Appendix_E_0001.pdf

Water Wastewater Solid Waste Roads Stormwater Subdivisions Surveying GIS

Hydrology Air Quality ESA Soil Investigations SPCC Water Rights LUST

APPENDIX E – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

ASTM PHASE III INVESTIGATION REPORT

BIA Former Sanostee Day School

Sanostee, San Juan County, New Mexico

BIA Contract No.: 140A0923P0041

Prepared For:

Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Environmental Management 301 W. Hill Avenue Gallup, NM 87301

Prepared By:

iiná bá, Inc.

1812 Schofield Lane

Farmington, NM 87401 www.iinaba.com

Phone: (505) 327-1072 Fax: (505) 327-1517 http://www.iinaba.com/

Geophysical Imaging Report Sanostee School

Sanostee, New Mexico

Prepared For:

Iiná Bá Inc.

Farmington, New Mexico 87401

February 9, 2024

INBA-001-20230606

© 2024 – Southwest Geophysical Consulting, LLC. All rights reserved.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 i

FRONT MATTER

Published by:

Southwest Geophysical Consulting, LLC

5117 Fairfax Dr. NW

Albuquerque, NM 87114

(505) 585-2550 www.swgeophys.com

Prepared by:

David Decker, PhD, PG, CPG

CEO, Principal Geologist dave@swgeophys.com

Reviewed by:

Ronald S. Bell

Principal Geophysicist, CTO

Drone Geoscience, LLC ron@dronegeosci.com

Prepared for:

Iiná Bá Inc.

Farmington, New Mexico 87401

Point of Contact

Mr. John Isham

(505) 327-1072 jisham@iinaba.com

MMXXIV

mailto:dave@swgeophys.com mailto:ron@dronegeosci.com file:///G:/My%20Drive/Southwest%20Geophysical%20Consulting%20LLC/Admin/Field%20Reports/Clients/20210621%20Iina'%20Ba'/20230606%20Sanostee%20School%20(SANT)%20EM-GPR/Admin/%20devin@pathfinderenvironmental.com

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FRONT MATTER ................................................................................................................................ i

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................ii

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Goals of this Study

1.2 Summary of Findings

1.3 Limitations of Report

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

2.1 Description of Site

2.2 Description of Survey

2.2.1 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey

2.2.2 Electromagnetic Induction Survey

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey

3.2 Electromagnetic Induction Survey

4.0 DISCUSSION

5.0 SUMMARY

6.0 REFERENCES

7.0 APPENDICES

7.1 Glossary of Terms

7.2 Associated Data Files

8.0 ATTESTATION

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sanostee School regional overview

Figure 2: Sanostee School local overview

Figure 3: Survey overview

Figure 4: GPR results for SANT0302

Figure 5: Area 1 EMI results

Figure 6: Area 2-3 EMI results

Figure 7: Area 4 EMI results

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report was commissioned by Iiná Bá Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "the client") on June 6, 2023, for the purpose of determining the location of possible buried construction debris and subsurface utilities at the Sanostee School project site (hereinafter termed “SANT”) centered at

N 36.425968° W 108.878373° (Figure 1) using pedestrian electromagnetic induction (EMI) methods.

1.1 Goals of this Study

To provide the client with the target locations of any construction debris for further intrusive investigation and to attempt to locate a concrete-asbestos water pipe within the predetermined survey boundaries provided by the client (Possible Burial Area #1.kmz) via email on June 6, 2023.

1.2 Summary of Findings

Eleven anomalies consistent with buried construction debris were located during this survey. No anomalies associated with the concrete-asbestos waterpipe were found. Two anomalies consistent with PVC based near-surface utilities were located. See section 3.0 RESULTS and 4.0

DISCUSSION for further details.

Figure 1: Sanostee School regional overview. Background image credit: Google Earth. Image date: February 16, 2020.

Image datum: WGS-84.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 2

1.3 Limitations of Report

This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This report does not purport to give legal advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.

This report has been prepared for the use of Iiná Bá Inc. in accordance with generally accepted consulting practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has not been prepared for the use by parties other than the client and their direct client, and their respective consulting advisors. It may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or for other uses.

This report was prepared on completion of the associated fieldwork using a standard template prepared by Southwest Geophysical Consulting, LLC, and is based on conditions encountered on site and reviewed at the time of preparation. Southwest Geophysical Consulting, LLC, disclaims responsibility for any changes that might have occurred at the site after this time.

The interpreted results, locations, and depths noted in this report (if applicable) should be taken as an interpretation only and no decision should be based solely on this information.

Physical verification of geophysical results using geotechnical methods should be considered.

To the best of our knowledge, information contained in this report is accurate at the date of issue; however, conditions on the site can change in a limited time and, therefore, the information in this report shall not be used beyond three years past the date on the cover page.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 3

2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

2.1 Description of Site

The site is located at the Sanostee School in Sanostee, Navajo Nation, in the SW ¼ of section 4 and SE ¼ of section 5, NM T25N R19W[1] (Figure 1 and Figure 2), in San Juan County, New

Mexico. The survey area is located at an elevation of 1,831 meters (6,006 feet), ± 8 meters

(26.2 feet). The region is rural. The school and surrounding outbuildings, as well as all of the housing that was there at one time have been torn down. An artesian spring exists in the southeast corner of the survey area. The spring is still used frequently by locals. No foundations remain; however, pilings from the buildings are still in existence. We did not count all of them, but between 80 and 120 of these reinforced concrete columns are at or just above the ground surface. The entire area has been graded and a minimal amount of vegetation has grown back. Several small trees exist around the spring.

The only remaining infrastructure on the site is the wellhead for the artesian spring and a power line that traverses the southwestern portion of the site, then north, and finally back to the east

(Figure 5).

Figure 2: Sanostee School local overview. The background is historical imagery showing the area at the height of development.

Image acquired from historicalaerialphotos.org[2].

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 4

2.2 Description of Survey

Four main areas of interest were surveyed during this investigation. Area 1 is located on the west side of the school and was residential (Figure 2). Area 2-3 is located between Area 1 and Area 4 and was also residential (Figure 2). Area 4 is on the east side of the school and encompasses several of the school’s outbuildings (Figure 2). All four areas of interest were investigated during this survey using an electromagnetic induction (EMI) conductivity meter. The survey was completed using a north-south raster pattern in both Area 2-3 and Area 4, and an east-west raster pattern in Area 1, all at 10-meter line spacing (Figure 3). A fifth area that was along the main road was investigated in three locations (SANT02, SANT0301, and SANT0302) using ground penetrating radar (GPR) in an attempt to locate a concrete-asbestos water pipe. An additional

GPR survey area (SANT01) was requested while we were onsite.

Figure 3: Survey overview. This image shows the areas investigated using the EM and GPR methods. Background image credit: Google Earth. Image date: March 28, 2023. Image datum: WGS-84.

2.2.1 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey

A Proceq GS8000 stepped-frequency (200 – 3,400 MHz) radar and iPad Pro control unit with a Proceq MA8000 sub-meter global positioning system attached one meter above the center point of the radar antenna was used for this survey. Data collection software used was the

Screening Eagle GPR Subsurface v.2.3.1. The software used for post data processing was the

Screening Eagle GPR Insights v.2.0.1.69.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 5

Before data collection began, pre-survey requirements such as odometer calibration, controller set up, and auto-gain were conducted in an area free of surface debris and away from potential reflectors.

For this survey, the time window was set to collect to 5 meters depth (approximately 50 ns) and conducted in “Free Path” mode, which allowed us to maneuver around any obstacles and revisit areas of interest without the need to set up a 3D grid. This decreased our setup time and reduced the number of days in the field by approximately 75 percent. The survey path is tracked via an integrated, high-precision GPS that receives a calibration signal through the GPS satellites. This method allowed us to observe the survey and data collection in real time and ensure adequate coverage of the area and target of interest (Figure 2).

2.2.2 Electromagnetic Induction Survey

A CMD Explorer EMI conductivity meter made by GF Instruments, s.r.o.

(www.gfinstruments.cz), was deployed to collect electrical conductivity measurements of the subsurface along a parallel set of transects. The frequency domain, co-planar horizontal loop EM system is designed with three transmitter-receiver separations for operation in horizontal or vertical dipole modes relative to the ground surface. The mode with the greatest depth of investigation, i.e. vertical dipole mode, was used to acquire in phase (IP) and quadrature phase (QP) response at depths of 1.2 m, 3.2 m, and 5.7 m (3.9 ft, 10.5 ft, and 18.7 ft) simultaneously. A GEODE GPS system made by Juniper Systems

(www.junipersys.com) mounted in a backpack provided the longitude and latitude coordinates for each measurement. The factory calibration of the CMD Explorer was assumed to be stable and correct.

Before data collection began, wooden stakes were used to mark the end points of each traverse line of the geophysical survey grid. The CDM Explorer was then carried at hip level approximately one meter above ground level along the survey lines, passing it over the ground surface parallel to the direction of the transect line. For Area 2-3, the system was passed over the ground surface perpendicular to the direction of the survey transect line to increase the comfort of the technician. This has no effect on the data. Data were collected in continuous GPS mode, resulting in a data sample distance along each transect of 30 centimeters or less, depending on the walking speed of the operator. Once the survey was completed, the measured data were downloaded to a laptop personal computer for further processing, visualization, and analysis.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 6

For each survey area, 2D plan view color contour maps of the electrical conductivity for each depth of investigation were created. The maps were reviewed to identify anomalous electrical conductivity areas due to possible buried demolition debris. Data processing and analysis was completed using the Bently-Seequent Oasis montaj software following a standard workflow for electromagnetic records.

The GPR survey was completed by Dave Decker and Garrett Jorgensen Olague of Southwest

Geophysical Consulting, LLC, on November 11 and 12, 2023. The EMI survey was completed by Ron

Bell of Drone Geoscience, LLC, December 29 - 31, 2023.

Note: This survey was originally bid as an sUAS (small, uncrewed aerial system, aka a drone) GEM2 frequency domain electromagnetic survey. Due to a combination of weather and instrumentation malfunctions, we were unable to complete the survey using this method and resorted to our backup mode of pedestrian survey utilizing the CMD Explorer EMI conductivity meter.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 7

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Ground Penetrating Radar Survey

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) reflection profiles are created by the reflection of radar energy from interfaces that are created by differences in the dielectric constant between two types of material (e.g. rock and air), or differences in water saturation levels within similar materials. The larger the differences in dielectric between materials, the brighter the radar reflection return will be at any given depth. These reflection profiles are interpreted based on knowledge of the local geology, amount of recent rainfall in the area of interest, and other factors specific to the study. When the dielectric constant of two materials is similar, the target may not be seen using this geophysical method.

The GPR survey was inconclusive in two of the three areas surveyed. It is likely that the concrete-asbestos pipes were too close in dielectric constant to the surrounding material to create a good reflection surface. In the area of investigation labeled SANT0302, two linear anomalies consistent with buried utilities exists. These anomalies trends east-west and extend to the road just to the west (Figure 4). In area SANT01, previously known water pipes going to the water tower were located, but not marked as they can be seen by opening the utility access covers. The goal here was to ensure we could see the existing pipes.

Figure 4: GPR results for SANT0302. Depth slice between 0.3 and 0.45 meters.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 8

3.2 Electromagnetic Induction Survey

EMI surveys are a common way to map lateral and vertical variations in the ability of soil and rock to conduct electrical current. The IP response, measured as parts per million (ppm) of the transmitted electromagnetic field, reveals the presence of electrically conductive objects, such as ferrous and non-ferrous metals, buried within the subsurface, as well as non-conductive areas like voids. The QP response is converted to units of electrical conductivity

(i.e. milli-Siemens/meter) due to the linear response of the system across the normal range of soil and rock resistivity. The QP response directly maps the lateral and vertical variations of subsurface electrical conductivity.

The results of the EMI survey show 11 low-conductivity areas. Two of these (A10 and A11, Figure 5) are in Area 1, three are in Area 2 (A1, A2, and A3, Figure 6), and the remaining six are in Area 4 (A4-A9, Figure 7). The anomalies are numbered in order of likelihood of being a buried construction debris zone, with A1 as the highest likelihood and A11 as the lowest likelihood.

Figure 5: Area 1 EMI results.

In Area 1 (A14, Figure 5) and Area 2-3 (A15, Figure 6), zones of high conductivity are associated with the locations where the roads existed for the housing areas. A high-conductivity zone in Area 4

(A16, Figure 7) is associated with the region where the overflow from the spring travels downslope and ponds. Please see section 4.0 DISCUSSION for the interpretation of these anomalies.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 9

Figure 6: Area 2-3 EMI results.

Figure 7: Area 4 EMI results.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 10

4.0 DISCUSSION

The two linear GPR anomalies located in the SANT0302 area of investigation are most likely near-surface (within 45 centimeters) PVC pipes; either waterlines or sewer lines. These utilities are probably no longer active due to the abandonment of the area, but caution is still advised while excavating in this location (Figure 4).

For the EMI survey, we are assuming that an area that has been dug out and then filled with construction debris (such as wood, plasterboard, tiles, etc.) will include large air gaps between the construction debris and the soil. The material itself along with the air gaps, if present, would show up in our dataset as low conductivity regions.

We have identified eleven low conductivity anomalies, two in Area 1 (A10-A11, Figure 5), three in

Area 2-3 (A1-A3, Figure 6), and six in Area 4 (A4-A9, Figure 7). While normal geologic conditions can also create these lower conductivity regions (e.g. voids, areas of coarse, quartz-rich sand), these eleven areas are the most likely locations for buried construction debris, if it exists onsite, and should be targeted for further investigation. We have named the anomalies in order of the likelihood that each is a zone of buried construction debris. We based our conclusions on the conductivity of the area (milli-Siemens/meter) and the size of the area (the smaller the area and the lower the conductivity, the higher the likelihood that it contains buried construction debris).

Anomaly A1 has the highest likelihood of being buried construction debris, while A11 has the lowest. Caution is advised while excavating/drilling near these anomalies due to the possibility of collapse and/or settling of the material.

Three high conductivity anomalies were also identified. Area 1 (A14, Figure 5) and Area 2-3 (A15, Figure 6) contain zones of high conductivity and are associated with the locations where the roads existed for the housing areas. This could be due to any number of reasons, but the author postulates that it’s due to salting of the roads during the winter season. Other possibilities include the type of asphalt or concrete used for the roads, or high concentrations of metallic debris along the roadways where housing units existed. A third possibility is that these areas are also associated with burial of debris. Disturbed areas can sometimes collect and hold water, or the backfill could have been high in clay-rich sand, or metallic debris in the dump site could be affecting the reading. The bottom line is that these anomalies should also be investigated if the low conductivity anomalies don’t contain debris.

A high-conductivity zone in Area 4 (A16, Figure 7) is associated with the region where the overflow from the spring travels downslope and ponds. This is typical in areas where flowing water dissolves surface salts and incorporates clay-rich materials which can be higher in conductivity.

Please see the attached data set INBA-001-20230606_SANT_Data_Files.kmz for the locations of these anomalies.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 11

5.0 SUMMARY

• Eleven low-conductivity anomalies were located within the survey area.

• While these eleven low-conductivity locations could be the result of normal geological conditions, they are the most likely areas for buried construction debris.

• Three high-conductivity anomalies were located within the survey area. Two of these zones (A14 and A15) are likely associated with previous road locations but can’t be ruled out as dump sites. The third is highly correlated with the artesian spring runoff and can be ruled out as a dump site.

• No anomalies associated with the concrete-asbestos waterpipe were found.

• Two anomalies consistent with a near-surface PVC pipe were located and are likely either waterlines or sewer lines leading to the access road west of the location.

• All anomaly interpretations, depths, and locations should be considered approximate.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 12

6.0 REFERENCES

1 Earthpoint. Earthpoint Tools for Google Earth, <https://www.earthpoint.us/Townships.aspx> (2022).

2 Earth Data Center, E. D. A. PWT_365_021_geo.tif, 1976).

https://www.earthpoint.us/Townships.aspx

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 13

7.0 APPENDICES

7.1 Glossary of Terms

SANT Sanostee School

EMI Electromagnetic Induction

GPR Ground Penetrating Radar

GPS Global Positioning System

IP In Phase

QP Quadrature Phase

SWG Southwest Geophysical Consulting, LLC

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator (projected coordinates)

WGS World Geodetic System (geographic coordinates)

7.2 Associated Data Files

Please see accompanying data files INBA-001-20230606_SANT_Data_Files.kmz for detailed information on anomaly locations, anomaly interpretations, and other associated data. Unless otherwise noted, all coordinates are provided in WGS-84/UTM Zone 13 (EPSG: 32613).

Raw data files for both the CMD Explorer and Proceq GPR are available upon request.

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 14

8.0 ATTESTATION

David D. Decker, PhD, PG, CPG

Chief Executive Officer, Principal Geologist

Southwest Geophysical Consulting, LLC

5117 Fairfax Dr. NW

Albuquerque, NM 87114 dave@swgeophys.com

(505) 585-2550

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR

I, David D. Decker, a Licensed Professional Geologist and a Certified Professional Geologist, do certify that:

• I am currently employed as a consulting geologist in the specialty of caves and karst with an office address of 5117 Fairfax Dr. NW, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 87114.

• I graduated with a Master of Science in Applied Physics with a specialization in Sensor Systems from the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California, in 2003, and a Doctor of

Philosophy in Earth and Planetary Sciences from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 2018.

• I am a Licensed Professional Geologist in the State of Texas, USA (PG-15242) and have been since 2021. I am a Certified Professional Geologist through the American Institute of

Professional Geologists (CPG-12123) and have been since 2021.

• I have been employed as a geologist continuously since 2016. I was previously employed as a

Fire Controlman, Naval Flight Officer, and Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer in the U.S. Navy and operated, maintained, and installed various sensor systems including magnetic, electromagnetic, radar, communications, and acoustic systems in various capacities from 1986 through 2010.

• I have been involved in various aspects of cave and karst studies continuously since 1985, including exploration, mapping, and scientific studies.

• I have read the definition of “qualified karst professional” set out in the ASTM Standard

(currently in review). I meet the definition of “qualified professional” for the purposes of ASTM

E-1527.

• I have a limited amount of experience conducting electromagnetic induction surveys and the associated data processing. I am currently under training for this type of work through a qualified geophysicist that is overseeing my field collection techniques, data processing techniques, and data interpretation.

mailto:dave@swgeophys.com

INBA-001-20230606 ©2024 15

• I am responsible for the content, compilation, and editing of all sections report number

INBA-001-20230606 entitled, “Geophysical Imaging Report, Sanostee School, Sanostee, New

Mexico.” I or a duly authorized and qualified representative of Southwest Geophysical

Consulting, LLC, have personally visited this site on the date or dates mentioned in section 2.3

Description of Survey.

• I have no prior involvement nor monetary interest in the described property or project, save for my fee for conducting this investigation and providing the report.

Dated in Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 9, 2024.

David D. Decker

PhD, CPG-12123