21.95 Final Geotechnical Report FLAT.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

NV FTBL 1094 (1)

Wilson Campground Road

Elko County, Nevada

Yeh Project No.: 221-225B

August 28, 2024

Prepared for:

AtkinsRéalis 4600 South Ulster Street, Suite 1100

Denver, CO 80237 Attn: Mr. Cody Burch, P.E.

Prepared by:

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

391 Front Street, Suite D

Grover Beach, California 93433 Phone: 805-481-9590

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

NV FTBL 1094 (1)

Wilson Campground Road

Elko County, Nevada

Yeh Project No.: 221-225B

August 28, 2024

Prepared by:

Reed Hooke, E.I.T. Judd J. King, P.E., G.E.

Senior Staff Engineer Senior Project Manager

Independent Review: Reviewed By:

Jonathan D. Blanchard, P.E., G.E. Robert F. LaForce, P.E. (CO) Principal Geotechnical Engineer Senior Materials Manager onathan D. Blanchard, P.

Principal Geotechnical Eng

Judd J. King, P.E., G.E.

S i P j t M

G.E.

eer

E., gin

Geotechnical Report Yeh Project No. 221-225B Wilson Campground Road - NV FTBL 1094 (1) August 28, 2024 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

3. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND TESTING

3.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

3.2 EXPLORATORY DRILLING

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

4. SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING

4.2 TERRAIN AND VEGETATION

4.3 CLIMATE

4.4 EXISTING ROADWAY

5. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

5.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.2 GROUNDWATER

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 EARTHWORK - GENERAL

6.1.1 GENERAL GRADING

6.1.2 EARTHWORK FACTORS

6.1.3 EROSION AND SLOPE DRAINAGE

6.2 ROADWAY DESIGN

6.2.1 EMBANKMENT DESIGN

6.2.2 AGGREGATE SURFACE ROADWAY

6.3 CORROSION CONSIDERATIONS

7. NOTES TO CONSTRUCTION

8. MATERIAL SOURCES

8.1 AGGREGATE

8.2 GENERAL BORROW

9. LIMITATIONS

10. REFERENCES

ii

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2: GEOLOGIC MAP (COATS 1987)

FIGURE 3: TYPICAL ROADWAY CONDITION

List of Tables

TABLE 1: SUBGRADE SOIL PROPERTIES TEST SUMMARY

List of Plates

Field Exploration Plans ....................................................................................................... ............... 1A to 1D

List of Appendices

Page Appendix A –Boring Logs Boring Record Legend ........................................................................................................ A-1 and 2 Boring Logs 23E-01 to 14..................................................................................................... A-3 to 18 Drilling Photos .............................................................................................................. ..... A-19 to 22 Appendix B – Results of Laboratory Testing Summary of Laboratory Results ............................................................................................ B-1 to 3 Moisture Density ............................................................................................................. ...... B-4 to 6 Mechanical Sieve Analyses .................................................................................................. B-7 to 20 #200 Sieve Wash Analysis ..................................................................................................... ......B-21 Atterberg Limits ............................................................................................................. ... B-22 to 24 Corrosivity Test Summary ..................................................................................................... ......B-25 Compaction Test ............................................................................................................... B-26 to 28 R-Value ...................................................................................................................... ........ B-29 to 30 Durability Index ............................................................................................................. .... B-31 to 32 L.A. Abrasion Test ........................................................................................................... ... B-33 to 34 Soundness of Aggregate by Sodium or Magnesium Sulfate ............................................. B-35 to 36

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

Yeh and Associates was retained by AtkinsRéalis (Atkins) to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design of roadway improvements as part of the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-CFLHD) project for Wilson Campground Road in Elko County, Nevada. This project is located on an approximately 7-mile-segment of road leading to and within the Wilson Reservoir Campground. Wilson Campground Road intersects IL Ranch Road approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the junction of Nevada State Route 226 and IL Ranch Road. The project alignment is along Wilson Campground Road for approximately 9 miles. The location of the site is shown in Figure 1.

The geotechnical evaluation consisted of a program of project coordination, data review, field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses as a basis for providing the recommendations in this report. This report provides recommendations for the design of resurfacing of the dirt road, earthwork for a small section of roadway realignmment north of the Sulfur Creek culvert, and culverts.

2. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

The project generally consists of the design of gravel road surface improvements and cut slopes and embankments. The layout and scope of the improvements to Wilson Campground Road are provided in the Atkins (2022) Scoping Report and the 95 percent design plans (Atkins 2024a). Wilson Campground Road is an existing 12- to 16-foot-wide dirt road with no posted speed limit.

The primary project includes improvements along 7.23 miles of dirt road leading up to the campground with an option to improve 1.9 miles of dirt road within the campground. The scope of improvements includes reconditioning of the surface course aggregate, widening of existing curves to address sight distance, installation of pull off areas, replacement and installation of new culverts, minor bridge repairs (non-structural), and safety sign updates. Reconditioning does not include widening of the

Figure 1: Project Location Map road. Grades will be raised or lowered up to 2 feet along Wilson Campground Road to improve site distance and drainage.

3. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND TESTING

The geotechnical exploration consisted of a program of geologic reconnaissance, attendance of the 30-percent design review meeting at the site, exploratory drilling, and laboratory testing. The locations of the borings are shown on Plates 1A - 1D. The boring logs and photos of equipment set-up and locations of the explorations are also presented in Appendix A. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

3.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

Yeh personnel visited the project site on June 27, 2023 to perform site reconnaissance, mark boring locations in preparation for the exploratory drilling program, and review the site geology and conditions of the existing roadway.

Site reconnaissance was also performed as a part of the 30 percent design walk on November 29, 2023 with representatives from Atkins, Central Federal Lands, and the Bureau of Land Management. The reconnaissance was performed to visually observe the condition of the roadway and to review the 30-percent design plans (Atkins 2023) relative to field conditions, alignment as well as overall construction considerations.

Yeh also reviewed potential borrow sources for the roadway aggregate during the 30 percent design review on November 30, 2023. Bulk soil samples were obtained from two borrow sources identified by the BLM (2012).

3.2 EXPLORATORY DRILLING

The drilling subcontractor for the project was Haztech Drilling Inc. of Nampa, Idaho. Haztech drilled fourteen borings along the road on July 18, 2023. The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted CME- 75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch hollow-stem augers. The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 5 to 31.5 feet below the road surface. Yeh logged the subsurface conditions encountered and secured samples for subsequent laboratory testing.

Sampling within the borings was performed by driving either a modified California or standard penetration test (SPT) split spoon sampler at typical 5-foot intervals and by collecting bulk samples from the auger flights. The SPT sampler has a 2-inch outside diameter, 1-3/8-inch inside diameter and is equipped for but was used without liners. The modified California sampler has a 3-inch outside diameter, 2-3/8-inch inside diameter and was used with 1-inch-high brass liners. The drive samples were collected using a 140-pound automatic trip hammer in accordance with ASTM D1586, Standard

Penetration Test, procedures. The holes were backfilled with a mixture of native soil and bentonite chips. The sampling depth, recorded blow counts (N-values) for the driven samples, a description of subsurface conditions encountered, and selected lab test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

3.3 LABORATORY TESTING

The results of laboratory tests are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the field exploration program and samples collected from on-site borrow pits during the 30-percent design review meeting. Tests for moisture content, unit weight, Atterberg Limits, grain size distribution, pH and resistivity, corrosivity, R-Value, Proctor compaction, Durability Index, L.A. Abrasion, and Sulfate Soundness were performed at Cooper Testing Labs in Palo Alto, California.

Testing was performed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) methods as noted on the lab reports. After the completion of the laboratory testing, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and boring logs were prepared.

4. SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING

Published geologic information from the Hope and Coats (Hope and Coats 1976) and Coats (Coats 1987) geologic maps were used to help characterize the regional geology in the site vicinity. The surface geology in the site vicinity, as mapped by Coats (Coats 1987), is shown on Figure 2.

The bedrock along the road to the Wilson Reservoir is composed of Tertiary volcanic rock such as Basalt, Andesite, and Tuff, including the Big Island Formation which comprises much of the area.

Pockets of older (Pennsylvanian and Upper Mississippian) sedimentary and volcanic bedrock are mapped as the Schoonover Formation that contains sandstone, chert, limestone, and andesitic lava.

Holocene age landslide deposits and colluvium are also mapped in the vicinity and cross Wilson Campground Road within the northern portion of the road. The paleolithic landslide and colluvial deposits that cross the road are ancient evidence of the basin and range activity within Nevada. The roadway crosses the flatter portions of the landslide runout areas where the materials more closely resemble colluvium and sediments. Studying of the landslide was not included in our scope and impacts of land movement or landsliding were not indicated by the project partners.

4.2 TERRAIN AND VEGETATION

The project site is located within the Bureau of Land Management Wilson Reservoir Recreation Area at the western base of the Bull Run Mountains in northcentral Nevada. The area is consistent with high-desert terrain with chaparral with low brush and grasses.

The area is characterized by rolling hills and nearby volcanic outcroppings. The existing road surface ranges from approximate elevation 5,303 feet at the bridge crossing out the outlet of Wilson Reservoir to approximate elevation 5,512 feet just north of the crossing at Sulfur Creek and has an approximate elevation of 5,505 feet at the project start.

4.3 CLIMATE

Climate data from www.usclimatedata.com (U.S. Climate Data) for Tuscarora, Nevada (located approximately 25 miles south of Wilson Reservoir), reports an average annual precipitation of 12.31 inches. The reported monthly average temperature ranges from a low of 18 degrees Fahrenheit in

Figure 2: Geologic Map (Coats 1987)

December to a high of 84 degrees Fahrenheit in July. Intense precipitation events have been reported to occur during the summer monsoon season. The estimated frost depth for buildings is approximately

2.5 feet according to Elko County (2024).

4.4 EXISTING ROADWAY

Selected photos showing the typical roadway conditions are presented in Figure 3. Wilson Campground Road is a one- to two-lane gravel road that varies from 12 to 16 feet wide that is generally confined by berms at the edge of traveled way. The road surface contains aggregate, but it does not meet the requirements to be considered aggregate base. Cut and fill slopes with inclinations up to 1v:1.5h (vertical to horizontal) border the edge of the roadway. The road passes through mountainous terrain with relatively sharp turns that have limited sight distance.

In isolated areas erosion has occurred along the drainages adjacent to Wilson Campground Road, though much of the existing road surface gravel has either been washed into drainage berms or sunken

Figure 3: Typical Roadway Condition Top left: South end of Wilson Campground Road; Top Right: Wilson Campground Road Just south of Sulfur Creek

Bottom: Wilson Campground Road Just north of Sulfur Creek into the subgrade. The subgrade contains primarily clay and silt with some gravel and sand causing the road surface to become slick during storm and during snow melt events.

5. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

5.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions encountered in the borings generally consisted of artificial fill (Af), colluvium (Qls), Toejam Creek Tuff and Gravel (Ttsl), and Big Island Formation (Tbi). The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Plates 1B through 1D and noted on the logs in Appendix A. The Subsurface conditions encountered within the roadway are summarized below.

Artificial Fill (Af). Fill was encountered in borings 23E-01 to 23E-04 and 23E-06 to 23E-13 to depths of approximately 0.5 to 6.5 feet below the ground surface. The unit consisted mainly of loose to dense silty and clayey sand (SM, SC) and medium stiff to hard sandy and clayey silt (ML, CL-ML). Landslide Deposits/Colluvium (Qls/col) were encountered below the fill in various borings as described below.

Landslide Deposits and Colluvium (Qls/col). Landslide deposits and colluvium were encountered in borings 23E-02 to 23E-14 either at the ground surface or below the artificial fill to depths of approximately 2.5 to 31.5 feet below the ground surface. The unit consisted mainly of medium dense to dense silty and clayey sand (SM, SC), medium stiff to hard clay (CL, CH), stiff to hard sandy and clayey silt (ML, CL-ML), and very dense silty gravel (GM). Toejam Creek Tuff and Gravel (Ttsl) was encountered below the landslide deposits and colluvium in 23E-02 and Big Island Formation (Tbi) was encountered below the landslide deposits and colluvium in boring 23E-14 as described below.

Toejam Creek Tuff and Gravel (Ttsl). Toejam Creek Tuff and Gravel was encountered below the colluvium in boring 23E-02 to the maximum depth explored of 6.5 feet below the ground surface. The unit consisted of soft, intensely weathered sandstone. Outcrops of the tuff can also be seen along portions of the road alignment.

Big Island Formation (Tbi). The Big Island formation was encountered in boring 23E-14 below the colluvium to the maximum depth explored of 5.3 feet below the ground surface. The unit consisted of fresh, moderately hard basalt. The material was hard and outcrops of the basalt could be seen on the hills above the roadway, but were not observed within existing cuts or where proposed cuts are planned.

Table 1 summarizes the laboratory test results for the subsurface units encountered within the borings.

Table 1: Subgrade Soil Properties Test Summary1

Geologic Unit Borings

Dry Unit Wt., d

(pcf)

Moisture Content, wo (%)

Particle Size

Analysis (%G, %S, %F)

Atterberg Limits

LL, PI

Corrosion pH, ( -cm) Other

Artificial Fill (Af)

23E-01 - 23E-04, 23E-06 – 23E-13 66 - 88 15 - 48

1 – 36 G 8 - 44 S 20 -91 F d, max = 110 - 117 pcf wo, opt = 15 - 16%

R-Value = 8

Landslide Deposits / Colluvium (Qcol/ls)

23E-02 – 23E-14 56 - 91 15 - 65 29 - 40 G 32 - 36 S 24 - 40 F

76 – 113 LL

112 – 149 PI

pH = 7.60 – 8.20 = 271 – 7,760

SO4

2- = 28 - 1,638 mg/kg CL- = 4 - 1,865 mg/kg d, max = 115 pcf wo, opt = 15% R-Value = 31

Toejam Creek Tuff and

Gravel (Ttsl) 23E-02 -- -- -- --pH = 7.60 = 3,081

SO4

2- = 72 mg/kg

CL- = 54 mg/kg

Big Island Formation

(Tbi) 23E-14 -- -- -- -- -- --

5.2 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. Wet soil and seeps are likely to be present during periods of snow melt and spring thawing. Soil moisture and groundwater conditions are likely to vary seasonally and in association with changes in precipitation, runoff, and other factors. Soil types encountered are also subject to high moisture contents when compared to the tested optimum dry density and moisture content. Subgrade conditions relative to moisture contents are discussed later in this report.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations of this report are for use with the FHWA Standard Specifications FP-14 (FHWA 2014). Compliance with those specifications is needed for the recommendations in this report to remain applicable. The following conclusions, recommendations and information presented in this report generally support the design presented on the 95 percent plans but do not contain the specific details that will be included in the plans being prepared for this project.

1 Geotechnical properties are noted for dry unit weight ( d) and moisture content (wo); particle size as percent gravel (G), sand size (S) and fines content (F); electrical resistivity ( -centimeters ( -cm), soluble sulfates (SO4

2-) and soluble chlorides (Cl-); Atterberg liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI).

6.1 EARTHWORK - GENERAL

6.1.1 GENERAL GRADING

Site grading should conform to the applicable sections of the Special Contract Requirements – SCR (Atkins 2024b) and the recommendations of this report. On-site soil encountered within the anticipated depth of excavation should not be considered suitable for reuse as borrow for Surface Coarse Aggregate. Excess fill or cut material should be disposed of offsite unless an onsite location has been identified for placement of excess fill on the project plans.

6.1.2 EARTHWORK FACTORS

The subgrade material generally consisted of loose to dense clayey and silty sands (SC, SM), stiff to hard silt (ML), stiff to very stiff lean clay and sandy silty clay (CL, CL-ML), and very dense silty gravel with sand (GM). Drive samples had dry unit weights that ranged from approximately 65 to 91 pounds per cubic foot. The maximum dry unit weight of the subgrade estimated from Proctor tests was approximately 110 to 117 pounds per cubic foot.

It is recognized that disturbance to drive samples occurs due to compaction of samples during driving, loosening of the soil when recovering the sampler from the boring, and during trimming in the laboratory. Differences in the in-situ soil density likely occur in areas where the existing subgrade materials were compacted as opposed to where the roadway was constructed in colluvium.

The estimated earthwork factors2 do not account for losses for removal of vegetation or unsuitable material. A topsoil thickness of 3 inches should be used in estimating quantities. An average earthwork factor of 0.70 can be used considering the moisture conditioning and compaction of subgrade for the new roadway and shoulders as well as earthwork for embankments. The earthwork factors are approximate and based on limited number of tests and may vary based on conditions encountered during construction.

6.1.3 EROSION AND SLOPE DRAINAGE

Erosion can occur where drainage runs uncontrolled along the edge of the roadway, such as between the edge of road and the base of cut slopes. Care should be taken that the roadway work does not block or prevent the flow of surface drainage that is provided by existing ditches. Rock lined swales can be provided along the edge of the roadway and at culvert crossings to help reduce the potential for erosion.

2 The earthwork factor represents the ratio of the existing in-situ unit weight of the soil before construction to the unit weight of the same soil after compaction. For example, an earthwork factor of 0.95 represents a 5 percent loss in the volume of soil following compaction. An earthwork factor of 1.05 represents a 5 percent gain in volume of the soil or pavement following compaction due to bulking of a relatively dense material.

Graded slopes will be vulnerable to erosion. Maintenance and repairs to gullied or eroded areas should be performed promptly while vegetation is being established. Concentrated flows of runoff should not be allowed to run over slopes. Overside drains should be provided to carry water to the base of slopes and reduce the potential for erosion. Energy dissipation devices should be provided at the outlet of pipes and along ditches to reduce the potential for erosion where there are concentrated flows of runoff.

6.2 ROADWAY DESIGN

6.2.1 EMBANKMENT DESIGN

Cut and embankment fill slopes should be inclined at a 1v:2h (vertical to horizontal). Embankment fill should be keyed and benched into the existing slope per Eastern Federal Land Standard Plan E204-02.

Excavated material removed during keying and benching can be incorporated into the new embankment as the fill is being placed.

6.2.2 AGGREGATE SURFACE ROADWAY

The project will include roadway surface reconditioning to provide a design width of 16-feet along Wilson Campground Road to improve the general durability and maintenance of the road surface.

Earthwork for roadway reconditioning should be performed in accordance with Section 303 of FP-14, which includes scarification, moisture conditioning, and compaction of the existing road surface prior to placement of the SCA.

Roadway Aggregate. No aggregate base or Surface Course Aggregate (SCA) was encountered at the surface of the roadway. A minimum of 6 inches of SCA should be placed across the prepared roadway surface to finished grade. SCA should meet the gradation provided in Special Contract Requirements (SCR) Table 703-3 and the material should also meet the requirements of SCR Section 703.05(c).

The cross-slope of the surface coarse aggregate should be graded to a typical 4 percent to help minimize erosion and wash boarding. A dust palliative could be applied to help reduce dust and the need for watering for dust control and to help stabilize the graded surface. Grading and reconditioning of the surface coarse aggregate road should be provided periodically to maintain ride quality, the slope of the road, and proper surface drainage.

Subgrade Stabilization. The subgrade conditions encountered within our explorations were relatively moist, with over half of the soil samples possessing moisture contents two to three times above optimum moisture. The upper 6 inches was wet and saturated during our 30 percent design visit due to snow melt, but we did not observe areas of unstable subgrade. We did not observe any areas of instability during the subsurface exploration program.

The project specifications should include a quantity for stabilizing the subgrade for the roadway, if needed. Project specifications should address increasing or decreasing this quantity or deleting the quantity based on the conditions encountered during construction. The geotechnical professional or contracting officer should review the subgrade conditions encountered at the time of construction to evaluate whether stabilization of the subgrade is needed, and to recommend the depth and limits of the subexcavation and stabilization.

A geotextile may be needed depending on the severity of subgrade conditions. Geotextile conforming to Section 714.01, Class 2, Woven, Type B Geotextile of FP-14 should be placed over the undisturbed surface of the excavated subgrade following removal of the unsuitable material in accordance with Section 207 of FP-14.

Subgrade stabilization should be provided in areas where unsuitable materials or soft subgrade conditions are encountered during construction that will not allow for proper compaction of the subgrade or roadway base materials, or where organic or other deleterious materials are encountered at the subgrade elevation that will not provide suitable foundation support for the new roadway. The need for stabilization will be greater in winter and snow melt seasons. Subgrade stabilization should follow CFLHD Standard Detail for Subexcavation C204-51.

6.3 CORROSION CONSIDERATIONS

The AASHTO (2020) Bridge Design Specifications advises potentially aggressive conditions of fill, natural soil, and groundwater as the following:

The soil pH is less than 4.5.

The soil or water resistivity is less than 2000-ohm-cm.

The sulfate ion content exceeds 200 parts-per-million (ppm), or the chloride content exceeds

100 ppm.

Soils with resistivity greater than 5,000 ohm-cm are considered non-aggressive towards concrete and steel.

A corrosion rate of 0.0015 inch/year is used for steel piles buried in fill or disturbed natural soil

(Caltrans 2018).

Tests for pH, electrical resistivity, as well as water soluble chlorides and sulfates were performed on selected samples. The test results are presented in Appendix B. The pH for the samples tested ranged from 7.60 to 8.20 and the soil resistivity ranged from 271 to 7,760 ohm-centimeters. These samples were tested for water-soluble chloride and sulfate contents. The water-soluble chloride content for the samples tested was 4 to 1,865 ppm. The water-soluble sulfate content for the samples tested was 28 to 1,638 ppm. Four of the five samples tested are considered aggressive towards concrete. One sample tested exceeds FHWA limits for resistivity, sulfates, and chlorides.

We recommend that the concrete structures and cement types are selected that are compatible with the potentially corrosive environment. Culverts for the project should be selected to account for the corrosive soil environment. HDPE is a good material for resisting soil and water corrosivity but could be prone to melting during a fire. Galvanized corrugated metal pipes (CMP) with a 50-year service life are recommended given the potential for corrosion.

7. NOTES TO CONSTRUCTION

1. Slopes above the road could be prone to instability if the toe of the slope is removed. The contractor should avoid undermining the toe of cut slopes when performing roadway or ditch reconditioning, and to make finish grades smooth and uniform to conform to existing slope lines and grades at the base of the cuts.

2. Temporary slopes should be braced or sloped according to the requirements of OSHA. Soil within temporary excavations will generally consist of existing fill and colluvium, which can be classified as Type B soil. Type B soil can be sloped to 1v:1h for slope heights up to 20 feet. The design of temporary slopes or shoring systems needed for construction is the responsibility of the contractor.

The slope inclination used for the construction of temporary slopes will be determined by the contractor’s competent person per OSHA guidelines and the subsurface conditions encountered at the time of construction. Slopes or shoring systems exceeding 20 feet in height are not addressed by OSHA and should be designed by a qualified registered professional. If needed, the contractor should submit an excavation and shoring plan for slopes more than 20 feet in height for review by the geotechnical professional prior to beginning the excavation.

3. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled. However, groundwater and surface water could enter or be encountered within excavations depending on the time of year and precipitation. The Contractor should be prepared to control surface water during construction and to maintain a dry and stable excavation through the duration of construction. Sumps, well screens, and dewatering pits should be properly filtered such that fines and the surrounding soils are not removed or disturbed by dewatering.

4. Sand with varying amounts of silt, clay, gravel, and cobbles were exposed in the construction areas.

These materials are anticipated to be excavatable with heavy earthmoving equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, and single shank rippers.

8. MATERIAL SOURCES

8.1 AGGREGATE

The main material requirement for this project includes SCA meeting FP-14 Section 703.05 specifications that are likely available from commercial suppliers in the vicinity of Elko, Nevada including Ruby Mountain Sand and Gravel3. Ruby Mountain Sand and Gravel is approximately 95 miles southeast of Wilson Reservoir. The existing road surface and subgrade materials at the site and at nearby borrow sites do not meet the requirements for SCA. Test results from borrow sites are included in Appendix B.

8.2 GENERAL BORROW

Excavated onsite soil and excess material from the project area, cleansed of organics, oversized rocks, and other deleterious material, can be considered suitable for reuse as General Borrow per FP-14.

Control of moisture content, compaction layer thickness, and selecting suitable equipment will be necessary to achieve the relative compaction for compacted fill.

9. LIMITATIONS

This study has been conducted in general accordance with currently accepted geotechnical practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from drilling, sampling, and our understanding of the proposed project and type of construction described in this report. If there are any changes in the project or site conditions, Yeh should review those changes and provide additional recommendations, if needed. Any modifications to the recommendations of this report or approval of changes made to the project should not be considered valid unless they are made in writing. The report and drawings contained in this report are intended for design-input and are not intended to act as construction drawings or specifications.

Site conditions will vary between points of observation or sampling, seasonally, and with time. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil, or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, Yeh should be advised and provided the opportunity to evaluate those conditions and provide additional recommendations, if necessary. The geotechnical professional should observe portions of the construction and site conditions, such as excavations, exposed subgrades, and earthwork, to evaluate whether the conditions encountered are consistent with those assumed for design, and to provide additional recommendations during construction, if needed.

10. REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 2020), LRFD Bridge

Design Specifications, Ninth Edition, dated 2020.

3 Ruby Mountain Sand and Gravel, Chimney Creek Road, Spring Creek, NV 89815, (775) 778-1225

Atkins (2022), Scoping Report, Federal Land Management Agency, Elko County, Nevada, dated March 4, 2023.

Atkins (2023), 30 Percent Design Plans, NV FTBL 1094(1), Wilson Campground Road, Elko County, Nevada, November 7, 2023.

AtkinsRéalis (2024a), 95 Percent Design Plans, NV FTBL 1094(1), Wilson Campground Road, Elko County, Nevada, August 5, 2024.

Atkins (2024b), Special Contract Requirements, NV FTBL 1094(1), Wilson Campground Road, Elo County, Nevada.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2012), Wilson CG Access Road Engineering Review – Material Sources, dated July 6, 2012

Coats, R. R. (Coats 1987). Geologic Map of Elko County, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada-Reno, Scale 1:250,000.

Elko County Municipal Code (Elko Co. 2024), https://www.elkocity.com/departments/building_department/building_codes_design_standards.p hp , Accessed January 2024

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2014), Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14.

Hope, R. A. and Coats, R. R. (Hope and Coats 1976). Preliminary Geologic Map of Elko County, Nevada.

U.S. Climate Data (U.S. Climate Data), Climate Tuscarora - Nevada and Weather averages Tuscarora (usclimatedata.com), accessed 2023.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), Chapter 11 – Pavements, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C, March 2008.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Gravel Roads Construction & Maintenance Guide, issued August 2015.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14, issued 2014.

PL

AT

E

PR

O

JE

CT

N

AM

E:

PR

O

JE

CT

N

UM

BE

R:

RE

VI

SI

O

N D

AT

E:

FI

EL

D

EX

PL

O

RA

TI

O N

P

LA

N

G eo te ch ni ca l

G eo lo gi ca l

C on st ru ct io n

Se rv ic es

1A W

IL

SO

N

RE

SE

RV

O

IR

C

AM

PG

RO

UN

D

RO

AD

El ko

C ou nt y, Ne va da

1-

5B

.0

7.

fe et

N or th

Pl at e 1D

Pl at e 1C

Pl at e 1B

LE

GE

ND

Ex is ng W ils on

C am pg ro un d

Ro ad

A lig nm en t Ba se M ap : G oo gl e Ea rt h

(2

5)

W ils on R es er vo ir

W ils on R es er vo ir

Ca m pg ro un d

W ils on C am pgr ou nd

R oa d

IL Ranch Road

E

PR

O

JE

CT

N

AM

E:

PR

O

JE

CT

N

UM

BE

R:

RE

VI

SI

O

N D

AT

E:

FI

EL

D

EX

PL

O

RA

TI

O N

P

LA

N

G eo te ch ni ca l

G eo lo gi ca l

C on st ru ct io n

Se rv ic es

1B W

IL

SO

N

RE

SE

RV

O

IR

C

AM

GR

O

UN

D

RO

AD

El ko

C ou nt y, NV

1-

5B

.2

8.

LE

GE

ND

E-

0X Ex pl or at or y Bo rin g

Ex is ng W ils on

C am pg ro un d

Ro ad

A lig nm en t

E-

E-

E-

E-

E-

Ba se

M ap

: G oo gl e

Ea rt h (2

5)

Wilson Campground Road

IL

R an ch

R oa d

Pr op os ed

R oa dw ay

Re al ig nm en t fe et

N or th

E

PR

O

JE

CT

N

AM

E:

PR

O

JE

CT

N

UM

BE

R:

RE

VI

SI

O

N D

AT

E:

FI

EL

D

EX

PL

O

RA

TI

O N

P

LA

N

G eo te ch ni ca l

G eo lo gi ca l

C on st ru ct io n

Se rv ic es

1C W

IL

SO

N

RE

SE

RV

O

IR

C

AM

PG

RO

UN

D

RO

AD

El ko

C ou nt y, NV

1-

5B

.0

7.

LE

GE

ND

E-

0X Ex pl or at or y Bo rin g

Ex is ng W ils on

C am pg ro un d

Ro ad

A lig nm en t

E-

E-

E-

E-

E-

Ba se

M ap

: G oo gl e

Ea rt h (2

5)

W ils on C am pgr ou nd

R oa d fe et

N

G eo te ch ni ca l

G eo lo gi ca l

C on st ru ct io n

Se rv ic es

PL

AT

E

PR

O

JE

CT

N

AM

E:

PR

O

JE

CT

N

UM

BE

R:

RE

VI

SI

O

N D

AT

E:

FI

EL

D

EX

PL

O

RA

TI

O N

P

LA

N

1D W

IL

SO

N

RE

SE

RV

O

IR

C

AM

PG

RO

UN

D

RO

AD

El ko

C ou nt y, NV

1-

5B

.0

7.

fe et

LE

GE

ND

E-

0X Ex pl or at or y Bo rin g

Ex is ng W ils on

C am pg ro un d

Ro ad

A lig nm en t

E-

E-

E-

E-

Ba se

M ap

: G oo gl e

Ea rt h (2

5)

W ils on R es er vo ir

W ils on

Re se rv oi r Ca m pg ro un d

W ils on C am pg ro un d Ro ad

N

APPENDIX A - BORING LOGS

A1 of 22

A2 of 22

A3 of 22

A4 of 22

A5 of 22

A6 of 22

A7 of 22

A8 of 22

A9 of 22

A10 of 22

A11 of 22

A12 of 22

A13 of 22

A14 of 22

A15 of 22

A16 of 22

A17 of 22

A18 of 22

DRAFT Geotechnical Report Wilson Campground Road

Project No. 221 225B , 202

23E 01 Station 102+00

23E 02 Station 131+75

23E 03 Station 166+95

23E 04 Station 209+70

A19 of 22

Project No. 221 225B , 202

23E 05 Station 213+20

23E 06 Station 275+50

23E 07 Station 304+60

23E 08 Station 340+30

A20 of 22

Project No. 221 225B , 202

23E 09 Station 375+35

23E 10 Station 406+15

23E 11 Station 435+10

23E 12 Station 470+30

A21 of 22

Project No. 221 225B , 202

23E 13 Station 497+75

23E 14 On peninsula

A22 of 22

APPENDIX B - RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING

B1 o f 3

B2

B3

CTL Job No: Project No. 221-225B By: RU Client: Date: 08/08/23 Project Name: Remarks:

Boring: 23E-14 23E-13 23E-12 23E-11 23E-10 23E-09 23E-08 23E-07 Sample: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Depth, ft: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Visual Description:

Actual Gs

Assumed Gs 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Moisture, % 18.6 32.0 14.5 30.4 33.1 27.0 48.1 26.7 Wet Unit wt, pcf 97.4 100.6 94.8 111.0 105.6 97.8 Dry Unit wt, pcf 82.1 76.2 72.7 83.3 83.1 66.1 Dry Bulk Dens. b, (g/cc) 1.32 1.22 1.16 1.34 1.33 1.06 Saturation, % 47.7 71.4 62.3 87.5 71.0 83.7 Total Porosity, % 51.3 54.8 56.9 50.6 50.7 60.8 Volumetric Water Cont, w,% 24.5 39.1 35.4 44.2 36.0 50.9 Volumetric Air Cont., a,% 26.8 15.7 21.5 6.3 14.7 9.9 Void Ratio 1.05 1.21 1.32 1.02 1.03 1.55 Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Note: All reported parameters are from the as-received sample condition unless otherwise noted. If an assumed specific gravity (Gs) was used then the saturation, porosities, and void ratio should be considered approximate.

Clayey SAND w/ Gravel

Yeh and Associates 687-201a

Wilson Reservoir Campground

Sandy

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130.0

140.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

De ns ity , p cf

Moisture Content, %

Moisture-Density

Series 1

Series 2

Series 3

Series 4

Series 5

Series 6

Series 7

Series 8

Zero Air-voids Curves, Specific Gravity 2.6

2.7

2.8

The Zero Air-Voids curves represent the dry density at 100% saturation for each value of specific gravity

Moisture-Density-Porosity Report Cooper Testing Labs, Inc. (ASTM D7263b)

NOTE: 23E 12 @ 1' and 23E 07 @ 1' samples disturbed; m/c's only.

CLAY S

B4 of 36

Project Name: Remarks:

Boring: 23E-06 23E-05 23E-05 23E-05 23E-04 23E-04 23E-04 23E-03 Sample: 17 19 21 23 26 28 30 33 Depth, ft: 1 1 10 20 1 10 20 1 Visual Description:

Actual Gs

Assumed Gs 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Moisture, % 45.3 44.0 16.3 61.1 41.2 62.4 65.2 24.3 Wet Unit wt, pcf 97.9 93.7 97.4 102.7 91.4 98.9 108.0 Dry Unit wt, pcf 67.4 65.0 60.5 72.8 56.3 59.9 86.9 Dry Bulk Dens. b, (g/cc) 1.08 1.04 0.97 1.17 0.90 0.96 1.39 Saturation, % 81.5 74.7 92.3 84.5 84.5 96.9 69.8 Total Porosity, % 60.0 61.4 64.1 56.8 66.6 64.5 48.4 Volumetric Water Cont, w,% 48.9 45.9 59.2 48.0 56.3 62.5 33.8 Volumetric Air Cont., a,% 11.1 15.5 4.9 8.8 10.3 2.0 14.6 Void Ratio 1.50 1.59 1.79 1.32 2.00 1.82 0.94 Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Yeh and Associates 687-201b

23E-05 @ 10' - sample disturbed; m/c only.Wilson Reservoir Campground

CLAY w/ Sand

CLAY w/ Sand

Note: All reported parameters are from the as-received sample condition unless otherwise noted. If an assumed specific gravity (Gs) was used then the saturation, SILT

CLAY w/

Sandy CLAY w/

CLAY

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130.0

140.0

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0

De ns ity , p cf

Moisture Content, %

Moisture-Density

Series 1

Series 2

Series 3

Series 4

Series 5

Series 6

Series 7

Series 8

Zero Air-voids Curves, Specific Gravity

2.6

2.7

2.8

The Zero Air-Voids curves represent the dry density at 100% saturation for each value of specific gravity

Moisture-Density-Porosity Report Cooper Testing Labs, Inc. (ASTM D7263b)

B5 of 36

Project Name: Remarks:

Boring: 23E-02 23E- Sample: 35 37 Depth, ft: 1 1 Visual Description:

Actual Gs

Assumed Gs 2.70 2.70 Moisture, % 46.3 15.4 Wet Unit wt, pcf 104.0 92.5 Dry Unit wt, pcf 71.1 80.2 Dry Bulk Dens. b, (g/cc) 1.14 1.28 Saturation, % 91.2 37.7 Total Porosity, % 57.8 52.4 Volumetric Water Cont, w,% 52.7 19.8 Volumetric Air Cont., a,% 5.1 32.6 Void Ratio 1.37 1.10 Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Yeh and Associates 687-201c

Wilson Reservoir Campground

Note: All reported parameters are from the as-received sample condition unless otherwise noted. If an assumed specific gravity (Gs) was used then the saturation, S

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

130.0

140.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

De ns ity , p cf

Moisture Content, %

Moisture-Density

Series 1

Series 2

Series 3

Series 4

Series 5

Series 6

Series 7

Series 8

Zero Air-voids Curves, Specific Gravity

2.6

2.7

2.8

The Zero Air-Voids curves represent the dry density at 100% saturation for each value of specific gravity

Moisture-Density-Porosity Report Cooper Testing Labs, Inc. (ASTM D7263b)

B6 of 36

Particle Size Distribution Report

PE

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 0.0 24.8 8.3 12.0 17.8 23.0 14.1 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Depth: 0-5'Source of Sample: 23E-0 Sample Number: Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description SAND w/ Gravel3/4"

1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0320 mm.

0.0206 mm.

0.0120 mm.

0.0086 mm.

0.0062 mm.

0.0044 mm.

0.0031 mm.

0.0022 mm.

0.0013 mm.

100.0 91.6 83.6 75.2 66.9 57.6 54.9 51.6 44.2 37.1 33.6 29.3 25.9 23.8 21.4 19.3 18.1 16.3 14.6 11.6

11.9464 10.0981 0.8230

0.2570 0.0349 0.0024

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

COOPER TESTING LABORATORY

B7 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 0.0 13.8 9.9 8.6 12.0 36.5 19.2 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-02 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: M Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description Sandy3/4"

1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0317 mm.

0.0206 mm.

0.0122 mm.

0.0088 mm.

0.0063 mm.

0.0045 mm.

0.0031 mm.

0.0022 mm.

0.0014 mm.

100.0 94.2 92.5 86.2 76.3 69.6 67.7 65.3 59.8 55.7 52.4 42.9 37.4 32.7 29.1 26.1 24.3 22.2 19.8 17.7

7.0303 4.2462 0.1536

0.0458 0.0096

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B8 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 2.1 34.1 31.1 7.0 6.1 6.0 13.6 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-04 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: K Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description Clayey SAND w/ Gravel1.5"

1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0309 mm.

0.0198 mm.

0.0115 mm.

0.0082 mm.

0.0059 mm.

0.0042 mm.

0.0029 mm.

0.0021 mm.

0.0012 mm.

100.0 99.4 97.9 93.6 88.3 63.8 32.7 27.0 25.7 24.4 21.7 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.1 16.4 15.5 14.9 14.2 13.9 13.6 13.0

10.2124 8.5031 4.2992

3.3966 1.5623 0.0064

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B9 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 8.3 20.5 11.4 9.0 11.1 17.3 22.4 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-05 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: J Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description w/ Gravel2.5

1.5 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0310 mm.

0.0200 mm.

0.0117 mm.

0.0083 mm.

0.0059 mm.

0.0042 mm.

0.0029 mm.

0.0021 mm.

0.0013 mm.

100.0 98.0 97.4 94.0 91.7 86.1 82.3 71.2 59.8 52.9 50.8 48.5 43.8 39.7 37.4 34.6 32.0 30.0 28.8 27.3 25.3 24.3 22.6 21.0

16.6429 11.6753 2.0421

0.3753 0.0118

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B10 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 3.0 13.8 8.7 8.8 10.8 31.5 23.4 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-06 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: I Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description Sandy w/ Gravel1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0299 mm.

0.0194 mm.

0.0115 mm.

0.0082 mm.

0.0059 mm.

0.0042 mm.

0.0030 mm.

0.0021 mm.

0.0013 mm.

100.0 97.0 90.7 89.0 83.2 74.5 67.7 65.7 63.7 59.6 54.9 51.4 45.7 41.6 36.4 33.6 31.2 28.5 26.1 23.9 18.8

11.5696 5.8071 0.1605

0.0460 0.0051

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B11 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 8.6 20.4 9.1 10.6 12.6 20.9 17.8 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-07 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: H Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description S w/ Gravel2

1.5 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0312 mm.

0.0202 mm.

0.0118 mm.

0.0084 mm.

0.0060 mm.

0.0043 mm.

0.0030 mm.

0.0022 mm.

0.0013 mm.

100.0 97.0 94.3 91.4 86.4 82.5 71.0 61.9 53.8 51.3 48.4 43.1 38.7 36.1 32.1 29.0 26.3 24.9 23.2 21.3 19.7 18.2 15.8

16.8924 11.4005 1.5698

0.3635 0.0234

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B12 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 11.8 20.8 12.6 10.4 10.4 18.3 15.7 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-08 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: G Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description S w/ Gravel1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0276 mm.

0.0180 mm.

0.0107 mm.

0.0078 mm.

0.0056 mm.

0.0040 mm.

0.0028 mm.

0.0020 mm.

0.0011 mm.

100.0 88.2 84.0 78.1 67.4 54.8 46.8 44.4 42.0 37.6 34.0 31.8 27.7 25.4 23.1 21.1 19.8 18.4 16.9 15.7 13.7

20.1781 13.8775 2.9558

1.0468 0.0399 0.0017

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B13 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 5.7 19.7 14.5 9.4 9.2 20.6 20.9 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-09 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: F Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description w/ Gravel1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0302 mm.

0.0195 mm.

0.0115 mm.

0.0082 mm.

0.0059 mm.

0.0042 mm.

0.0029 mm.

0.0021 mm.

0.0012 mm.

100.0 94.3 91.6 86.5 74.6 60.1 52.8 50.7 48.6 44.7 41.5 39.1 34.7 31.7 29.2 27.8 25.7 23.5 22.4 21.2 18.5

11.4602 8.7380 1.9907

0.3774 0.0139

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B14 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 8.6 22.1 17.2 10.8 11.5 13.8 16.0 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-10 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: E Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description SAND w/ Gravel1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0292 mm.

0.0189 mm.

0.0112 mm.

0.0080 mm.

0.0057 mm.

0.0041 mm.

0.0029 mm.

0.0020 mm.

0.0011 mm.

100.0 91.4 87.7 83.2 69.3 52.1 43.8 41.3 38.7 33.8 29.8 27.8 25.5 23.5 21.6 20.5 19.3 18.0 17.0 16.0 15.2

17.3575 10.5818 3.0840

1.6729 0.0771

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B15 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 2.7 17.5 7.6 9.6 13.6 29.4 19.6 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-11 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: D Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description S w/ Gravel1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0304 mm.

0.0197 mm.

0.0117 mm.

0.0083 mm.

0.0060 mm.

0.0043 mm.

0.0030 mm.

0.0021 mm.

0.0013 mm.

100.0 97.3 91.4 87.6 79.8 72.2 64.9 62.6 60.0 54.4 49.0 45.4 40.5 36.6 32.8 30.4 27.8 24.8 22.2 20.1 15.9

11.4548 7.6284 0.3019

0.0840 0.0079

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B16 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 0.0 6.5 3.3 12.7 18.7 38.4 20.4 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-13 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: B Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0313 mm.

0.0203 mm.

0.0120 mm.

0.0086 mm.

0.0062 mm.

0.0044 mm.

0.0031 mm.

0.0022 mm.

0.0014 mm.

100.0 98.3 96.0 93.5 90.2 80.6 77.5 74.4 66.8 58.8 53.8 47.9 42.3 36.4 32.7 29.3 25.9 23.4 21.1 17.4

1.9435 0.9981 0.0828

0.0379 0.0066

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B17 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 6.6 33.8 16.0 9.9 10.2 16.3 7.2 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

SIEVE SIZE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

OR DIAMETER FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: 23E-14 Depth: 0-5' Sample Number: A Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

Soil Description GRAVEL w/ Sand1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #30 #40 #50

#100 #200 #270

0.0308 mm.

0.0199 mm.

0.0118 mm.

0.0085 mm.

0.0061 mm.

0.0044 mm.

0.0031 mm.

0.0022 mm.

0.0012 mm.

100.0 93.4 83.8 77.4 59.6 43.6 35.8 33.7 31.7 27.6 23.5 21.3 18.2 16.3 14.3 12.8 11.2

9.7 8.6 7.5 6.1

16.4931 13.3826 4.8450

2.9985 0.2256 0.0141

0.0047 1026.55 2.23

Yeh and Associates, Inc.

Wilson Reservoir Campground - 221-225B

687-201

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

* (no specification provided)

B18 of 36

RC

EN

T

FI

NE

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100 in in in

1½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

+3" % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY USCS LL PL PI

SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER Material Description

GRAIN SIZE…