Pavement_Report.pdf

Revision No. 2 To Pavement Design Report

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Pima County, Arizona

May 10, 2019

Submitted To:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202

By:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204

100273-002

1321 BANNOCK STREET, SUITE 200

DENVER, COLORADO 80204-4037

303-825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com 100273-002

May 10, 2019

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

Attn: Mr. Phil Hahn, PE

RE: REVISION NO. 2 TO PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT, AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3),

BUENOS AIRES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

This revised report supersedes our April 4, 2018 Revised Pavement Design Report. We are pleased to submit our revised pavement design report for the above-referenced project. The enclosed report summarizes conditions encountered in a subsurface exploration program, laboratory tests, and pavement design recommendations for the proposed Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at 303-825-3800.

Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Gregory R. Fischer, PhD, PE Senior Vice President

JCG:GRF/jcg

Encl: Revised Pavement Design Report No. 2

100273-002-L1/wp/ksm

100273-002-R1/wp/ksm 100273-002 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

4.0 PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

5.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

5.2 Ground Conditions

5.3 Groundwater

6.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Traffic Loading

6.2 Subgrade Soils

6.3 Pulverized Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

6.4 Recommended Pavement Sections

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

7.1 Site Preparation

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Proof Roll and Subgrade Preparation

7.2.2 Fill

7.3 Paving Materials

7.4 Corrosion

8.0 CLOSURE

9.0 REFERENCE

TABLES

1 Recommended Pavement Sections 2 Recommended Materials for Pavements

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

ii

FIGURES

1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan (2 sheets)

APPENDICES

A Subsurface Explorations B Laboratory Test Results C Pavement Conditions and Site Photographs D Pavement Design Calculations E Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report

REVISION NO. 2 TO PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

BUENOS AIRES NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This revised report supersedes the pavement design report dated April 4, 2018. This revised report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration program and presents pavement design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Project (the Project) in Pima County, Arizona. Our services were completed in general accordance with our Task Order Agreement No. 001/100010003482 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) dated April 9, 2018. Our conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on:

The limitations of our approved scope, schedule, and budget described in our contract;

Our understanding of the Project and information provided by HDR;

Subsurface conditions observed in the borings at the time our explorations were completed; and

The results of testing performed on samples collected from the explorations.

The objective of our geotechnical studies was to provide recommendations and construction considerations, as presented herein, for the proposed roadway reconstruction. The authorized scope of services was based on this objective and this report should not be used for other purposes without Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) review. If a service is not specifically indicated in this report, do not assume that it was performed.

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located south of Tucson in Pima County, Arizona (Figure 1). The Refuge Entrance Road alignment generally traverses through open range National Wildlife Refuge land with the existing road consisting of approximately two travel lanes (a single lane in each direction). Based on preliminary discussions with HDR, we understand the Project will include replacement of the existing Refuge Entrance Road pavement with new hot asphalt concrete pavement (HACP). We understand that the proposed improvements to the alignment include reconstruction of the existing roadway. The proposed improvement section of Refuge Entrance

Road extends southeast from the intersection with South Sasabe Road (Arizona SR 286) for approximately 2.3 miles and terminates at the Visitor Center parking lot. In addition to the visitor center parking area an overflow lot will be included as part of the paving project. The alignment is relatively flat prior to sloping up to the Visitor Center at the end of the Project alignment.

Currently, Refuge Entrance Road is paved with a chip seal overlying aggregate road surfacing.

The overflow parking lot currently consists of aggregate surfacing. In general, the condition of the roadway is in very poor to poor condition throughout the alignment. Fatigue cracking, spalling shoulders, and many potholes with exposed aggregate was observed throughout the alignment.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Shannon & Wilson conducted a field exploration program on May 22, 2018, to explore subsurface conditions along the proposed project alignment. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling twelve borings (designated SW-01 through SW-12) along the Refuge Entrance Road, in the overflow parking area, and the visitors parking lot, as shown in Figure 2. Borings were completed on ¼ mile intervals along Refuge Entrance Road.

Borings SW-11 and SW-12 were completed at the overflow parking lot and visitors parking lot, respectively. The borings were advanced to about 5 feet below the ground surface, with the exception of SW-10 which was completed to an approximate depth of 10 feet.

Appendix A presents a discussion of the drilling and sampling procedures used to complete the borings. Appendix A also presents the individual exploration logs and an explanation of the symbols and terminology used. Photographs of the drilling locations and pavement cores are included in Appendix C.

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory tests were completed on selected samples retrieved from the borings to estimate index and engineering properties. Index tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits. Engineering properties tests included corrosion, moisture density relationship (Proctor test) and Hveem Stabilometer (R-value). Laboratory test results and a discussion of the testing procedures are included in Appendix B. The natural water content, fines content, and Atterberg limits are also shown on the individual boring logs included in Appendix A.

4.0 PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

To evaluate the condition of the existing roadway pavement for potential rehabilitation options, we performed a visual pavement survey to assess the overall pavement condition and to identify areas of distress and typical crack patterns. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT, 2010) developed a visual rating system for a ‘windshield’ survey from a moving vehicle with frequent stops to quantify levels of distress. We used the ODOT rating system for our pavement assessment. The five levels of pavement distress are summarized below:

Very Good: Stable, no cracking, no patching, and no deformation. Excellent riding qualities. No improvements to the pavement surface are required.

Good: Stable, minor cracking, generally hairline and hard to detect. Minor patching and possibly some minor deformation evident. Very good riding qualities.

Fair: Generally stable, minor areas of structural weakness evident. Cracking is easier to detect, patched but not excessively. Deformation more pronounced and easily noticed. Ride qualities are good to acceptable.

Poor: Areas of instability, marked evidence of structural deficiency, large areas of fatigue (alligator) crack patterns, heavy and numerous patches, deformation very noticeable. Riding qualities range from acceptable to poor.

Very Poor: Pavement in extremely deteriorated condition. Numerous areas of instability. Majority of section showing structural deficiency.

Using the ODOT visual rating system, we conducted our assessment survey on May 3, 2018.

Site photographs 1 through 20 contain photographs of typical distress patterns observed along the roadway. The age of the existing pavement is unknown.

Pavement distress was observed throughout the Project alignment, and the pavement condition was generally very poor to poor. We observed moderate to high severity alligator fatigue cracking and moderate to high severity potholes with exposed aggregate. Occasional potholes were patched throughout the alignment. In addition, we noted shoulder spalling in areas of Refuge Entrance Road.

5.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Regional Geology

Based on our review on the Reconnaissance Geologic Map of the Presumido Peak Quadrangle, Arizona, (Haxel and others, 1982) the geology of the site consists of undifferentiated Quaternary gravel, sand, and minor silt within the Altar Valley. The valley is bounded by the Baboquivari Mountains west of the site and the Cerro Colorado and San Luis Mountains east of the site. A series of east to southeast trending washes, gullies, and arroyos dissect the valley originating from the mountain ranges to the west and east of the valley.

5.2 Ground Conditions

Chip seal pavement was measured at each of the boring locations, except for boring SW-11, and was measured to be 0.5 inches in thickness. Underlying the chip seal, aggregate road surfacing was encountered in borings SW-01 through SW-10. Aggregate road surfacing was encountered at the surface in boring SW-11 and was 2 inches thick. A summary table of the existing chip seal and aggregate surfacing thickness at each boring location is provided in Appendix C. Beneath the chip seal pavement and aggregate surfacing, the borings generally encountered medium stiff to hard lean clays with varying percentages of sand and loose to dense clayey and silty sands (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] soil classification A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-6, A-6, A-7-6).

Our observations are specific to the locations, depths, and dates noted on the exploration logs in Appendix A and may not be applicable to all areas of the site. There is no amount of explorations or laboratory testing that can precisely predict the characteristics, quality, or distribution of subsurface conditions at every location throughout the site. Variations in the subsurface conditions may occur between and below the borings. Also, the passage of time or intervening causes (natural and manmade) may result in changes to the conditions of the site and subsurface conditions.

5.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings, however, fluctuations of groundwater levels at the site are likely and will depend on many factors, including seasonal variations, local precipitation, and flood events. Groundwater is not anticipated to affect the design or construction of the Project.

6.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Performance of a pavement system depends on the pavement material and thicknesses, subgrade strength, traffic loads and repetitions, design life, and subgrade drainage characteristics. The following sections discuss each of these aspects as they relate to the Refuge Entrance Road pavement reconstruction.

Our pavement design and results are based on the design procedures presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures, with guidance from the U.S.

Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), dated March 2008, and the Arizona Department of Transportation Pavement Design Manual, dated 2017. Pavement design inputs and calculations are presented in Appendix D.

6.1 Traffic Loading

The traffic information for Refuge Entrance Road was provided to us by HDR. The design scoping report indicates that the 2016 average daily traffic volume is less than 400 vehicles per day. Truck distributions were not provided for the Refuge Entrance Road, however data provided by HDR for the Antelope Tour Loop indicate a range of 1.0 to 5.1 percent trucks. For design we assumed 5 percent single unit trucks. Based on discussions with HDR, one pavement section will be utilized for the entirety of the alignment, in addition to a pavement section for the parking areas.

Using the mean value of the flexible pavement equivalency factors provided in the PDDM for each vehicle class, a 20-year design life as indicated for a 3R project, and assuming a 1 percent compounded growth rate, we estimated an 18 kip equivalent single axle loading (ESAL) of approximately 53,000 for each traffic lane. For parking lots we assumed light vehicle loading consisting of passenger cars and pickup trucks. For design of parking lots we assumed an ESAL of 50,000 based on the minimum recommend ESAL in the PDDM. Our estimated ESAL calculations are provided in Appendix D.

6.2 Subgrade Soils

As discussed in Section 5.0, the subsurface explorations completed along the 2.3 miles of roadway generally consisted of sandy clays and silty and clayey sands (A-2-4, A-2-6, A-6, and A-7-6). To estimate the strength of the subgrade materials, R-value tests were completed on three bulk samples from borings SW-02, SW-09, and SW-11 resulting in R-Values of 68, 5, and

7, respectively. Laboratory index testing indicated the bulk samples consisted of AASHTO classification A-2-4, A-6, and A-7-6. Due to the variability in subgrade strengths, we divided the alignment into two segments. The first segment starts at the intersection with SR 286 and extends to boring SW-09 and the second segment extends from boring SW-09 to the visitor center parking lots. For the first segment we used a correlated mean R-Value using procedures from the Arizona Department of Transportation resulting in a design R-Value of 21. For the second segment we excluded the R-Value from boring SW-02 (to reflect the material types encountered in segment 2), resulting in a design R-Value of 6. For the design subgrade strengths, we used an Arizona Department of Transportation correlation between R-value and resilient modulus, which calculates resilient modulus values of 7,917 pounds per square inch (psi) and 3,385 pounds per square inch for segments 1 and 2, respectively.

6.3 Pulverized Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)

We understand that a pulverized full depth reclamation (FDR) was being considered for rehabilitation of the existing roadway pavement sections; however, considering the thin layer of chip seal throughout the Project alignment we do not recommend an FDR section. As an alternative to utilizing FDR, the existing aggregate road surfacing course can be left in place and incorporated as part of the new pavement section. Refer to Table C-1 in Appendix C for the existing aggregate surfacing thickness.

As an alternative to removing and disposing of the existing chip seal pavement, an FDR process could be utilized to recycle the chip seal. FDR processes typically involve pulverizing and mixing the existing asphalt with the underlying layers to create a uniformly blended, homogeneous material that will be incorporated into the proposed pavement section as a base course. However, due to the thin nature of the existing pavement this process would not provide any structural benefit, in our opinion. However, this process could allow the existing material to be recycled in place and would eliminate the expense to export the material offsite.

6.4 Recommended Pavement Sections

Numerous pavement sections were discussed with the design team throughout the design process. Using the PDDM procedures, the parameters outlined in Appendix D, and considering the desired design life and existing conditions, we recommend the following pavement sections for the Project:

TABLE 1

RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS

Location Design ESAL Value Recommended Pavement Section

Segment 1:

Refuge Entrance Road

(SR 286 to Boring SW-09)

53,000

Leave Existing Aggregate Roadway Surfacing In-Place

(4 inches minimum)

4.0” HACP

Native Silty and Clayey Sand Subgrade

4.0” HACP over 4” UTBC

Segment 2:

Refuge Entrance Road

(Boring SW-09 to Visitor Parking Lot)

53,000 Native Sandy Clay Subgrade 4.0” HACP over 7” UTBC

Visitor Parking Lots 50,000 Native Sandy Clay Subgrade 4.0” HACP over 7” UTBC

Notes:

ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Loading

HACP = Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement UTBC = Untreated Base Course

The sections with existing road surfacing will not be feasible at the east end of the alignment, where 2 inches or less of aggregate road surfacing exists. Further, if a grade raise is not feasible, sections on existing native sandy clayey subgrade will be necessary and removal of the existing aggregate road surfacing will be required. Additionally, if roadway widening or realignment is planned, the native silty and clayey sand subgrade pavement section will be required to meet design requirements.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

The applicability of the design parameters in Section 6.0 is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those upon which our recommendations are based, and therefore result in poor performance. Our analyses assumed that this project is constructed according to FP-14 U.S. Customary Units (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT] and FHWA, 2014) construction standards. The following sections provide additional construction considerations for this project.

7.1 Site Preparation

In widening areas, we recommend that brush and other vegetation be cleared and roots and stumps be removed from all areas to be graded in accordance with FP-14 Sections 201 and 203.

All surface and subsurface structures associated with current development of the site, including pavements (if a FDR process is not selected), utility poles, fence poles, underground utilities and other deleterious material, should also be removed. Any existing surficial topsoil and soil containing visible organics should be stripped and removed from all areas. The depth of this removal is anticipated to vary, but generally be less than 3 inches for estimating purposes.

7.2 Earthwork

7.2.1 Proof Roll and Subgrade Preparation

The subgrade should be prepared in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11.

7.2.2 Fill

Granular fill should consist of onsite soils that are free of organics, contaminants, debris, rock fragments larger than 3 inches and should contain less than 20 percent fines. It should be noted that as the amount of fines increases (portion of soil particles passing a U.S. Standard No.

200 sieve), soil becomes more sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Import fill should consist of Backfill Material (FP 704.03) with a minimum R-value of 55.

All fill should be compacted to a dense/firm and unyielding condition in accordance with FP-14 Section 204.11. Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to at or above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95-percent maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T180 or T99 as presented in FP-14 Section 204.

7.3 Paving Materials

The following table summarizes our recommendations for pavement material selection. All specification sections reference the FP-14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014).

TABLE 2

RECOMMENDED MATERIALS FOR PAVEMENTS

Material Specification Additional Requirements/Comments

UTBC Section 301 • Use Gradation C, D, or E

Pulverized FDR Section 304 • Compact according to Section 204.11

HACP Section 401

• Aggregate must meet requirements for ESAL values ranging from 300,000 to 3,000,000

• ½-inch Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size

Notes:

ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Loading FDR = Full Depth Reclamation HACP = Hot Asphalt Concrete Pavement UTBC = Untreated Base Course

Regarding the asphalt binder for HACP, the PDDM requires SuperPave performance grade (PG) binders. The PG binders are chosen based on local weather and anticipated traffic level conditions. Using the PDDM guidelines, a minimum of 95 percent reliability is required in terms of binder performance. Using a binder within an appropriate temperature and traffic loading range allows for a higher strength and better durability, and improved cohesion will translate into improved long-term performance. To determine the recommended SuperPave Binder we used the LTPP Bind Version 3.1Beta and guidance from the City of Tucson and Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements (2003). We recommend using a PG 70-10 binder for the HACP.

7.4 Corrosion

To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the site, samples were tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B.

The resistivity measured in the samples was 2,500 and 710 ohm-centimeters. Based on correlations developed by Roberge (2012), these values suggest a corrosive to extremely corrosive subsurface.

The concentration of water soluble sulfates measured in the samples was less than 0.01 percent by weight. Based on classifications as defined by ACI-318-14 (ACI, 2014), these test results suggest a negligible degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0).

8.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge project. This pavement design report should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Assumptions stated in this report have changed.

Project details change or new information becomes available such that our analyses and recommendations may be affected.

A substantial period of time has passed since the date of this report.

If any of these occur, we should be retained to review the applicability of our analyses and recommendations.

Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, the analyses, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical and geological principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

9.0 REFERENCE

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary, Farmington Hills, Mich., ACI 318-14.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993, AASHTO guide for design of pavement structures: Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 2 v.

Arizona Department of Transportation, 2017. Pavement Design Manual. Roadway Engineering Group Pavement Design Section.

City of Tucson and Pima County, 2003. Standard Specifications for Public Improvements.

Federal Highway Administration Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA-EFLHD), 2017, Design Scoping Report: AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3), 11(1) for Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.

Haxel, Gordon, May, D.J., and Tosdal, R.M., 1982, Reconnaissance geologic map of the Presumido Peak quadrangle, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1378, scale 1:62,500.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), 2010, GFP Pavement Condition Rating Manual, July, available at:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/hwy/construction/docs/pavement/gfp_manual.pdf

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of corrosion engineering (2nd ed.): N. Y., McGraw-Hill, 1078 p.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2008, Federal Lands Highway project development and design manual (PDDM): U.S.

Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. Available from:

http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/manuals/pddm/.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, 2014, Federal standard specifications for construction of roads and bridges on Federal Highway projects, FP-14 English Units: U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, available from http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/pse/specs/.

MT

FIG. 1

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTE

Approximate Scale in Miles

0 2 4

VICINITY MAP

May 2019 100273-002

Fi le na m e:

I:

\E F\

D E

N \1

0s \1

C

FL

A

Z B ue no s A

\D ra fti ng

\1

3_

Fi g

1.

dw g

D at e:

5-

-2

L og in : j cg

ARIZONA

To Tuscon

PROJECT

LOCATION

Arizona

Tucson

PHOENIX

Flagstaff

Page15

SasabeMEXICO

So ut h Sa sa be

R oa d

Project Location

SW-01

SW-03

SW-04

SW-02

SW-04

SW-05

SW-06

SW-07

Fi le na m e:

I:

\E F\

D E

N \1

0s \1

C

FL

A

Z B ue no s A

\D ra fti ng

\F ig

S ite E xp lo ra tio n.

e:

7-

-2 in : j cg

100273-002

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

May 2019

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

Sheet 1 of 2

FIG. 2

0 300 600

Scale in Feet

SW-01

Boring Designation and Approximate Location

LEGEND

1. Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced with permission granted by Google Earth Mapping Service.

NOTES

MT

TM

M a t c h l i n e

S h e t

M a t c h l i n e

B e l o w

M a t c h l i n e

A b o v e

Refuge Entrance Road

Refuge Entrance Road

S o u a s a b e

R o d

SW-07

SW-08

SW-09

SW-10

SW-11

SW-12

Fi le na m e:

I:

\E F\

D E

N \1

0s \1

C

FL

A

Z B ue no s A

\D ra fti ng

\F ig

S ite E xp lo ra tio n.

e:

7-

-2 in : j cg

100273-002

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

May 2019

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

Sheet 2 of 2

FIG. 2

0 300 600

Scale in Feet

SW-01

Boring Designation and Approximate Location

LEGEND

1. Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro, reproduced with permission granted by Google Earth Mapping Service.

NOTES

MT

TM

M a t c h l i e

R e f u

E t r a n c o d

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

100273-002-R1-AA/wp/ksm 100273-002 A-i

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... A-1

A.2 EXPLORATIONS .......................................................................................................... A-1 A.2.1 Soil Classification System ................................................................................ A-1 A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ...................................................................... A-2 A.2.3 Bulk Samples .................................................................................................... A-2

FIGURES

A-1 Soil Classification and Log Key (3 sheets) A-2 Log of Boring SW-01 A-3 Log of Boring SW-02 A-4 Log of Boring SW-03 A-5 Log of Boring SW-04 A-6 Log of Boring SW-05 A-7 Log of Boring SW-06 A-8 Log of Boring SW-07 A-19 Log of Boring SW-08 A-10 Log of Boring SW-09 A-11 Log of Boring SW-10 A-12 Log of Boring SW-11 A-13 Log of Boring SW-12

A-1

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) field exploration program was conducted on May 22, 2018, and consisted of drilling twelve borings designated SW-01 through SW-12 at the locations shown on Figure 2. Photographs of boring locations are provided in Appendix C. The methods used to conduct the field exploration program are described below.

A.2 EXPLORATIONS

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-

13. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing. The borings were drilled by Geomechanics Southwest, Inc. of Tucson, Arizona (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a truck-mounted CME 75 drill rig. Prior to drilling, pavement cores were obtained at each boring location. Measurements of the pavement thickness are presented on the boring logs and in Table C-1 in Appendix C. The aggregate base course thickness was measured based on the standard penetration test (SPT) sample. The borings were advanced to an approximate depth of 5 feet, except for boring SW-10 which was drilled and sampled to an approximate depth of 10 feet. All borings were advanced using 6-inch diameter hollow-stem-auger drilling techniques. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with cuttings and repairs to the existing pavement were made with cold-patch asphalt.

A.2.1 Soil Classification System

During exploration, our representative collected samples and prepared field logs of the explorations. Soil classification for this project was based on ASTM International (ASTM) Designation: D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), and ASTM Designation: D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is summarized in Figure A-1. In addition, samples were classified based on American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Designation M-145, Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes.

A-2

A.2.2 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter, 1.375-inch inside diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling a distance of 30 inches. An automatic hammer system was used to advance the samplers. During sampling, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the number of blows for each 6-inch increment of penetration and summed the blow counts for the last two 6-inch increments. This sum is recorded as the penetration resistance number, or N-value. The N-values provide a means for evaluating the relative density or compactness of cohesionless (granular) soils and consistency or stiffness of cohesive (fine-grained) soils (see Figure A-1). The N-values are shown in the individual boring logs. Representative portions of the split-spoon sample obtained in conjunction with the SPT were placed in a screw-top plastic jar and transported to our laboratory.

A.2.3 Bulk Samples

Bulk soil samples were obtained by collecting the drill cuttings from the upper 5 feet of select borings. Approximately 20 to 30 pounds of cuttings were placed in a plastic bag and transported to our laboratory for further analysis and testing.

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

100273-002May 2019

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, from below water table

FIG. A-1

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

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

SPECIFICATIONS

Hammer:

Sampler:

N-Value:

Dry

Moist

Wet

MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS

Modifying (Secondary)

Precedes major constituent

Major

Minor Follows major constituent

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

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

3Determined based on behavior.

4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.

5Whichever is the lesser constituent.

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

(less than 50% fines)1

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

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS

RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY

Sand or Gravel 4

30% or more coarse-grained:

Sandy or Gravelly 4

More than 12% fine-grained:

Silty or Clayey 3

15% to 30% coarse-grained:

with Sand or with Gravel 4

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

with Sand or with Gravel 5

Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard

Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense

RELATIVE

DENSITY

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(50% or more fines)1

COHESIVE SOILS

< 2 2 - 4 4 - 8

8 - 15 15 - 30

> 30

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

2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.

A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.

140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.

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

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

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

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

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

RELATIVE

CONSISTENCY

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

5% to 12% fine-grained:

with Silt or with Clay 3

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

with Sand or with Gravel 5

< 5%

5 to 10%

15 to 25%

30 to 45%

50 to 100%

Surface Cement Seal

Asphalt or Cap

Slough

Inclinometer or Non-perforated Casing

Vibrating Wire Piezometer

N, SPT,

BLOWS/FT.

< 4 4 - 10

10 - 30 30 - 50

> 50

DESCRIPTION

< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)

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

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

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

SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE

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

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

3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)

> 12 in. (305 mm)

Fine Coarse

Fine Medium Coarse

BOULDERS

COBBLES

GRAVEL

FINES

SAND

Sheet 1 of 3

S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS

CONSTITUENT2

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Silt, Lean Clay, Elastic Silt, or

Fat Clay 3

PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2

Trace

Few

Little

Some

Mostly

WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS

Bentonite Cement Grout

Bentonite Grout

Bentonite Chips

Silica Sand

Perforated or Screened Casing

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

C

F L

A Z

B U

E N

O S

A

IR

E S

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

/3 /1

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

May 2019

GC

SC

Inorganic

Organic

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

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

CH

OH

ML

CL

TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS

Gravel

Sand

Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel

Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel

Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with Sand

Sheet 2 of 3

Gravels

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor

SW

(more than 12% fines)

Silts and Clays

Silts and Clays

(more than 50% retained on No.

200 sieve)

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

(liquid limit less than 50)

(liquid limit 50 or more)

Organic

Inorganic

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

SM

Sands

Silty or Clayey Gravel

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

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

HIGHLY-

ORGANIC

SOILS

COARSE-

GRAINED

SOILS

GW

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

(less than 5% fines)

PT

(more than 12% fines)

MH

SP

GP

GM

Silty or Clayey Sand

Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand

(50% or more passes the No.

200 sieve)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

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

Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;

Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay

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

Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand with Gravel

Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded Gravel with Sand

Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand

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

NOTES

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

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

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

FIG. A-1

OL

(less than 5% fines)

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

C

F L

A Z

B U

E N

O S

A

IR

E S

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

/3 /1

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

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)

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

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

May 2019

Angular

Subangular

Subrounded

Rounded

Flat

Elongated

Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.

Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.

Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.

Smoothly curved sides with no edges.

Width/thickness ratio > 3.

Length/width ratio > 3.

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

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

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

Weak

Moderate

Strong

VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA

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

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

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

It take considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. A thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. A lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 3

Interbedded

Laminated

Fissured

Slickensided

Blocky

Lensed

Homogeneous

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

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

lamination.

Breaks along definite planes or fractures with little resistance.

Fracture planes appear polished or glossy;

sometimes striated.

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

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

Same color and appearance throughout.

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

ATD

Diam.

Elev.

ft.

FeO gal.

Horiz.

HSA

I.D.

in.

lbs.

MgO mm

MnO

NA

NP

O.D.

OW

pcf

PID

PMT

ppm psi

PVC

rpm

SPT

USCS

qu

VWP

Vert.

WOH

WOR

Wt.

STRUCTURE TERMS1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

AND LOG KEY

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

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Poorly Graded

Well-Graded

Irregular patches of different colors.

Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or animals.

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

Material brought to surface by drilling.

Material that caved from sides of borehole.

Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.

Mottled

Bioturbated

Diamict

Cuttings

Slough

Sheared

DESCRIPTION

Nonplastic

Low

Medium

High

ADDITIONAL TERMS

PLASTICITY2

CEMENTATION TERMS1

GRADATION TERMS

APPROX.

PLASITICTY

INDEX

RANGE

< 4

4 to 10

10 to 20

> 20

PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1

FIG. A-1

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

C

F L

A Z

B U

E N

O S

A

IR

E S

.G P

J S

W N

E W

.G D

T

/3 /1

0.5 inches of chip seal pavement.

4 inches of aggregate road surfacing.

Stiff, red-yellow, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist;

few gravel. [A-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 5/22/2018

S -1

S -2

S -3 G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.1

0.3

5.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

5.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-2

S am pl es

6 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

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

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100273-002

Hollow-Stem Auger Geomechanics Southwest, Inc.

CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-01

May 2019

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

3_

C F

L A

Z B

U E

N O

S A

IR

E

S .G

P J

0/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

6 inches of aggregate road surfacing.

Medium dense, red-yellow, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. [A-2-4]

Medium dense, light red, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel (SP-SM); dry. [A-1-b]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 5/22/2018

S -1

B -1

S -2 G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.1

0.6

4.0

5.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

5.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

6 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

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

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100273-002

Hollow-Stem Auger Geomechanics Southwest, Inc.

CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-02

May 2019

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

3_

C F

L A

Z B

U E

N O

S A

IR

E

S .G

P J

0/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

NP

Very stiff, red, Lean Clay with Sand (CL);

moist; trace to few gravel. [A-7-6]

Medium dense, red-yellow, Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC); moist. [A-7-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 5/22/2018

S -1

S -2 G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.1

0.6

2.0

5.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

5.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

6 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

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

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100273-002

Hollow-Stem Auger Geomechanics Southwest, Inc.

CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-03

May 2019

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

3_

C F

L A

Z B

U E

N O

S A

IR

E

S .G

P J

0/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

18 inches of aggregate road surfacing. Silty Sand (SM) [A-1-b].

Medium stiff, red, Lean Clay with Sand (CL);

moist; trace gravel. [A-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 5/22/2018

S -1

S -2 G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.1

1.5

5.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

5.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-5

S am pl es

6 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

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

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100273-002

Hollow-Stem Auger Geomechanics Southwest, Inc.

CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-04

May 2019

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

3_

C F

L A

Z B

U E

N O

S A

IR

E

S .G

P J

0/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

Medium dense, red, Silty Sand (SM); moist;

trace gravel. [A-2-4]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 5/22/2018

S -1

B -1

S -2 G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.1

0.6

5.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

5.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-6

S am pl es

6 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries between material types, and the transition may be gradual.

SOIL DESCRIPTION

NOTES

1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.

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

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

4. USCS designation is based on visual-manual classification and selected lab testing.

AZ FTFW BUAI 10(3)

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Pima County, Arizona

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

100273-002

Hollow-Stem Auger Geomechanics Southwest, Inc.

CME 75 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

LOG OF BORING SW-05

May 2019

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Standard Penetration Test

Grab Sample

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

M A

S T

E R

_L O

G _E

_P O

C K

E T

P E

N _L

A T

LO

N G

3_

C F

L A

Z B

U E

N O

S A

IR

E

S .G

P J

0/

2/

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

(blows/foot)

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines

Dense, red-yellow, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist. [A-2-4]

Dense, red, Clayey Sand (SC); moist; few gravel. [A-2-6]

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 5/22/2018

S -1

S -2 G ro un dw at er n ot e nc ou nt er e d du ri ng d ri lli ng

0.1

0.6

3.0

5.5

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

5.5 ft.

REV 3

FIG. A-7

S am pl es

6 in.

AWJ

Automatic

S ym bo l

Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the subsurface materials and drilling methods.