Geotechnical Engineering Report Cast-In-Place Retaining Wall West 23 Rd Street South Over I-244 State J/P No

Home , Retaining wall

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALL WEST 23 RD STREET SOUTH OVER I-244 STATE J/P NO. 28861(04) TULSA, OKLAHOMA PROJECT NO. 20160176-2

MAY 13, 2015

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.

Mr. Brad Smith Oklahoma Department of Transportation 200 N.E. 21st Street, Room 3-C9 Oklahoma City, OK 73105

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALL WEST 23Ro STREET SOUTH OVER 1·244 STATE J/P NO. 28861(04) TULSA, OKLAHOMA

Prepared by:

Simon Wang, PE Staff Professional 11

Reviewed by:

KLEINFELDER 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 Tulsa, OK 74116 Phone: 918.627.6161 Fax: 918.627.6262

May 13, 2015 Kleinfelder Project No. 20160176-2

20160176-2/TUL 15R19782 Page ii of v May 13, 2015 ~ 2015 Kleinfelder

May 13, 2015 Kleinfelder Project No. 20160176-2

Mr. Brad Smith Oklahoma Department of Transportation 200 N.E. 21 st Street, Room 3-C9 Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Cast-In-Place Retaining Wall West 23 rd Street South over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) Tulsa, Oklahoma

Dear Mr. Smith:

Kleinfelder has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of the geotechnical study was to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions, perform analyses and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed retaining walls associated with the BNSF railroad expansion and West 23 rd Street South bridge pier replacement project in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The attached Kleinfelder report contains a description of the findings of our field exploration and laboratory testing program, our engineering interpretation of the results with respect to the project characteristics, and our geotechnical site development recommendations as well as construction guidelines for the planned project.

Recommendations provided herein are contingent on the provisions outlined in the ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. The project owner should become familiar with these provisions in order to assess further involvement by Kleinfelder and other potential impacts to the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and are prepared to provide the recommended additional services. Please call us if you have any questions concerning this report.

Sincerely, KLEINFELDER CENTRAL, INC. Certificate of Authorization #3036, Expires 6/30/15

Simon Wang, PE Karthik Radhakrishnan, PE Staff Professional II Project Manager II

SYW/KR: wt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 GENERAL ...... 1 1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ...... 1 2. SITE CONDITIONS ...... 3 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... 3 2.2 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY ...... 3 2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...... 4 2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS ...... 4 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6 3.1 GENERAL ...... 6 3.2 RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6 3.2.1 General ...... 6 3.2.2 Bearing and Sliding Resistance ...... 6 3.2.3 Settlements ...... 7 3.2.4 Lateral Earth Pressure ...... 7 3.2.5 Global Stability Analyses ...... 8 3.2.5.1 Shear Strength Parameters ...... 9 3.2.5.2 Summary of Results ...... 9 3.3 RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...... 9 3.3.1 Site Development ...... 9 3.3.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing ...... 9 3.3.1.2 Existing Utilities ...... 10 3.3.1.3 Moisture Conditioning and Compaction ...... 10 3.3.2 Climatic Conditions ...... 10 3.3.3 Temporary Excavations ...... 11 3.3.3.1 General ...... 11 3.3.3.2 Excavations and Slopes ...... 11 3.3.3.3 Construction Considerations ...... 11 3.3.4 Structural Fill ...... 11 3.3.4.1 Materials ...... 11 3.3.4.2 Compaction Criteria ...... 12 3.3.4.3 Existing Site Soils ...... 12 3.3.5 Organic Soils ...... 12 3.3.6 Construction Considerations...... 12 3.3.7 Wall Drainage ...... 13 3.3.8 Drainage Backfill Placement ...... 14 4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES ...... 15 4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW ...... 15 4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ...... 15 5. LIMITATIONS ...... 16

FIGURES 1 Site Location Diagram 2 Boring Location Diagram 3 Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram

APPENDICES A Field Exploration Program B Laboratory Testing Program C Slope Stability Analyses Results (Figure C-1) D GBA Document

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALL WEST 23 RD STREET SOUTH OVER I-244 STATE J/P NO. 28861(04) TULSA, OKLAHOMA

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Kleinfelder has completed the authorized subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed retaining walls associated with the BNSF railroad expansion and West 23 rd Street South bridge pier bents replacement project in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The services provided were in general accordance with our proposal TUL15P17273 dated April 3, 2014.

This report includes our recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of the project design and construction. Conclusions and recommendations presented in the report are based on the subsurface information encountered at the locations of our exploration and the provisions and requirements outlined in the ADDITIONAL SERVICES and LIMITATIONS sections of this report. In addition, an article prepared by The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA), Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report , has been included in APPENDIX C. We recommend that all individuals read the report limitations along with the included GBA document.

1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The project is located on West 23 rd Street South over I-244 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The proposed construction is to replace two bridge piers along the West 23 rd Street South Bridge over I-244, three bridge piers along West 23 rd Street South Ramp Bridge over Interstate 244 (I-244), and to construct a Cast-In-Place (CIP) wall between BNSF Railroad and I-244 to accommodate future expansion of the BNSF railroad. The bridge subsurface exploration is addressed in a separate report.

No preliminary plans were available at the time of this report. Based on limited information provided by Garver, LLC, it is our understanding that the proposed CIP retaining wall will be constructed on the grass area in between the service road on the west side of I-244 and west

edge of I-244. The height of the CIP retaining wall is expected to range from approximately 4 to 12 feet at maximum. The CIP retaining wall will be approximately 1,200 feet long, starting at a point approximately 440 feet south of south edge of West 23 rd Street South bridge over I-244, and extends north 1,200 feet to the west side of the West 23 rd Street South Ramp bridge.

The scope of the exploration and engineering evaluation for this study, as well as the conclusions and recommendations in this report, were based on our understanding of the project as described above. If pertinent details of the project have changed or otherwise differ from our descriptions, we must be notified and engaged to review the changes and modify our recommendations, if needed.

2. SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located on West 23 rd Street South over I-244, approximately 1.5 miles south of downtown Tulsa in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. The general location of the site is shown in Figure 1, Site Location Diagram. The existing West 23 rd Street South Bridge over I-244 is a four-lane divided roadway with approximately 54 feet of clear roadway. The existing West 23 rd Street South Ramp Bridge is a one lane bridge with approximately 17 feet of clear roadway. The existing ground surface of the proposed CIP retaining wall footprint is generally covered by grass.

The surrounding areas are generally commercial development with BNSF Railroad to the west and I-244 southbound to the east. Underground utilities and overhead power lines were noted within the project limits during our field exploration. Utilities should be located and marked with state and local requirements and the requirement of the project plans.

2.2 GENERAL SITE GEOLOGY

According to the "Engineering Classification of Geologic Materials – Division Eight" from the Oklahoma Highway Department, 1969, the alignment appears to be located within the Alluvium Deposits (Qas) underlain by Coffeyville Unit (Pcf).

Alluvium Unit (Qas): This unit consists of deposits of sand, silt, clay, gravel, and/or combinations of these materials. Alluvium is found along the flood plains (bottom land) of streams and is normally present at places along all streams.

Coffeyville Unit (Pcf): This unit consists predominantly of silty to sandy shale with many thick zones of tan sandstone. The sandstone generally is thin-bedded and moderately hard to soft. Locally, at the base of the unit, black fissile shale about 15 feet thick is present. The sandstone zones are generally about 15 to 40 feet thick. The total thickness ranges from 175 feet in northern Division 8 to about 500 feet in the south.

The Coffeyville Unit outcrops in Creek, Nowata, Rogers, Tulsa, and Washington Counties of Division 8. In Tulsa and Creek Counties, the thick sandstone zones cap prominent scarps.

2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Kleinfelder explored the subsurface conditions at the site by advancing six soil test boring (W-1 through W-6) for the proposed CIP retaining wall between April 20 and 22, 2015. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figures 2, Boring Location Diagram, and Table A-1, Field Exploration Program. In addition, subsurface conditions at bridge borings B-1, B-4, and B- 5 were also utilized in this study.

The field exploration and laboratory testing programs are presented in APPENDIX A and APPENDIX B, respectively. The following presents a general summary of the major strata encountered during our subsurface exploration and includes a discussion of the results of the field and laboratory tests conducted. Specific subsurface conditions encountered at the boring location are presented on the respective boring log in APPENDIX A. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types; in-situ, the transitions may vary or be gradual.

Overburden Soil: overburden soils including sand with varying amounts of silt and clay were encountered below the topsoil and continued to approximate depths ranging from 24.5 to 29.0 feet below existing ground surface (approximate elevation from 608.0 to 603.1 feet). The relative density of the sand is generally loose to medium dense. Strong hydrocarbon odor was encountered at the project site in all our soil test borings at a depth approximately 13.5 below existing ground surface.

Bedrock : The overburden soils were underlain by sedimentary bedrock at depths of 24.5 to 29.0 feet below the existing ground surface (approximate elevation from 608.0 to 603.1 feet). The bedrock was primarily comprised of gray and greenish brown shale that continued to the bottom of the borings. The shale bedrock was generally soft to hard.

2.4 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater observations were made during drilling operations. Table 2-1 summarizes the depths and elevations of the groundwater encountered during drilling.

Table 2-1. Approximate Groundwater Levels Groundwater Ground Elevation, Boring No. Depth/Elevation During Feet Drilling, Feet W-1 632.2 13.5 / 618.7 W-2 632.8 13.5 / 619.3 W-3 633.8 13.5 / 620.3 B-1 634.9 13.5 / 621.4 W-4 635.1 13.5 / 621.6 B-4 633.8 13.5 / 620.3 B-5 634.0 13.5 / 620.5 W-5 634.7 13.5 / 621.2 W-6 635.0 13.5 / 621.5

To accurately define the site groundwater conditions, observations over an extended period of time through use of piezometers or cased borings would be required. Fluctuations of groundwater levels can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, river/creek level, and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. A groundwater study has not been performed. Long-term observations would be necessary to more accurately evaluate groundwater levels and fluctuations.

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 GENERAL

Based on the results of our evaluation, it is our professional opinion that the proposed CIP retaining walls can be constructed using typical construction techniques. Recommendations regarding geotechnical aspects of the project design and construction are presented below.

The recommendations submitted herein are based, in part, upon data obtained from our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of subsurface variations that may exist at the proposed project site will not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, then the recommendations presented in this report should be evaluated. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed project are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and our recommendations modified in writing.

3.2 RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3.2.1 General

CIP retaining walls can be supported on spread footings for the proposed locations along west side of I-244. Spread footings should have a minimum cover of 1.5 feet on top of the footings. CIP wall footing bottom should be placed at least 2 feet below the ground surface to avoid frost penetration depth.

3.2.2 Bearing and Sliding Resistance

The proposed retaining walls could be supported on shallow footings founded on the sandy soils. Shallow footings should be proportioned using the maximum geotechnical factored bearing resistance as presented in Table 3-1. The estimated maximum heights, nominal bearing resistance, and factored bearing resistance are summarized in Table 3-1.

Factored bearing resistance (Strength I Limit State) for retaining walls was estimated using a resistance factor 0.45 for sandy soils (AASHTO, 2014). An effective strength friction coefficient of 0.55 (concrete on sandy soil) could be used to estimate the sliding resistance of the footings

and a corresponding resistance factor of 0.80 should be used (AASHTO, 2014). Groundwater level should be kept 2 feet below the footing or 4 feet below the pavement, whichever is greater.

Table 3-1. Retaining Walls Bearing Resistance Summary (LRFD Method)

Geotechnical Factored Estimated Maximum Geotechnical Nominal Bearing Resistance, psf Height of Wall, feet Bearing Resistance, psf (φφφ=0.45) 12.0 7,400 3,300 Notes: psf – pounds per square foot

Retaining wall design should consider that different bearing materials can be encountered within the same wall section. The same wall section should be supported on similar bearing material, or a construction joint should be installed between the sections that are supported on different materials. Bearing capacity at utility crossings should be evaluated on a case by case basis as the project plans are developed.

3.2.3 Settlements

Long-term structural settlement for the footings designed and constructed as outlined above should be 1 inch or less. Differential settlements of approximately 1/2 inch or less per 100 feet of wall length should be anticipated. Utility backfill within the wall footprint must be properly compacted to reduce the potential for localized differential settlement.

3.2.4 Lateral Earth Pressure

Active and passive earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid density for sloping backfill conditions are summarized in Table 3-2. The values in Table 3-2 are based on the assumption that the walls will be backfilled with granular and free-draining backfill both above the wall footing and within a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical wedge going up from the heel of the wall footing. Passive earth pressures are provided based on the foundation soil properties. When considering passive earth pressures, soils up to 2 feet below ground surface or up to the top of footing (whichever is greater) should be ignored.

The static active and passive earth pressure have triangular distribution, with largest load occurring at the bottom of the wall. The lateral earth pressure distribution for flat backfill is

presented in Figure 3, Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram.

Finish Grade Coping

Retained Zone Stem

Chimney 1V Drain 1H

Underdrain Footing Foundation Soil

Figure 3.1: CIP Wall System Components (not to scale)

The values in Table 3-2 assume that backfill materials are free-draining and, therefore, hydrostatic pressures are not included. Adequate drainage must be provided behind the walls for these loads to be valid as shown in Figure 3.1. Uniformly distributed vertical surcharge loads should be applied as a uniform (rectangular) distributed pressure with the appropriate corresponding lateral earth pressure coefficient (active).

Table 3-2. Summary of Lateral Earth Pressures

Earth Pressure Coefficients Equivalent Fluid Density a,b,c (pcf) Backfill Slope Active Passive Active Passive Horizontal 0.28 4.8 35 576 Notes: H – Horizontal, V – Vertical, pcf – pounds per cubic foot a The resultant static active earth pressures act at a height of 0.33 H above the wall base, where H is the height of the wall. b Nominal values are provided for earth pressures. c Unit weight of granular backfill = 125 pcf; unit weight of foundation soil = 120 pcf

3.2.5 Global Stability Analyses

To evaluate the stability of the proposed CIP retaining wall, slope stability analyses were performed for the potential failure mode. The slope stability calculations were performed using the computer software “Slope/W” for Windows, Version 8.12.3.7901 by Geo-Slope International, Inc. Slope/W calculates the factor of safety (FOS) of a slope using the Spencer limit equilibrium method of slices. The minimum slope stability FOS against failure for the purpose of this project has been taken 1.5.

3.2.5.1 Shear Strength Parameters

Shear strength parameters for the existing soils were estimated based on correlations to in-situ field tests, laboratory tests, and soil types. Slope stability analyses were performed assuming that retained fill will be constructed with cohesionless soils (sand). The estimated shear strength parameters used in the analyses are presented in Table C-1, and again in the graphical Slope/W output files presented in Figure C-1, in APPENDIX C.

3.2.5.2 Summary of Results

The factor of safety computed for the CIP based on the cross sections provided is 2.2. The graphical Slope/W output files are provided in Figure C-1 in APPENDIX C. As indicated by the stability analyses results, the proposed cast-in-place retaining walls generally exhibit an acceptable calculated FOS against overall slope failure. If instability of the retaining wall is observed during backfilling, all fill placement activity should be ceased immediately and the geotechnical engineer should be contacted.

The slope stability analyses were performed based on the estimated shear strength properties of the backfill materials. The shear strength parameters of the soils used for backfill should be evaluated once the borrow material source has been selected. Additional slope stability analyses may be required to assess the influence of the shear strength parameters of the selected backfill material(s).

3.3 RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 3.3.1 Site Development 3.3.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing

Clearing and grubbing should be performed in accordance with the procedures specified by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) “Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (2009)”, Section 201. We recommend that all unsuitable materials be removed from the site prior to placement of structural fill. We recommend that qualified engineering personnel monitor the stripping operations to observe that all unsuitable materials have been removed. Soils removed during stripping operations could be wasted outside of the project site. Care should be exercised to separate these materials to avoid incorporation of the organic matter in structural fill sections.

3.3.1.2 Existing Utilities

Relocation of any existing utility lines within the wall backfill zone and up to 5 feet below the footing elevation of the walls should also be completed as part of the site preparation. The lines should be relocated to areas outside of the proposed construction. Excavations created by removal of the existing lines should be cut wide enough to allow for use of heavy construction equipment to compact the backfill. In addition, the base of the excavations should be thoroughly evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or engineering technician prior to placement of backfill. All backfill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the STRUCTURAL FILL section of this report.

3.3.1.3 Moisture Conditioning and Compaction

Prior to placement of any required structural fill, the moisture content of the exposed subgrade should be evaluated. Depending on the in-situ moisture content of the subgrade exposed, moisture conditioning of the exposed grade may be required prior to proofrolling and/or fill placement. The moisture content of the exposed grade in these fill areas should be adjusted to within the range recommended for structural fill, to allow the exposed material to be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density. Extremely wet or unstable areas that hamper compaction of the subgrade may require undercutting and replacement with structural fill or other stabilization techniques. Suitable structural fill should be placed to reach the design grade as soon as practical after reworking the subgrade to avoid moisture changes in the underlying soils.

3.3.2 Climatic Conditions

Weather conditions will influence the site preparation required. Following periods of rainfall, the moisture content of the near surface soils may be significantly above the optimum moisture content. These conditions could seriously impede grading by causing an unstable subgrade condition. Typical remedial measures include aerating the wet subgrade, removal of the wet materials and replacing them with dry materials, or treating the material with cement kiln dust (CKD).

3.3.3 Temporary Excavations 3.3.3.1 General

It is anticipated that excavations will be in existing overburden soils. Excavation of the overburden soils should be possible with conventional heavy equipment such as backhoes, loaders, etc. Typical temporary dewatering techniques are anticipated to be sufficient to remove any water seepage that may be encountered in shallow excavations.

3.3.3.2 Excavations and Slopes

Excavations should be cut to a stable slope or be temporarily braced, depending on the excavation depths and the subsurface conditions encountered. Temporary construction slopes should be designed in strict compliance with the most recent governing regulations. The contractor should also be aware that slope height, slope inclination or excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state and/or federal safety regulations, such as OSHA Health and Safety Standard for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations.

Construction slopes should be closely observed for signs of mass movement: tension cracks at the crest, bulging at the toe, etc. If potential stability problems are observed, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted immediately. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of temporary construction slopes lie solely with the contractor. Shoring, bracing or underpinning, may be required to provide structural stability and to protect personnel working within the excavation.

3.3.3.3 Construction Considerations

Stockpiles should be placed well away from the edge of the excavation and their height should be controlled so they do not surcharge the sides of the excavation. Surface drainage should be carefully controlled to prevent flow of water into the excavations

3.3.4 Structural Fill 3.3.4.1 Materials

All structural fill required to achieve design grades should consist of approved materials, free of organic matter and debris. All structural fill placed within the footprint of the retaining wall

foundation should consist of non-plastic to lower plasticity soil with a maximum Plasticity Index (PI) of 22 percent, as determined by the Atterberg limits test ASTM D4318, wet preparation procedure. All retained fill material behind the wall must be free of organic matter and debris, and with less than 5% of materials passing #200 sieve.

3.3.4.2 Compaction Criteria

Fill should be placed in lifts having a maximum loose lift thickness of 9 inches. The lift thickness may need to be reduced, depending upon the type/size of compaction equipment utilized at the site. All fill placed at the site should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor compaction) below the foundation area. If the plasticity index of the soils is greater than 12, the moisture content of the fill at time of compaction should be within a range of 0 percent to 4 percent above optimum moisture content as defined by the standard Proctor compaction procedure. If the plasticity index of the soils is less than or equal to 12, the moisture content of the fill at time of compaction should be within a range of 2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum moisture content as defined by the standard Proctor compaction procedure. Moisture contents should be maintained within this range until completion of the project.

3.3.4.3 Existing Site Soils

Based on the conditions encountered in the borings, it appears that the onsite soils would be suitable for use as structural fill material. However, additional testing of bulk samples at the time of construction is recommended to further evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as structural fill or backfill.

3.3.5 Organic Soils

Soils with organic contents removed during site preparation could be utilized in the upper portion of the fill sections in landscaped areas of the site. Depth of organic fill and degree of compaction should be established to provide a stable surface that will be conducive to growth of grass cover.

3.3.6 Construction Considerations

Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. The footings should be

supported a minimum of 24 inches below final exterior grade to provide protection against frost penetration.

We recommend that all foundation excavations be evaluated and tested by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to placement of foundation concrete. Unsuitable areas identified at this time should be corrected. Corrective procedures would be dependent upon conditions encountered and may include deepening of foundation elements, or undercutting of unsuitable materials and replacement with controlled structural fill.

The base of all footing excavations should be free of all water and loose material prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed as soon as possible after excavating so that excessive drying or disturbance of bearing materials does not occur. Should the materials at bearing level become excessively dry or saturated, we recommend that the affected material be removed prior to placing concrete.

It is recommended that construction joints be placed in areas along the wall at the transition between bearing materials and at utility crossings greater than 24-inches. The use of properly placed construction joints will help control cracking in the wall due to settlement.

In order to limit the forces induced on the back of the retaining wall due to compaction equipment, it is recommended that machine operated equipment (i.e. sheepsfoot roller, vibrator drums, etc.) not be operated within close proximity of the wall, a distance of 2 feet or ½ the wall height to a maximum distance of six feet from the back of the wall. The compaction effort utilized within this zone should be limited to that which is required to achieve 92 to 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Lift thickness should be reduced and light compaction equipment should be used to limit the forces on the wall while achieving the recommended degree of compaction

3.3.7 Wall Drainage

To prevent hydrostatic loading on the retaining walls, it is recommended that a perforated drain line be installed at the base of the walls. The drain line should be sloped to provide positive gravity drainage outside the retaining wall area or should extend to a sump where water can be

collected and removed. The drain line should be wrapped with filter fabric to prevent intrusion of fines. The drain line should be backfilled with free-draining granular material extending vertically above the drain line to within 2 feet of final grade. The upper 2 feet of fill should be a cohesive soil to minimize the infiltration of surface water. The grade behind the wall backfill should be sloped to provide positive drainage away from the wall and minimize the infiltration of surface water into the wall backfill.

3.3.8 Drainage Backfill Placement

The granular section behind the wall should have a minimum width of 2 feet and should be encapsulated in a suitable filter fabric to minimize intrusion of fines. The use of a prefabricated drainage blanket on the retaining walls could also be considered to prevent hydrostatic loading. Prefabricated drainage blankets should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.

4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES

4.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW

We recommend that Kleinfelder conduct a general review of the final plans and specifications to evaluate that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during design. In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.

4.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING

We recommend that all earthwork and cast-in-place retaining wall installation be monitored by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site preparation, excavation and placement of all engineered. The purpose of these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the subsurface conditions encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein.

5. LIMITATIONS

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that subsurface conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If subsurface conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, we should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, our recommendations should also be reviewed.

We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by Kleinfelder during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or exploration for the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, below or around this site.

This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than three years from the date of report. Land use, site conditions (both on-site and off-site), regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized or non-compliance.

FIGURES

FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM FIGURE 2. BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM FIGURE 3. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM

NORTH

PROJECT NO. 20160176-2 FIGURE Source: USGS DRAWN: 5/11/2015 SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of DRAWN BY: WLT warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document CHECKED BY: SYW is not intended for use as a land survey product nor it is designed CIP RETAINING WALL or intended as a construction design document. The use or WEST 23RD STREET SOUTH OVER I-244 1 FILE NAME: misuse of the information contained on this graphic STATE J/P NO. 28861(04) representation is at the soile risk of the party using or misusing 20160176-2_Figures TULSA, OKLAHOMA NORTH

PROJECT NO. 20160176-2 FIGURE Source: USGS DRAWN: 5/11/2015 BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM The information included on this graphic representation has been compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of DRAWN BY: WLT warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document CHECKED BY: SYW is not intended for use as a land survey product nor it is designed CIP RETAINING WALL or intended as a construction design document. The use or WEST 23RD STREET SOUTH OVER I-244 2 FILE NAME: misuse of the information contained on this graphic STATE J/P NO. 28861(04) representation is at the soile risk of the party using or misusing 20160176-2_Figures TULSA, OKLAHOMA Horizontal Backfill

H 1

H 2 Pp = Kp H 2 Pa = Ka H 1 Where: Ka = 35 pcf Kp = 576 pcf Pa = Active Static Earth Pressure (psf)

Note: Values presented are for free draining material. Values Kp and Ka present equivalent fluid densities.

PROJECT NO. 20160176-2 FIGURE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DRAWN: 5/11/2015 The information included on this graphic representation has been DIAGRAM compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of DRAWN BY: WLT warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document CHECKED BY: SYW is not intended for use as a land survey product nor it is designed CIP RETAINING WALL or intended as a construction design document. The use or WEST 23RD STREET SOUTH OVER I-244 3 FILE NAME: misuse of the information contained on this graphic STATE J/P NO. 28861(04) representation is at the soile risk of the party using or misusing 20160176-2_Figures TULSA, OKLAHOMA

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM

Kleinfelder conducted the field work for this study between April 20 and 24, 2015. The exploration consisted of 9 (including 3 bridge pier borings) soil test borings performed near the locations indicated on Figure 2, Boring Location Diagram. The borings were terminated at approximate depths ranging from 30.0 to 60 feet below existing ground surface (approximate elevations ranging from 603 to 574 feet).

Boring locations were established in the field by a representative of Kleinfelder. A measuring tape was used to measure distances from the existing bridge to the boring locations. Right angles were estimated. Approximate elevations at the boring locations were determined through use of an engineer's level referenced to the bottom of the top leveling beam at the south side of bridge at existing bridge pier bent No. 14. The reference point was located at approximate Station 28+85, 30 feet right, with an elevation of 650.73 feet, per the preliminary plan provided by ODOT, dated May 19, 1959. Locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used. Table A-1 lists the approximate boring location and the respective ground surface elevation.

Table A-1. Approximate Boring Locations and Ground Surface Elevations

Boring Ground Elevation* Approximate Location No. (feet) Station Offset Latitude Longitude TBM 650.73 28+85 30’ Rt. N/A N/A W-1 632.2 N/A* N/A* 36.12928 -96.00918 W-2 632.8 N/A* N/A* 36.12967 -96.00923 W-3 633.8 N/A* N/A* 36.13000 -96.00926 B-1 634.9 N/A* N/A* 36.13046 -96.00922 W-4 635.1 N/A* N/A* 36.13060 -96.00927 B-4 633.8 N/A* N/A* 36.13097 -96.00922 B-5 634.0 N/A* N/A* 36.13130 -96.00923 W-5 634.7 N/A* N/A* 36.13165 -96.00920 W-6 635.0 N/A* N/A* 36.13208 -96.00912 * Plans have not been provided to Kleinfelder at the time of this report being prepared. Global Position System (GPS) with an accuracy of 15-foot was used to record the boring locations and coordinates are provided in boring logs.

Borings were performed with an ATV-mounted (Mobile-B53) rotary drill rig using a combination of hollow stem augers and wash boring techniques. Samples were obtained by performing a Standard Penetration test (SPT) using a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler. Split-barrel sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D1586 ( Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils). The split-barrel sampler is driven into the bottom of the boring over an 18-inch sampling interval by a 140-pound hammer that is dropped a distance of 30 inches. An Automatic SPT hammer with approximate hammer efficiency of 78% was used to advance the split-barrel sampler. The SPT N-value, recorded on the boring logs, is the number of blows required to drive the split-barrel sampler the final 12 inches of the 18-inch sampling interval. The samples were sealed and returned to our laboratory for further examination, classification and testing. The borings were backfilled in accordance with the appropriate Oklahoma Water Resources Board Regulations.

Boring logs included in this APPENDIX, present such data as soil and bedrock descriptions, relative density, consistency, and hardness evaluations, depths, sampling intervals, and observed groundwater conditions. Conditions encountered in each of the borings were monitored and recorded by the drill crew and field professional. Field logs included visual classification of the materials encountered during drilling, as well as drilling characteristics. Our final boring logs represent the engineer’s interpretation of the field logs combined with laboratory observation and testing of the samples. Stratification boundaries indicated on the boring logs were based on observations during our field work, an extrapolation of information obtained by examining samples from the borings, and comparisons of soils with similar engineering characteristics. Locations of these boundaries are approximate, and the transitions between material types may be gradual rather than clearly defined.

20160176-2/TUL15R19782 A-2 May 13, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj gINT TEMPLATE: PROJECTWISE: KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB [8.5X11 PROFILE] PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 04:48 PM BY: bmooney

A A'

640 640 B-1 W-4 W-5 W-6 W-3 B-4 B-5 W-1 W-2

BC= 2, 3, 2 BC= 4, 3, 3 BC= 4, 5, 4 BC= 2, 3, 2 630 BC= 3, 4, 3 BC= 3, 4, 6 BC= 3, 2, 3 630 BC= 4, 8, 11 BC= 3, 4, 3

BC= 4, 7, 7 BC= 2, 4, 7 BC= 6, 6, 5 BC= 5, 7, 6 BC= 3, 5, 7 BC= 3, 4, 5 BC= 4, 7, 8 BC= 6, 7, 6 BC= 3, 3, 6

BC= 3, 5, 8 BC= 5, 10, 10 BC= 3, 8, 4 BC= 2, 2, 3 620 BC= 2, 3, 4 BC= 2, 5, 5 BC= 4, 5, 6 620 BC= 9, 7, 7 BC= 5, 3, 4

BC= 2, 1, 1 BC= 1, 2, 3 BC= 3, 5, 7 BC= 5, 7, 6 BC= 4, 3, 3 BC= 1, 3, 3 BC= 12, 10, 9 BC= 3, 3, 3 BC= 6, 5, 3

BC= 4, 4, 6 BC= 5, 6, 6 BC= 3, 6, 11 BC= 1, 2, 2 610 BC= 3, 3, 2 BC= 2, 4, 4 BC= 6, 7, 6 610 BC= 4, 5, 13 BC= 3, 3, 2 BC= 50/2.5" BC= 37, 50/3" BC= 50/4" BC= 50/2.5" BC= 50/2.5" BC= 50/0" BC= 50/4" BC= 8, 50/3" BC= 50/1.75" BC= 50/1" BC= 50/4" BC= 50/3.5" BC= 50/5.75" BC= 50/3.5" 600 BC= 50/3" 600 ELEVATION (feet)ELEVATION (feet)ELEVATION

590 590

580 580

570 570

NOTE: FIGURE REFER TO INDIVIDUAL LOGS FOR DETAILED PROJECT NO.: 20160176 INFORMATION AND THE GRAPHIC LEGEND KEYS SUBSURFACE CROSS-SECTION FOR GRAPHICAL SYMBOL INFORMATION. DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall A-1 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, HOLLOW STEM AUGER CLEAN Cu >_ 4 and GW GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH GRAVEL 1 <_ Cc <_ 3 LITTLE OR NO FINES WITH SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER <5% POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, FINES Cu < 4 and/ GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER or 1> Cc > 3 (2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) inner LITTLE OR NO FINES diameter) WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GW-GM GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH GROUND WATER GRAPHICS Cu >_ 4 and LITTLE FINES <_ <_ WATER LEVEL (level where first observed) 1 Cc 3 WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVELS GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH WATER LEVEL (level after exploration completion) GW-GC WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES

PLOTTED: 05/11/2015 03:18 PM BY: bmooney BY: PM 03:18 05/11/2015 PLOTTED: 5% TO WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration) 12% POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH OBSERVED SEEPAGE FINES GP-GM LITTLE FINES Cu < 4 and/ NOTES or 1> Cc > 3 POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data GP-GC GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and LITTLE CLAY FINES limitations stated in the report. SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SAND Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries GM MIXTURES only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those shown.

(More than half of coarse fraction larger is than the #4 sieve) GRAVELS No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions WITH > CLAYEY GRAVELS, between individual sample locations. 12% GC GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at the point of FINES exploration on the date indicated. GRAVELS CLAYEY GRAVELS, GC-GM In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES on the logs were based on visual classification in the field and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index property testing. WELL-GRADED SANDS, CLEAN Cu >_ 6 and SW SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the Plasticity <_ <_ Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12% passing the No. SANDS 1 Cc 3 LITTLE OR NO FINES 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, WITH GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC, SC-SM. <5% POORLY GRADED SANDS, (More than half of largermaterial is than the #200 sieve) FINES Cu < 6 and/ SP SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/X indicates or 1> Cc > 3 LITTLE OR NO FINES number of blows required to drive the identified sampler X inches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. WELL-GRADED SANDS, SW-SM SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH Cu >_ 6 and LITTLE FINES <_ <_ 1 Cc 3 WELL-GRADED SANDS, SANDS SW-SC SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES 5% TO 12% POORLY GRADED SANDS, COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINES SP-SM SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE FINES Cu < 6 and/ or 1> Cc > 3 POORLY GRADED SANDS, SP-SC SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH LITTLE CLAY FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILT SM MIXTURES SANDS

(More than half of coarse fraction than smaller is the #4 sieve) WITH > CLAYEY SANDS, 12% SC SAND-GRAVEL-CLAY MIXTURES FINES

SANDS CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAY SC-SM MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR ML CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY SILTS AND CLAYS CL CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS (Liquid Limit INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY less than 50) CL-ML CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF OL LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT is smaller than smaller is the #200 sieve) SILTS AND CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT (Liquid Limit CH CLAYS FINE GRAINED SOILS greater than 50) (More (More than half of material ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OF OH MEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICITY

FIGURE PROJECT NO.: 20160176 GRAPHICS KEY DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall A-2 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj 20160176-2_retaining gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: USCS] WITH KEY) 1 (GRAPHICS [GEO-LEGEND KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/20/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk BORING LOG W-1 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: B53 Mobile Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 79% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.12928° N Longitude: -96.00918° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 632.20 PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 10:39 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:39 05/13/2015 PLOTTED:

Approximate Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) GraphicalLog Lithologic Description Sample Number Sample Type Counts(BC)= Blow in. Uncorr. Blows/6 Recovery (NR=No Recovery) USCS Symbol Water Content(%) Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Index Plasticity (NP=NonPlastic) AdditionalTests/ Remarks TOPSOIL FILL 1 18" 630 Silty SAND: brown, dark brown to light tan with trace orange, dry to moist 2 BC=4 14" SP-SM 5.8 100 6.3 NP NP Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): tan 8 5 to light tan, dry to moist, medium dense 11

625

3 BC=3 12" 3 10 6

620 Poorly-graded SAND (SP): tan to light gray, moist to wet, loose - gray, strong hydrocarbon odor below 13.5 4 BC=5 12" SP 14.7 100 0.6 NP NP 3 15 feet 4

615

5 BC=6 14" 5 20 3

610 Silty Clayey SAND (SC-SM): gray, wet, loose

6 BC=4 12" SC-SM 13.4 88 23 17 4 5 25 **Weathered SHALE: gray with greenish 13 7 8" gray, soft BC=37 50/3" **SHALE: gray, moderately hard 605

30 8 BC=50/4" The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 600 30.5 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 20, ground surface during drilling. GENERAL NOTES: 2015. **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and 35 visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder. 595

590

BORING PROJECT NO.: 20160176 BORING LOG W-1 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall W-1 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 1 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj 20160176-2_retaining gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/22/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk BORING LOG W-2 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: B53 Mobile Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 79% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.12967° N Longitude: -96.00823° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 632.80 PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 10:39 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:39 05/13/2015 PLOTTED:

Approximate Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) GraphicalLog Lithologic Description Sample Number Sample Type Counts(BC)= Blow in. Uncorr. Blows/6 Recovery (NR=No Recovery) USCS Symbol Water Content(%) Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Index Plasticity (NP=NonPlastic) AdditionalTests/ Remarks TOPSOIL FILL Silty SAND: light brown to tan with trace 630 orange, moist 1 BC=3 14" Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): light 4 5 tan, moist, loose 3

625 Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP): tan, 2 BC=6 14" SP 20.9 100 4.6 NP NP moist to wet, medium dense 7 10 6

620 - gray, wet, medium dense, slightly 3 BC=9 16" hydrocarbon odor below 13.5 feet 7 15 7

615 - dark gray to gray, loose, wet below 18.5 feet 4 BC=3 3 20 3

610 5 BC=3 SP 12.4 100 1.7 NP NP 3 25 2

**SHALE: gray and greenish brown, 6 BC=50/4" 6" 605 moderately hard

7 BC=50/3.5" 5" 600 The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 32 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 22, ground surface during drilling. 35 Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below 2015. ground surface at the end of drilling. GENERAL NOTES: **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and 595 visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were 40 estimated by Kleinfelder.

590

BORING PROJECT NO.: 20160176 BORING LOG W-2 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall W-2 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 1 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj 20160176-2_retaining gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/20/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk BORING LOG W-3 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: B53 Mobile Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 79% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13000° N Longitude: -96.00926° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 633.80 PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 10:39 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:39 05/13/2015 PLOTTED:

630 1 BC=3 14" Silty SAND (SM): light tan to tan, moist, loose 4 5 3

625 2 BC=3 14" SP 11.9 100 2.9 NP NP Poorly-graded SAND (SP): tan with trace 5 10 orange to light gray, moist to wet, medium 7 dense to loose

620 - light gray to gray, wet, medium grained sand, 3 BC=2 18" strong hydrocarbon odor below 13.5 feet 3 15 4

Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): tan and orangish brown, wet, loose 615 4 BC=4 15" SP-SM 16.5 99 7.2 NP NP 3 20 3

610 5 BC=3 10" 3 25 2

605 6 BC=8 9" **SHALE: gray with trace greenish gray, 50/3" 30 moderately hard

600 7 BC=50/3" 35 The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 34 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 20, ground surface during drilling. Groundwater was observed at approximately 17 ft. below ground 2015. surface at the end of drilling. GENERAL NOTES: 595 **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be 40 required for exact classification.** The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

590

BORING PROJECT NO.: 20160176 BORING LOG W-3 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall W-3 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 1 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj 20160176-2_retaining gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/22/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk BORING LOG W-4 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: B53 Mobile Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 79% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13060° N Longitude: -96.00927° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 635.10 PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 10:39 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:39 05/13/2015 PLOTTED:

Approximate Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) GraphicalLog Lithologic Description Sample Number Sample Type Counts(BC)= Blow in. Uncorr. Blows/6 Recovery (NR=No Recovery) USCS Symbol Water Content(%) Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Index Plasticity (NP=NonPlastic) AdditionalTests/ Remarks TOPSOIL FILL Silty Clayey SAND: dark brown, moist FILL Silty SAND: brown, moist 1 BC=4 17" SM 12.5 100 32 NP NP 3 630 5 3

Silty SAND (SM): light brown and tan, medium dense

- silty sandy clay lense between 8.5 to 9.0 feet 2 BC=2 16" 4 625 10 7

- gray to dark gray, wet, strong hydrocarbon 3 BC=5 16" SM 24.3 100 24 NP NP odor below 13.5 feet 10 620 15 10

4 BC=1 2 615 20 3

- brown, wet below 23.5 feet 5 BC=5 2" SM 23.9 100 17 NP NP 6 610 25 6

**SHALE: gray with greenish, moderately 6 BC=50/2.5" 4" hard to hard 605 30

7 BC=50/5.75" 7"

600 35 The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 34 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 22, ground surface during drilling. Groundwater was observed at approximately 13 ft. below ground 2015. surface at the end of drilling. GENERAL NOTES: **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and 595 40 visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

BORING PROJECT NO.: 20160176 BORING LOG W-4 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall W-4 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 1 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj 20160176-2_retaining gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/20/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk BORING LOG W-5 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: B53 Mobile Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 79% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13165° N Longitude: -96.00920° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 634.70 PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 10:39 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:39 05/13/2015 PLOTTED:

Approximate Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) GraphicalLog Lithologic Description Sample Number Sample Type Counts(BC)= Blow in. Uncorr. Blows/6 Recovery (NR=No Recovery) USCS Symbol Water Content(%) Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Index Plasticity (NP=NonPlastic) AdditionalTests/ Remarks TOPSOIL FILL Poorly-graded SAND with Silt: tan and orangish brown, loose 1 BC=4 16" SP-SM 9.7 100 6.6 NP NP 630 5 5 4

Poorly-graded SAND (SP): tan with brown, moist, medium dense

2 BC=6 16" 625 6 10 5

- gray with slight tan, wet, strong hydrocarbon 3 BC=3 16" 620 odor below 13.5 feet 8 15 4

4 BC=3 8" SP 17.0 90 3.7 NP NP 615 5 20 7

- wet, gray, hydrocarbon odor below 23.5 feet 5 BC=3 8" 610 6 25 11

**SHALE: gray and greenish gray, 6 BC=50/4" 5" 605 30 moderately hard

7 BC=50/3.5" 4" 600 35 The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 34 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 20, ground surface during drilling. GENERAL NOTES: 2015. **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** 595 The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were 40 estimated by Kleinfelder.

590 BORING PROJECT NO.: 20160176 BORING LOG W-5 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall W-5 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 1 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj 20160176-2_retaining gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/21/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk BORING LOG W-6 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: B53 Mobile Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Efficiency: 79% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13208° N Longitude: -96.00912° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 635.00 PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 10:39 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:39 05/13/2015 PLOTTED:

Approximate Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) GraphicalLog Lithologic Description Sample Number Sample Type Counts(BC)= Blow in. Uncorr. Blows/6 Recovery (NR=No Recovery) USCS Symbol Water Content(%) Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Index Plasticity (NP=NonPlastic) AdditionalTests/ Remarks TOPSOIL FILL Lean CLAY with Sand: brown, dry to moist Silty SAND (SM): tan to light brown, dry to moist, loose to medium dense 1 BC=2 17" 3 630 5 2

2 BC=5 13" SM 11.5 100 15 NP NP 7 625 10 6

Poorly-graded SAND (SP): dark gray to gray, 3 BC=2 14" SP 14.4 97 4.4 NP NP wet, loose to medium dense, very strong 2 620 15 3 hydrocarbon odor

- gray with trace tan, medium dense below 4 BC=5 13" 18.5 feet 7 615 20 6

5 BC=1 2 610 25 2

**SHALE: gray and greenish gray, 6 BC=50/2.5" 4" moderately hard to hard - trace of sandstone seams below 28 feet 605 30

7 BC=50/1" 3" The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 32 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below ground surface during drilling. 600 35 was backfilled with bentonite on April 21, Groundwater was observed at approximately 14 ft. below ground 2015. surface at the end of drilling. GENERAL NOTES: **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were 595 40 estimated by Kleinfelder.

BORING PROJECT NO.: 20160176 BORING LOG W-6 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW CIP Retaining Wall W-6 DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 1 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj 20160176-2_retaining gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/22/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk Drilling BORING LOG B-1 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: CME-550X Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Wash Bore Hammer Efficiency: 79.6% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13046° N Longitude: -96.00922° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 634.90 Location Offset: 24 feet N. - 6.5 feet W. of N. Side PLOTTED: 05/07/2015 10:08 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:08 05/07/2015 PLOTTED: of Bridge Pier Bent No. 14

Approximate Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) GraphicalLog Lithologic Description Sample Number Sample Type Counts(BC)= Blow in. Uncorr. Blows/6 Cone(TC)=Texas blows/6 Recovery (NR=No Recovery) USCS Symbol Water Content(%) Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Index Plasticity (NP=NonPlastic) AdditionalTests/ Remarks TOPSOIL FILL Silty SAND: dark brown, loose - orangish brown below 2.0 feet

1 BC=2 15" SM 13.0 100 39 NP NP 3 2 630 5

Silty SAND (SM): tan to light brown, loose

2 BC=4 15" SM 16.3 100 41 NP NP Poorly-graded SAND (SP): fine-grained, dark 7 7 625 10 gray to gray, very strong hydrocarbon odor, moist to wet, medium dense

- wet below 13.5 feet 3 BC=3 14" SP 18.5 100 1.8 NP NP 5 8 620 15

- very loose, wet below 18.5 feet 4 BC=2 NR 1 1 615 20

Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): light 5 BC=4 6" SP-SM 20.1 100 10 NP NP brown to light gray, very strong hydrocarbon 4 6 610 25 odor, wet, loose

**SHALE: gray with greenish yellow, hard 6 BC=50/2.5" 4" 7 TC=50/1" 50/0" 605 30

8 TC=50/0" 50/0" FIGURE PROJECT NO.: 20160176-1 BORING LOG B-1 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW Bridge Subsurface Exploration B-1 DATE: 4/29/2015 W. 23rd St. S. over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 2 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-1_ec 1445e To 7 W 23rd Over I-244.gpj 23rd Over To 7 W 1445e 20160176-1_ec gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/22/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk Drilling BORING LOG B-1 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: CME-550X Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Wash Bore Hammer Efficiency: 79.6% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

9 TC=50/0.5" 50/0" 595 40

10 TC=50/0" 50/0" 590 45

11 TC=50/0.25" 50/0.25" 585 50

12 TC=50/0.5" 50/0" 580 55

13 TC=50/0.25" 50/0" 575 60

The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 60 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 22, ground surface during drilling. GENERAL NOTES: 2015. **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** 570 65 The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

FIGURE PROJECT NO.: 20160176-1 BORING LOG B-1 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW Bridge Subsurface Exploration B-1 DATE: 4/29/2015 W. 23rd St. S. over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 2 of 2 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-1_ec 1445e To 7 W 23rd Over I-244.gpj 23rd Over To 7 W 1445e 20160176-1_ec gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/21/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk Drilling BORING LOG B-4 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: CME-550X Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Wash Bore Hammer Efficiency: 79.6% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13097° N Longitude: -96.00922° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 633.80

PLOTTED: 05/07/2015 10:08 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:08 05/07/2015 PLOTTED: Location Offset: 16 feet E. of Ramp Pier No. 6

630 1 BC=3 14" SM 13.7 100 30 NP NP 4 6 5

Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): light tan, moist, loose

625 2 BC=3 14" SP-SM 14.7 100 7.8 NP NP 4 5 10

620 Poorly-graded SAND (SP): gray to dark gray, 3 BC=2 18" SP 17.1 100 2.0 NP NP strong hydrocarbon odor, wet, loose 5 5 15

615 4 BC=1 18" SP 18.4 100 3.2 NP NP 3 3 20

610 5 BC=2 NR 4 4 25

605 **SHALE: gray and greenish brown, hard 6 BC=50/1.75" 3" 7 TC=50/0.75" 50/0.25" 30

600 8 TC=50/0.5" 50/0" FIGURE PROJECT NO.: 20160176-1 BORING LOG B-4 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW Bridge Subsurface Exploration B-4 DATE: 4/29/2015 W. 23rd St. S. over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 2 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-1_ec 1445e To 7 W 23rd Over I-244.gpj 23rd Over To 7 W 1445e 20160176-1_ec gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/21/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk Drilling BORING LOG B-4 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: CME-550X Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Wash Bore Hammer Efficiency: 79.6% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13097° N Longitude: -96.00922° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 633.80

PLOTTED: 05/07/2015 10:08 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:08 05/07/2015 PLOTTED: Location Offset: 16 feet E. of Ramp Pier No. 6

595 9 TC=50/0" 50/0" 40

590 10 TC=50/0" 50/0" 45

585 11 TC=50/0.5" 50/0" 50

580 12 TC=50/0.25" 50/0" 55

575 13 TC=50/0" 50/0" 60

The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 60 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 21, ground surface during drilling. Groundwater was observed at approximately 17 ft. below ground 2015. surface at the end of drilling. 570 GENERAL NOTES: **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and 65 visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

565

FIGURE PROJECT NO.: 20160176-1 BORING LOG B-4 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW Bridge Subsurface Exploration B-4 DATE: 4/29/2015 W. 23rd St. S. over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 2 of 2 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-1_ec 1445e To 7 W 23rd Over I-244.gpj 23rd Over To 7 W 1445e 20160176-1_ec gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/23/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk Drilling BORING LOG B-5 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: CME-550X Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Wash Bore Hammer Efficiency: 79.6% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

Latitude: 36.13130° N Longitude: -96.00923° W Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 634.00 Location Offset: 13 feet N. - 11 feet W. of Ramping PLOTTED: 05/07/2015 10:08 AM BY: swang BY: AM 10:08 05/07/2015 PLOTTED: Pier Bent No. 8

Approximate Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) GraphicalLog Lithologic Description Sample Number Sample Type Counts(BC)= Blow in. Uncorr. Blows/6 Cone(TC)=Texas blows/6 Recovery (NR=No Recovery) USCS Symbol Water Content(%) Dry Unit Wt. (pcf) Passing #4 (%) Passing #200 (%) Liquid Limit Index Plasticity (NP=NonPlastic) AdditionalTests/ Remarks MUDDY and WATER FILL Silty SAND: tan and brown, moist, loose

BC=3 630 1 14" SM 16.5 100 18 NP NP 2 3 5

Poorly-graded SAND (SP): light tan and gray, moist, medium dense

BC=4 625 2 16" SP 6.1 100 3.8 NP NP 7 8 10

BC=4 620 - dark gray to gray, very strong hydrocarbon 3 18" SP 20.3 100 1.8 NP NP odor and wet below 13.5 feet 5 6 15

BC=12 615 4 14" SP 15.8 100 4.8 NP NP 10 9 20

Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): gray and dark gray, strong hydrocarbon odor, wet, medium dense BC=6 610 5 6" SP-SM 19.5 100 5.2 NP NP 7 6 25

**SHALE: gray with light greenish brown, 6 BC=50/0" NR hard TC=50/1" 605 7 50/0" 30

TC=50/0.5" 600 8 50/0"

FIGURE PROJECT NO.: 20160176-1 BORING LOG B-5 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW Bridge Subsurface Exploration B-5 DATE: 4/29/2015 W. 23rd St. S. over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 1 of 2 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-1_ec 1445e To 7 W 23rd Over I-244.gpj 23rd Over To 7 W 1445e 20160176-1_ec gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com Date Begin - End: 4/23/2015 Drilling Company: Mohawk Drilling BORING LOG B-5 Logged By: B. Rojas Drill Crew: C. Pendergrass Hor.-Vert. Datum: Not Available Drilling Equipment: CME-550X Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in. Plunge: -90 degrees Drilling Method: Wash Bore Hammer Efficiency: 79.6% Weather: Not Available Exploration Diameter: 6 in. O.D. Hammer Cal. Date: Unknown FIELD EXPLORATION LABORATORY RESULTS

TC=50/0.25" 595 9 50/0" 40

TC=50/0.5" 590 10 50/0" 45

TC=50/0.25" 585 11 50/0" 50

- interbedded sandstone layer below 52.0 and 53.5 feet TC=50/0" 580 12 50/0" 55

TC=50/0.25" 575 13 50/0" 60 The boring was terminated at approximately GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION: 59.5 ft. below ground surface. The exploration Groundwater was observed at approximately 13.5 ft. below was backfilled with bentonite on April 23, ground surface during drilling. GENERAL NOTES: 2015. **Rock Classification is based on drilling characteristics and visual observation of disturbed samples. Core samples would be required for exact classification.** 570 The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were 65 estimated by Kleinfelder.

565

FIGURE PROJECT NO.: 20160176-1 BORING LOG B-5 DRAWN BY: BJM

CHECKED BY: SYW Bridge Subsurface Exploration B-5 DATE: 4/29/2015 W. 23rd St. S. over I-244 State J/P No. 28861(04) REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma PAGE: 2 of 2 gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-1_ec 1445e To 7 W 23rd Over I-244.gpj 23rd Over To 7 W 1445e 20160176-1_ec gINT PROJECTWISE: FILE: LOG] SOIL PIT [KLF_BORING/TEST KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB PROJECTWISE: gINT TEMPLATE: KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

GENERAL

Laboratory tests were performed on select, representative samples to evaluate pertinent engineering properties of these materials. We directed our laboratory testing program primarily toward classifying the subsurface materials and measuring index values of the on-site materials. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable standards. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the respective boring logs. The laboratory testing program consisted of the following:

• Moisture content tests , ASTM D2216, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass • Atterberg limits , ASTM D4318, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils • Particle Size Analysis of Soil, ASTM D422, Standard Test Methods for Particle- Size Analysis of Soils • Visual classification , ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)

20160176-2/TUL15R19782 B-1 May 13, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder gINT FILE: PROJECTWISE: 20160176-2_retaining Wall.gpj gINT TEMPLATE: PROJECTWISE: KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2015.GLB [LAB SUMMARY TABLE - OKLAHOMA] PLOTTED: 05/13/2015 04:46 PM BY: bmooney

Atterberg Limits Sieve Analysis (%)

Water Depth Sample Exploration ID Sample Description USCS AASHTO Content (ft.) No. Passing Passing Passing Passing Passing (%) #4 #10 #40 #100 #200 OKLAHOMA SOIL INDEX (OSI) SOIL INDEX Liquid Limits Plastic Limits Plasticity Index B-1 3.5 - 5.0 1 SILTY SAND SM A-4(0) 0.0 13.0 NP NP NP 100 100 100 52 39 B-1 8.5 - 10.0 2 SILTY SAND SM A-4(0) 0.0 16.3 NP NP NP 100 99 70 45 41

B-1 13.5 - 15.0 3 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-1-b 0.0 18.5 NP NP NP 100 98 30 4 1.8

B-1 23.5 - 25.0 5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT SP-SM A-3 0.0 20.1 NP NP NP 100 100 88 21 10 B-4 3.5 - 5.0 1 SILTY SAND SM A-2-4 0.0 13.7 NP NP NP 100 100 100 37 30

B-4 8.5 - 10.0 2 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT SP-SM A-3 0.0 14.7 NP NP NP 100 100 88 13 7.8 B-4 13.5 - 15.0 3 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-1-b 0.0 17.1 NP NP NP 100 97 50 4 2.0

B-4 18.5 - 20.0 4 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-3 0.0 18.4 NP NP NP 100 98 55 5 3.2 B-5 3.5 - 5.0 1 SILTY SAND SM A-2-4 0.0 16.5 NP NP NP 100 100 100 24 18

B-5 8.5 - 10.0 2 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-3 0.0 6.1 NP NP NP 100 100 64 8 3.8

B-5 13.5 - 15.0 3 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-3 0.0 20.3 NP NP NP 100 99 64 4 1.8 B-5 18.5 - 20.0 4 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-1-b 0.0 15.8 NP NP NP 100 100 43 7 4.8

B-5 23.5 - 25.0 5 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT SP-SM A-3 0.0 19.5 NP NP NP 100 100 77 10 5.2 W-1 3.5 - 5.0 2 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT SP-SM A-4(0) 4.0 5.8 NP NP NP 100 100 100 20 6.3

W-1 13.5 - 15.0 4 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-1-b 0.0 14.7 NP NP NP 100 95 40 2 0.6 W-1 23.5 - 25.0 6 SILTY, CLAYEY SAND SC-SM A-1-b 0.3 13.4 17 13 4 88 76 36 24 23

W-2 8.5 - 10.0 2 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-3 0.0 20.9 NP NP NP 100 100 91 8 4.6

W-2 23.5 - 25.0 5 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-1-b 0.0 12.4 NP NP NP 100 96 35 4 1.7 W-3 8.5 - 10.0 2 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-3 0.0 11.9 NP NP NP 100 100 64 5 2.9

W-3 18.5 - 20.0 4 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT SP-SM A-1-b 0.0 16.5 NP NP NP 99 93 38 9 7.2 W-4 3.5 - 5.0 1 SILTY SAND SM A-2-4 0.0 12.5 NP NP NP 100 100 100 37 32

W-4 13.5 - 15.0 3 SILTY SAND SM A-2-4 0.0 24.3 NP NP NP 100 100 100 29 24 W-4 23.5 - 25.0 5 SILTY SAND SM A-2-4 0.0 23.9 NP NP NP 100 100 98 28 17

W-5 3.5 - 5.0 1 POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT SP-SM A-3 0.0 9.7 NP NP NP 100 100 100 11 6.6

W-5 18.5 - 20.0 4 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-1-b 0.0 17.0 NP NP NP 90 86 31 6 3.7 W-6 8.5 - 10.0 2 SILTY SAND SM A-2-4 0.0 11.5 NP NP NP 100 100 99 22 15

W-6 13.5 - 15.0 3 POORLY GRADED SAND SP A-1-b 0.0 14.4 NP NP NP 97 80 20 6 4.4

PROJECT NO.: 20160176 TABLE LABORATORY TEST DRAWN BY: BJM RESULT SUMMARY Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the CHECKED BY: SYW B-1 supplemental plates for the method used for the testing CIP Retaining Wall performed above. DATE: 5/5/2015 W. 23rd Street over I-244 NP = Nonplastic State J/P No. 28861(04) NA = Not Available REVISED: - Tulsa, Oklahoma KLEINFELDER - 10835 E. Independence, Suite 102 | Tulsa, OK 74116 | PH: 918.627.6161 | FAX: 918.627.6262 | www.kleinfelder.com

APPENDIX C

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES RESULTS

Table C-1. Shear Strength Parameters

Drained Unit Weight, (Long Term) Material pcf Friction angle, Cohesion, psf degrees Cohesionless 125 30 0 Retained Fill Native Silty Sand 120 30 0 Wall 150 High Strength Shale Bedrock (Impenetrable)

20160176-2/TUL15R19782 C-1 May 13, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelde PROJECT NO. 20160176-2 FIGURE SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS DRAWN: 5/8/2015 The information included on this graphic representation has been COHESIONLESS BACKFILL compiled from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Kleinfelder makes no representations of DRAWN BY: SYW warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document CHECKED BY: is not intended for use as a land survey product nor it is designed CAST IN PLACE RETAINING WALL STUDY or intended as a construction design document. The use or WEST 23RD STREET SOUTH OVER I-244 C-1 FILE NAME: misuse of the information contained on this graphic STATE J/P NO. 28861(04) representation is at the soile risk of the party using or misusing 20160176-2_Figures TULSA, OKLAHOMA

APPENDIX D

GBA DOCUMENT

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation, configurati on, location, orientation, or weight of the Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure, Geotechnical engineers structure their serv ices to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team, or their cl ients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engi • project ownership. neer may not fu lfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the cl ient. No changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact. one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which - not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed. except the one original ly contemplated. Subsurface Conditions Can Change Read the Full Report A geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditi ons that existed at Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the ti me the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineer engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of Do not read selected elements only. time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwa AGeotechnical-Engineering Report Is Based on ter fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors the report to determi ne if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional Geotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors testing or analys is could prevent major problems. when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the struc Opinions ture on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as Site exploration identifies subsurface condi ti ons only at those points where access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotech subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi nical engineer who conducted the study specifical ly indicates otherwise, neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional do not rely on a geotechn ical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the • not prepared for you, site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly • not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer • not prepared for the specific site explored, or who developed your repo rt to provide construction observation is the • completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the re liability of an existing geotechnical eng ineering report incl ude those that affect: AReport's Recommendations Are Not Final • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechn ical engi to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principal ly from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of liability tor the report's recommendations it that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitati ons," construction observation. many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibi lities AGeotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical Misinterpretation engineer should respond fu lly and frankly. Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team alter The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti mental study differ significantly fromt hose used to perform a geotechnical nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Reduce that risk by relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or conferences, and by provid ing construction observation. regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared tor some their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or one else. omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report shou ld never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize Diverse strateg ies can be applied during building design, construction, that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. ope ration, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be Give Contractors a Complete Report and devised for th e express purpose of mo ld prevention, integrated into a com Guidance prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or contractors liable for unanticipated subsu rface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con mold-prevention strategies focus on keeping bu ilding surfaces dry. While tractors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been clearl y written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical-engineering study whose fi ndings report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold-prevention consultant; none of the services per engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, from growing in or on the structure involved. while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibiliti es stemming from unanticipated con ditions. Rely~ on Your GBA-Member Geotechncial Engineer for 11dditional Assistance Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Membership in the GEOPROFESSIONALB USINESS ASSOCIATION exposes geotech Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that nical engineers to a wide array of risk confrontaton techniques that can be geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci of genuine benefit for everyone involved with aconstruction project. Confer pl ines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with your GBA-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesvi lle Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Te lephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail : [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2014 by Geaprafessianal Business Association, Inc. (GBA) Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whale or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting warding from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only far purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement ta or as an element of a geatechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be cammiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

llGER03135 OMRP