C O N D A T A T E M P L A T E .G

D T /1 /2

D E P T H F t.

W A T E R �L E V E L

O B S E R V A T

IO

N S

F

IE

L D �T E S T

R E S U L T S

LOCATION See�Exploration�Plan

Latitude:�44.6803°�Longitude:�-84.7190°

G R A P H

IC

�L O G

M O D E L �L A Y E R

DEPTH ELEVATION�(Ft.)

�Approximate�Surface�Elev.:�1147�(Ft.)�+/-

Page�1�of�1

Advancement�Method:

3¼�H.S.A.

Abandonment�Method:

Boring�backfilled�with�auger�cuttings�upon�completion.

Notes:

Project�No.:�CK225001

Drill�Rig:�Acker

BORING�LOG�NO.�B-6

Atkins�GlobalCLIENT:

Denver,�CO

Driller:�Pearson�-�RF

Boring�Completed:�05-17-2022

PROJECT:��Grayling�Army-Air�Force�Readiness�Center

Elevation�from�Google�Earth

See�Exploration�and�Testing�Procedures�for�a…