Geotechnical Report - KS FTFW KIRW 14(1) 104(1).pdf

SUBMITTED TO:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, Colorado 80202

BY:

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.

1321 Bannock St. Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204

(303) 825-3800 www.shannonwilson.com

REVISED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

KS FTFW KIRW 14(1)104(1)

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

KIRWIN, KANSAS

January 2020

Shannon & Wilson No: 102360-001

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020 ii

C O

N

TE

N

TS

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

2 Project and Site Description

3 Subsurface Explorations and Laboratory Testing

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

4 Regional Geology and Subsurface Conditions

4.1 Regional Geology

4.2 Ground Conditions

4.3 Groundwater

5 Geologic Hazards

5.1 Seismic Hazards

5.2 Corrosive Soil

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Culvert Foundations

6.2 Lateral Earth Pressures

7 Construction Considerations

7.1 Dewatering Considerations

7.2 Site Subgrade Preparation

7.3 Fill Materials and Compaction

8 Closure

9 References

Exhibits Exhibit 5‐1: Seismic Design Ground Motion Parameters

Exhibit 6‐1: Anticipated Culvert Subgrade Conditions

Exhibit 6‐2: Recommended Culvert Foundation Design Parameters

Exhibit 6‐3: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures for Culverts

Exhibit 7‐1: Recommended Materials for Construction iii

C O

N

TE

TS

Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Site Plan and Exploration Plan

Figure 3: Recommended Surcharge Loading for Temporary and Permanent Walls

Appendices Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations

Appendix B: Laboratory Test Results

Appendix C: Exploration Photographs

Important Information

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

1 INTRODUCTION

This revised report supersedes the pavement design report dated August, 2019. This revised report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program and presents geotechnical design recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) Project (the

Project) in Kirwin, Kansas. Our services were completed in general accordance with our

Task Order Agreement No. 006/1000100035302 with HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) dated

December 3, 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 culvert replacements. 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 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The Project is located in Kirwin, Kansas (Figure 1). The proposed culvert replacements are located within the KNWR along South Side Drive (RTE 014); refer to Figure 2. South Side

Drive runs along the southeast side of Kirwin Lake and is generally surrounded by open space. The roadway is surfaced with aggregate and consists of one widened lane, undulating throughout the Project alignment. Based on 95‐percent plans provided by HDR, we understand the Project will include replacement and upsizing of three existing culverts with new reinforced concrete pipe. At project stationing (STA) 88+25 an existing 45‐foot long 72‐inch diameter corrugated metal pipe will be replaced with four new 25‐foot long 72‐ inch reinforced concrete pipes. At STA 122+25 a 52‐foot long, 72‐inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe will replace existing pipes of unknown size. The existing culvert at STA

136+75 consists of a 42‐foot long, 36‐inch diameter corrugated metal pipe and will be replaced with new two 40‐foot long, 60‐inch diameter reinforced concrete pipes. Refer to

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

Figure 2 for a project map. Refer to Exhibit 6‐1 for culvert invert elevations. We understand that water will rise and recede equally on both sides of the culverts.

3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY

TESTING

3.1 Field Investigation

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson) conducted a field exploration program on

January 22 and 23, 2019, to explore subsurface conditions at each culvert location. The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling and sampling six borings (designated

SW‐01 through SW‐06) along South Side Drive, as shown in Figure 2. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 33 to 50 feet below the ground surface. Boring elevations are based on survey completed by HDR.

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 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. Geotechnical laboratory tests included natural water content, grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, organic contents, and corrosion testing. 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 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE

CONDITIONS

4.1 Regional Geology

The site is located on the southern edge of Kirwin Reservoir, just south of the town of

Kirwin. Fill associated with the construction of the culverts was encountered in each boring.

The Geology of the site generally consists of recent alluvium and flood plain deposits overlying the Niobrara Formation and Carlile Shale (Frye and Leonard, 1954).

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

4.2 Ground Conditions

Borings SW‐01 and SW‐02 were drilled at Culvert 1 and encountered medium stiff to very stiff sandy clay fill overlying soft to medium stiff clay with varying percentages of sand. At a depth of 34 feet shale bedrock was encountered in boring SW‐01.

Borings SW‐03 and SW‐04, located at Culvert 2, encountered soft to very stiff sandy clay fill to a depth of approximately 18 feet overlying medium stiff to stiff clay (generally medium stiff) to the termination depth of boring SW‐03 at approximately 50 feet.

At Culvert 3, borings SW‐05 and SW‐06 encountered 3 to 4 feet of fill consisting of clay with sand and clayey gravel. Underlying the fill, medium stiff clay with varying percentages of sand was encountered followed by loose to medium dense sand at a depth of 17 feet. Shale bedrock was then encountered at 27 to 28 feet and extended to the termination depth of the borings.

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.

4.3 Groundwater

During drilling, groundwater was measured below the existing ground surface at each boring location. Groundwater was encountered at Culvert 1 (borings SW‐01 and SW‐02) at depths of 12 and 11 feet (Elevation 1,728.5 and 1,730.5 feet), Culvert 2 (borings SW‐03 and

SW‐04) at depths of 15 and 16 feet (Elevation 1,730.6 and 1,729.5 feet), and Culvert 3 (borings

SW‐05 and SW‐06) at depths of 6 and 4 feet (Elevation 1,729.4 and 1,731.4 feet). The groundwater level at the time of drilling is noted on each boring log included in Appendix

A. Groundwater fluctuations are likely and will depend on seasonal variations, local precipitation and runoff, and other factors, but will primarily be influenced by water levels in Kirwin Lake and flood events.

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

5 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

5.1 Seismic Hazards

Kansas is an area of low potential for damaging earthquakes. Based on a recent geologic map by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the nearest mapped Quaternary fault is the

Crooked Creek Fault which is over 230 miles west (Crone and Machette, 1995). Therefore, in our opinion, the potential for ground surface fault rupture is low.

Using the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2017) criteria, and based on subsurface conditions encountered in the boring at the proposed culverts (assuming that similar soil or bedrock conditions are present from the maximum depth of our boring to a depth of 100 feet), Site Class E is recommended for the proposed culverts.

Ground motion parameters were determined for the project site using the USGS AASHTO

2009 Web Service Documentation Web Application (USGS, 2009) and procedures recommended by AASHTO (2017). Exhibit 5‐1 presents recommended seismic design ground motion parameters.

Exhibit 5-1: Seismic Design Ground Motion Parameters

Ground Motion Parameters Value

Peak Ground Acceleration 1 (PGAB) 0.027 g

Site Class E

Short-period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 0.062 g

Long-period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.024 g

Site Factor, Fpga 2.5

Site Factor, Fa 2.5

Site Factor, Fv 3.5

Peak Design Spectral Acceleration, AS 0.068 g

Short-period Design Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.156 g

Long-period Design Spectral Acceleration, SD1 0.084 g

T0 0.108 sec.

TS 0.540 sec.

Note:

PGAB = peak ground acceleration for a site underlain by Site Class B soil (soft rock).

g = gravity; sec. = seconds

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

Based on the relatively low peak ground acceleration (PGA) for this area, it is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction and other seismic hazards is low.

5.2 Corrosive Soil

Some subgrade soils can be corrosive to substructure elements. To assist in estimating the corrosion potential at the culvert location, a soil sample from each culvert location was tested for pH, resistivity, water soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The results are presented in

Table B‐1 in Appendix B.

Testing indicated that the resistivity of the samples ranged from 890 to 1,200 ohm‐ centimeters. Based on Roberge (2012) the soil resistivity encountered in the sample indicates a highly to extremely corrosive environment for metal in contact with soil at the site.

The concentration of water‐soluble sulfates measured in the samples ranged from 0.01 to

0.19 percent by weight. Based on classifications as defined by American Concrete Institute

(ACI) ACI‐318‐14 (ACI, 2014), this test result suggests a negligible to moderate degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to site soils (exposure class S0 and S1).

For further mitigation of corrosion hazard, the construction materials and methods should be reviewed by a specialist in corrosion‐resistance design based on the test results included in Table B‐1 and their experience.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following sections provide recommendations for the proposed culvert replacements.

6.1 Culvert Foundations

We understand that the existing culverts will be upsized and replaced with reinforced concrete pipe as discussed in Section 2 to increase hydraulic capacity. The proposed existing culvert invert depths, elevations, and anticipated subgrade conditions at the invert elevations are provided in Exhibit 6‐1.

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

Exhibit 6-1: Anticipated Culvert Subgrade Conditions

Culvert STA Invert Depth Below

Existing Grade¹ Proposed

Invert Elevation¹ Subgrade Conditions at

Invert Elevation

88+25 12 feet 1,724.9 feet Very soft to medium stiff Lean Clay with Sand

122+25 14 feet 1,734.9 feet Medium stiff Sandy Lean Clay to Lean Clay with Sand Fill

136+75 11 feet 1,731.5 feet Medium stiff Sandy Lean Clay

NOTES:

Invert depth and elevation at the roadway centerline.

STA = stationing

In summary, very soft to medium stiff cohesive clay materials are anticipated at the proposed construction elevations of the culverts. These materials may provide a difficult working surface and may be required to be overexcavated, as discussed in Section 7.2.

Recommended foundation design parameters for the culverts are provided in Exhibit 6‐2.

For the proposed culvert configuration, the bearing pressure at the bottom of the culvert will likely result in a net overburden stress unloading, i.e., construction of the culvert should not result in an increase in the vertical stress at the bearing elevation. As a result, culvert settlement will be directly related to the quality of the prepared subgrade as discussed in

Section 7.2. Provided the subgrade is properly prepared and undisturbed, we anticipate settlement on the order of 1‐inch following construction.

Exhibit 6-2: Recommended Culvert Foundation Design Parameters

Foundation Design Parameter Value

Nominal Gross Bearing Resistance for Culverts 1 (psf) 3,000

Nominal Gross Bearing Resistance for Wing Walls 2 (psf) 2,500

Coefficient of Friction for Sliding (tan d) 3, 4, 5 0.30

Resistance Factor for Bearing 6 0.45

Resistance Factor for Sliding 7 0.85

NOTES:

Footing weight (including weight of soil above footing) should be included when calculating bearing pressure.

A minimum embedment of 3 feet or the design scour depth should be used, whichever is greater.

Lateral Loads assumed to be resisted by sliding.

Coefficient of sliding assumes cast-in-place concrete. Value should be multiplied by a reduction factor of 0.8 for precast concrete.

Coefficient of friction times the normal pressure shall be no greater than 500 psf.

Bearing resistance factor based on AASHTO (2017), Table 10.5.5.2.2-1.

Sliding resistance factor based on AASHTO (2017), Table 10.5.5.2.2-1.

pcf = pounds per cubic foot; psf = pounds per square foot

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

6.2 Lateral Earth Pressures

The lateral earth pressures on culvert walls and wing walls depend on many factors, including surcharge loads, the soil type, drainage provisions, and whether or not the top of the wall can yield or deflect laterally/rotate during and after excavation. If the top of the wall is free to yield a minimum of 0.1 percent of the wall height (i.e., 0.001 horizontal [H]), the soil pressures will generally be less, i.e., active condition, than if the wall is not able to yield this amount due to stiffness or resistance of the wall, i.e., at‐rest condition.

Active and at‐rest earth pressures provided in Exhibit 6‐3 assume the culvert walls are backfilled with properly compacted Embankment Material (see Section 7.3) in a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) zone extending upward from the base of the culvert wall from a point

1.5 feet behind the wall.

Exhibit 6-3: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures for Culverts

Design Parameter Value

Embankment Material

Total Unit Weight 1 (pcf) 125

Effective Friction Angle (degrees) 30

Cohesion (psf) 0

Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, KA 0.33

Equivalent Fluid Density for Active Conditions, Above GWT (pcf) 42

Equivalent Fluid Density for Active Conditions, Below GWT (pcf) 84

At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, KO 0.50

Equivalent Fluid Density for Active Conditions, Above GWT (pcf) 63

Equivalent Fluid Density for Active Conditions, Below GWT (pcf) 94

NOTES:

The total unit weight shall also be assumed for the earthen load on top of the culverts.

pcf = pounds per cubic foot; psf = pounds per square foot

Surcharge loads from motor vehicles/traffic and construction equipment will induce additional lateral loads on retaining walls. The pressures provided above do not account for surcharge loads. Lateral loads due to various types of surcharges may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by the at‐rest earth pressure coefficient (K0) or active earth pressure coefficient (KA), depending on if the wall is free to yield as discussed above.

Surcharge loads should be applied as recommended on Figure 3.

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

7 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

The applicability of the design recommendations provided in this report is contingent on good construction practice. Poor construction techniques may alter conditions from those on which our recommendations are based on and result in reduced foundation capacity and increased settlement. The following sections present additional construction and material considerations for this project. We recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer familiar with the project monitor the geotechnical aspects of construction, particularly subgrade preparation, fill placement, and compaction.

7.1 Dewatering Considerations

Based on groundwater levels encountered in our explorations, the proposed excavation for the culvert may extend below groundwater levels. The presence of groundwater may cause instability of open‐cut excavations and subgrades. The contractor should consider these conditions in planning the work and the groundwater control measures.

Based on the clayey nature of the culvert subgrade material, we anticipate that it will be possible to control groundwater using sumps. We do not anticipate a robust active dewatering program, such as wells or well points being necessary.

We recommend that the groundwater level be kept a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of excavation elevation to reduce potential for disturbance to the subgrade. The groundwater level should be drawn down prior to excavating and should be maintained in a dewatered state until the culvert is constructed and backfilled. Consistent with typical practice, the contractor will be responsible for control of surface water and groundwater. In this regard, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering and other measures should be employed, as necessary, to direct water away from the excavations, to prevent ponding of water next to the work zone, and to permit proper completion of the work.

7.2 Site Subgrade Preparation

Prior to site grading, ponded water should be drained from low‐lying areas. In addition, construction areas should be cleared to a depth necessary to remove all surface and subsurface structures associated with current development of the site, including all riprap, culvert pipes, foundations, undocumented fills, and other deleterious material.

To reduce disturbance of subgrade soils, we suggest that the last foot of excavation be completed with an excavating bucket that has a flat plate over the teeth, systematically working from one end of the culvert to avoid disturbing the final exposed subgrade. The

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020 final subgrade elevation should then be probed by onsite geotechnical personnel with a steel

T‐probe. Any areas that are identified as being loose, soft, or yielding should be improved by overexcavating to firm soils or to a maximum depth of 24 inches. A Class 1 geotextile

(FP‐14 714.01) should then be installed at the base of the excavation before backfilling with

Bedding Material (FP‐14 704.02) to the bottom of culvert elevation.

7.3 Fill Materials and Compaction

Fill soil placed beneath the proposed culverts should be Bedding Material as discussed in

Section 7.2. Culvert backfill should be compacted Embankment Material. Refer to Exhibit 7‐

1 for Embankment Material requirements. Embankment Material should be free of organics, debris, and other deleterious material. We anticipate that the existing embankment materials encountered at each culvert location are suitable for reuse as backfill of the culverts.

Fill should be placed in uniform, horizontal layers with the loose lift thickness not exceeding

8 inches for heavy, self‐propelled compactors, or 4 inches for hand‐operated mechanical compactors. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the Contractor’s equipment and the moisture content and quality of the Embankment Material. Embankment Material should be moisture conditioned within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content and to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM

International (ASTM) D698 or AASHTO T99 (standard Proctor compaction effort). It should be noted that as the amount of fines (portion of soil particles passing a U.S. Standard No.

200 sieve)increases in the Embankment Material, soil becomes more sensitive to small changes in moisture content, and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve.

We anticipate that the fines content of the existing embankment material is on the order of

70 percent.

Exhibit 7‐1 summarizes our recommendations for fill and construction material selection.

All specification sections reference the FP‐14 U.S. Customary Units, (USDOT and FHWA, 2014).

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

Exhibit 7-1: Recommended Materials for Construction

Locations Specification Material Type Additional Requirements/Comments

Fill Beneath Culvert

FP-14 704.02 Bedding Material Max. Particle Size: 1/2 inches

Max. Fines Content: 10 percent

FP-14 714.01 Geotextile Class 1 Geotextile

Culvert and Wall Backfill

- Embankment Material Reuse onsite embankment material

Max. Particle Size: 3 inches

Min. Fines Content: 35 percent

Landscaping - Common Fill

(on-site material)

No minimum requirements

NOTES:

Indicates a requirement in addition to those specified in FP-14.

Max. = Maximum; Min. = Minimum; PI = Plasticity Index

8 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of HDR and Central Federal Lands

Highway Division for the purpose of providing pavement recommendations for the Kirwin

National Wildlife Refuge project. This 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.

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. has prepared “Important Information about Your Geotechnical

Report,” to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our reports.

Revised Geotechnical Design Report

102360-001 January 2020

9 REFERENCES

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), 2017, AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, Customary U.S. units, 8th edition:

Washington, D.C., American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials.

Crone, A.J., and Machette, M.N., 1995, Holocene movement on the Cheraw fault, SE

Colorado—Another hazardous late Quaternary fault in the stable continental interior: Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 76, no. 46, November 7, 1995, supplement, p. F362.

Frye, J.C. and Leonard, A.B., Significant New Exposures of Pleistocene Deposits at Kirwin, Phillips County, Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey, Bulletin 109, part 3, originally published in 1954.

Roberge, P.R., 2012, Handbook of corrosion engineering, Second Edition: McGraw‐Hill, New York, New York.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 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.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) AASHTO 2009 Web Service Documentation Web

Application (USGS, 2009). Available from:

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

KS FTFW KIRW 14(1) 104(1)

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Kirwin, Kansas

Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by

Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™ Mapping Service.

NOTE

Approximate Scale in Miles

2 4

VICINITY MAP

January 2020 102360-001

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

C

F L

K i r w n

S D r a f t i n g

F g d w

D a t e o g i n

B

W V

C

T M

Uvalde

PROJECT

LOCATION

FIG. 1

Kirwin

Phillipsburg

Kansas

Phillipsburg

TOPEKA

Kansas

City

Kirwin Reservoir

Project

Location

SITE PLAN AND EXPLORATION

PLAN

FIG. 2

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

KS FTFW KIRW 14(1) 104(1)

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Kirwin, Kansas

Approximate Scale in Feet

800 1600

January 2020 102360-001

F i l e n a m e

I E

F D

E N s

C

F r w n

D r a f t i n g

F d t e o g i n b w v

MT

1. Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth

Pro, reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth ™

Mapping Service.

NOTES

Boring Designation and

Approximate Location

LEGEND

SW-01

SW-01

SW-02

SW-03

South Side Drive SW-04

SW-06

SW-05

Culvert STA 136+70

Culvert STA 88+32

Culvert STA 122+25

For m ≤ 0.4: s H

= 0.28 (psf) (see Note 3)

F i l e

I E

F D

E N s

C

F L

K i r w i n

K

S D r a f t i n g F

T y p

S u r c h a r g e d t e

A u t h o r j c g

W a l l

PLAN VIEW

2.0 q

1.5

D e p t h

F a c t o r

Z

B

1.0

0.0

0.5

W a l l

Z

Wall Line

UNIFORM SURCHARGE

a b

EARTH BERM

(see Note 4)

Note:

H z=nH

Bottom of

Excavation x = mH

Point Load in Pounds s H

(psf)

ELEVATION VIEW

x = mH

H

Bottom of

Excavation

W a l l z=nH s H

(psf)

Line Load in

Pounds/Foot

B) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO LINE LOAD

i.e. NARROW CONTINUOUS FOOTING

PARALLEL TO WALL

C) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO STRIP LOAD

W a l l

W a l l

W a l l

A) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO POINT LOAD

i.e. SMALL ISOLATED FOOTING OR WHEEL LOAD y

D) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE TO EARTH BERM

OR UNIFORM SURCHARGE

Bottom of

Excavation

Bottom of

Excavation

E) LATERAL PRESSURE DUE

TO ADJACENT FOOTING

(see Notes 5 and 6)

0 0.5 1.0

L

B

NOTES

Figures are not drawn to scale.

Applicable surcharge pressures should be added to appropriate temporary and permanent wall lateral earth and water pressure.

If point or line loads are close to the back of the wall such that m £ 0.4, it may be more appropriate to model the actual load distribution (i.e., Detail E) or use more rigorous analysis methods.

See text for recommended K values.

The stress is estimated on the back of the wall at the center of the length, L, of loading.

The estimated stress is based on a Poisson's ratio of 0.5.

W a l l

Bearing

Pressure q (psf)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

I p

, Influence Factor s H

= 2(I p

) q s

Lateral Footing

Pressure on Wall

(derived from NAVFAC DM 7.02, 1986; and Sandhu, Earth Pressure on Walls Due to Surcharge, 1974)

(derived from Poulos and Davis, Elastic Solutions for

Soil and Rock Mechanics, 1974; and Terzaghi and

Peck, Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1967)

(NAVFAC DM 7.02, 1986)

(derived from Fang, Foundation

Engineering Handbook, 1991)

(NAVFAC DM 7.2, 1986)

Point Load in Pounds g = Unit Weight of Earth Berm

Bearing

Pressure

Earth

Berm s H

= Lateral Pressure in radians

ELEVATION VIEW

(see Note 3)

(see Note 3) q s

L

2B

Q p

H n

(0.16 + n

For m > 0.4: s H

= 1.77 (psf)

Q p

H m n

(m

+ n

Q p s H s'

H

= s H cos

(1.1q) (psf) s'

H s'

H

For m ≤ 0.4: s H

= 0.20 (psf) (see Note 3)

Q l

H n

(0.16 + n

For m > 0.4: s H

= 1.28 (psf)

Q l

H m n

(m

+ n

Q l

Q p y ≤ 33°

H s

≤ 15 Feet

(K)(g)(H s s H

H s s H

= (K)q s

(see Note 4) q s

(psf) s H

= (b - sin b cos2a) (psf)

2q p

L

= 0.25

= 0.5

= 1 s H

L

2B

L

2B

L

2B

RECOMMENDED SURCHARGE

LOADING FOR TEMPORARY AND

PERMANENT WALLS

FIG. 3

KS FTFW KIRW 14(1) 104(1)

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Kirwin, Kansas

102360-001January 2020

2/8/2019-102360_AA.docx A-i

PP

EN

D

IX

A

: S U

B

SU

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

A

TI

O N

S

Appendix A: Subsurface Explorations

Appendix A

Subsurface Explorations

CONTENTS

A.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... A‐1

A.2 Explorations ........................................................................................................................... A‐1

A.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................. A‐1

A.2.2 Soil and Rock Classification System ...................................................................... A‐1

A.2.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ............................................................................ A‐2

A.2.4 Modified California (MC) Drive Samples ............................................................. A‐2

Figures Figure A‐1: Soil Description and Log Key

Figure A‐2: Rock Classification and Log Key

Figure A‐3: Log of Boring SW‐01

Figure A‐4: Log of Boring SW‐02

Figure A‐5: Log of Boring SW‐03

Figure A‐6: Log of Boring SW‐04

Figure A‐7: Log of Boring SW‐05

Figure A‐8: Log of Boring SW‐06

A-1

A

PP

EN

D

IX

A

: S U

B

SU

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

A

TI

O N

S

A.1 INTRODUCTION

Shannon & Wilson, Inc.’s (Shannon & Wilson’s) field exploration program was conducted on January 22 and 23, 2018, and consisted of drilling six borings designated SW‐01 through

SW‐06 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

A.2.1 Methodology

The borings were coordinated (including subcontractor coordination and utility locates) and observed by Shannon & Wilson. Individual boring logs are presented in Figures A‐3 through A‐8. These exploration logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and select results of laboratory testing.

The borings were drilled by Vine Laboratories of Commerce City, Colorado (under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson) using a truck‐mounted CME 55 drill rig. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 33 to 50 feet. Borings SW‐01 through SW‐04 were advanced using 4‐inch diameter solid‐stem‐auger drilling techniques and Borings SW‐05 and SW‐06 were advanced using 8‐inch diameter hollow‐stem‐auger techniques. On completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with cuttings to the existing ground surface.

A.2.2 Soil and Rock 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 is summarized in Figure A‐1. Our representative classified rock samples in general accordance with the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) classification method. According to this system, rocks are classified based on the stratigraphic structure, rock strength, degree of weathering, and other properties. The rock classification system is summarized in Figure A‐2.

A-2

A

PP

EN

D

IX

A

: S U

B

SU

R

FA

C E

EX

PL

O R

A

TI

O N

S

A.2.3 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Disturbed samples were obtained in the borings in general accordance with the Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM Designation: D1586). The SPT consists of driving a 2‐inch outside diameter (O.D.), 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. If high penetration resistance prevented driving the total length of the sampler, the Shannon & Wilson field representative recorded the partial penetration depth and blow count. 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 raw N‐values are shown on 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.2.4 Modified California (MC) Drive Samples

Disturbed soil and rock samples were also obtained using a Modified California (MC) sampler. The MC test procedure is similar to the SPT, except a larger diameter barrel sampler (2½‐inch O.D., lined with 2‐inch‐diameter brass tubing) is used and driven

12 inches. During sampling, the field representative recorded the number of blows for each

6‐inch increment of penetration. As a result of the larger diameter, the MC sampler yields slightly higher raw blow count numbers when compared to SPT N‐values for similar soils.

Because the difference in blow counts does not significantly impact our evaluation, we used the field MC blow counts over the 12‐inch increment to evaluate the relative density and consistency/stiffness of the subsurface materials following SPT terminology. Representative samples were sealed in the brass liner tubes with plastic caps and transported to our laboratory in Denver, Colorado.

KS FTFW KIRW 14(1) 104(1)

Kirwin, Kansas

102360-001January 2020

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 K

IR

W

IN

K

S .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/1

6/

102360-001

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Kirwin, Kansas

January 2020

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

Peat or other highly organic soils (see

ASTM D4427)

FIG. A-1

OL

(less than 5% fines)

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.

_B O

R

IN

G _C

LA

S

S

C F

L K

IR

W

IN

K

S .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/1

6/

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)

102360-001

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Kirwin, Kansas

January 2020

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 K

IR

W

IN

K

S .G

P J

S W

N E

W .G

D T

/1

6/

Kirwin, Kansas

102360-001January 2020

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

ROCK CLASSIFICATION

AND LOG KEY

Sheet 1 of 2

JOINT (JT) - Planar break with little or no displacement

FRACTURE - Collective term for any natural break excluding shears, shear zones, and faults

FOLIATION JOINT (FJ) or BEDDING JOINT (BJ) - Joint along foliation or bedding

INCIPIENT JOINT (IJ) or INCIPIENT FRACTURE (IF) - Joint or fracture not evident until wetted and dried;

breaks along existing surface

RANDOM FRACTURE (RF) - Natural, very irregular fracture that does not belong to a set

BEDDING PLANE SEPARATION or PARTING - A separation along bedding after extraction from stress relief or slaking

FRACTURE ZONE (FZ) - Planar zone of broken rock without gouge

Extremely Close

Close

Moderate

Wide

Very Wide

Extremely Wide

2.5 to 8 in

6 to 20 ft

MECHANICAL BREAK (MB) - Breaks due to drilling or handling; drilling break (DB), hammer break (HB)

SHEAR (SH) - Surface of differential movement evident by presence of slickensides, striations, or polishing

SHEAR ZONE (SZ) - Zone of gouge and rock fragments bounded by planar shear surfaces

FAULT (FT) - Shear zone of significant extent;

differentiation from shear zone may be site-specific

DISCONTINUITY DATA

14 to 20

10 to 14

6 to 10

2 to 6

0 to 2

VERY ROUGH: Near vertical edges evident

ROUGH: Smooth ridges, surface abrasion

SLIGHTLY ROUGH: Asperities on surface can be felt

SMOOTH: Appears and feels smooth

SLICKENSIDED: Visible polishing, striated surface

JOINT ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT (JRC)

DISCONTINUITY TERMS

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-2

Very Close

< 1 in

1 to 2.5 in

8 to 24 in

24 in to 6 ft

> 20 ft

36 to 145

>36,250

R0

Tight

Partly Open

145 to 700

700 to 3,600

Very Weak RockR1

R2

Very Tight

Open

Moderately Wide

Wide

Very Wide

Extremely Wide

Cavernous

<0.1mm

0.1 to 0.25mm

0.5 to 2.5mm

10mm to 1cm

1 to 10cm

10 to 100cm

>1m

0.25 to 0.5mm

2.5 to 10mm

Weak Rock

Fresh

Slight discoloration on surface

Rock reduced to a soil with relict rock texture

Extremely Strong Rock

No visible sign of rock material weathering

Residual Soil

Highly Weathered

Completely Weathered

Moderately Weathered

Slightly Weathered

Discoloring evident;

Less than half of the rock material is decomposed

WEATHERING

Entire rock mass discolored;

More than half of the rock material is decomposed

All rock material is converted to soil

R3

R4

R5

R6

STRENGTH

Medium Strong Rock

Strong Rock

Very Strong Rock 14,500 to 36,250

7,200 to 14,500

3,600 to 7,200

Extremely Weak Rock

R O

C K

C

LA

S S

K E

Y

P

(N E

W S

T R

E N

G T

H S

C

F L

K

IR

W

IN

K S

.G P

J S

H A

N _W

IL

.G

D T

/1

/1

SPACING

SPACING

APERTURE WIDTH

DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTIONGRADE APPROX. UCS

(psi)

TERM SPACING

COEFFICIENT

DESCRIPTIONTERM

102360-001January 2020

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Kirwin, Kansas

Sandstone

Siltstone

Claystone

Shale

Breccia

Coal

Limestone

Dolomite

Coral

Gypsum

Halite

Calcite

Tuff

Rhyolite

Dacite

Andesite

Basalt

Granite

Grano-diorite

Diorite

Gabbro

Marble

Quartzite

Slate

Phyllite

Schist

Gneiss

Metamorphic Rocks

Intrusive Igneous Rocks

Extrusive Igneous Rocks

Evaporite Rocks

Carbonate Sedimentary

Rocks

Clastic Sedimentary

Rocks

BEDROCK TYPE

GRAPHIC

SYMBOL

Conglomerate

ROCK NAME

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

FIG. A-2SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

ROCK CLASSIFICATION

AND LOG KEY

Sheet 2 of 2

R O

C K

C

LA

S S

K E

Y

P

C F

L K

IR

W

IN

K

S .G

P J

S H

A N

_W

IL

.G D

T

/1

/1

ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS

-1

S -2

S -3

S -4

S -5

S -6

S -7

S -8

S -9

S -1

Medium stiff to very stiff, yellow brown to dark brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist;

few limestone fragments.

Fill

Medium stiff, dark brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); wet; few roots; few limestone fragments.

Alluvium

Soft to medium stiff, light gray-brown, Lean Clay (CL); wet; few sand.

Alluvium

SHALE: weak, gray; closely-spaced, fissile;

fresh (Carlile Shale).

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 01/22/2019

D ur in g

D ri lli ng

1.75

0.25

0.5

9.0

22.0

34.0

39.9

January 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

39.9 ft.

~ 1740.5 ft.

FIG. A-3

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-01

4 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 Figures A-1 and A-2 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.

KS FTFW KIRW 14(1) 104(1)

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge

Kirwin, Kansas

0 60

Total Depth:

Top Elevation:

Vert. Datum:

Horiz. Datum:

Ground Water Level ATD

20 40

Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants

102360-001

Solid-Stem Auger Vine Laboratories CME 55 Truck

LEGEND

Drilling Method:

Drilling Company:

Drill Rig Equipment:

Other Comments:

G ro un d

W at er

D ep th , f t.

Modified California Sampler

Standard Penetration Test

P oc ke t

P en ts f

D ep th , f t.

Latitude:

Longitude:

Station:

Offset:

20 40

QCL 3

~ 39.61915° ~ -99.16366°

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

C F

L K

IR

W

IN

K

S .G

P J

/2

1/

Liquid Limit Natural Water Content

% Fines % Water Content

Plastic Limit

(<0.075mm)

(blows/foot)PENETRATION RESISTANCE Hammer Wt. & Drop: 140 lbs / 30 inches

50/5"

S -2

S -3

S -4

S -5

S -6

S -7

S -8

S -9

Medium stiff to stiff, dark brown, Sandy Lean Clay (CL); moist; few gravel; limestone fragments.

Fill

Medium stiff, dark brown, Lean Clay with Sand (CL); wet; few roots.

Alluvium

Soft to medium stiff, light gray-brown, Lean Clay (CL); wet; trace sand; trace limestone fragments.

Alluvium

BOTTOM OF BORING

COMPLETED ON 01/22/2019

D ur in g

D ri lli ng

1.75

0.5

9.0

18.0

35.5

January 2020

Sample Not Recovered

Hole Diam.:

Rod Type.:

Hammer Type:

SHANNON & WILSON, INC.

35.5 ft.

~ 1741.5 ft.

FIG. A-4

S am pl es

LOG OF BORING SW-02

4 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 Figures A-1 and A-2 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…