Project_Specifications.pdf

U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BURRO CREEK WATER SYSTEM AND

RV DUMP STATION RENOVATIONS

U.S. BLM – ARIZONA KINGMAN FIELD OFFICE

2755 MISSION BLVD

KINGMAN, AZ 86401

Project Specifications

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

March 2021 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjRj7qiodjPAhXJWT4KHYVGDwYQjRwIBw&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior&bvm=bv.135475266,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNE6hwjlcWlUZf-LlmIR9a_KRGs4CQ&ust=1476464552848630 https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjT2oXhoNjPAhVFVD4KHbUhAc4QjRwIBw&url=https://reports.blm.gov/reports.cfm?application%3DRAS&psig=AFQjCNGX6gpX3AX_gs4hjn1ylozu8zkjlw&ust=1476464381007529

Page Left Intentionally Blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS 000000 - 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BURRO CREEK WATER SYSTEM AND RV DUMP STATION RENOVATIONS

SPECIFICATIONS

DIVISION SECTION TITLE

DIVISION 00 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

000105 CERTIFICATIONS

003132 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

011000 SUMMARY

012500 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURES

013100 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION

013200 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS DOCUMENTATION

013233 PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

013300 SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

014000 QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

014200 REFERENCES

015000 TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

017300 EXECUTION

017329 CUTTING AND PATCHING

017419 CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL

017700 CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES

017839 PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

024119 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

031100 CONCRETE FORMING

032000 CONCRETE REINFORCING

033000 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

311000 SITE CLEARING

312000 EARTH MOVING

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

331100 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

331630 DISINFECTION OF WATER STORAGE FACILITIES

331640 REPAIR AND MODIFICATIONS TO STEEL WATER STORAGE TANKS

333100 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 000000 - 2

Page Left Intentionally Blank

BURRO CREEK WATER SYSTEM MARCH 2021

AND RV DUMP STATION RENOVATIONS

VICINITY MAP

Bagdad, AZ

Project Location

Wikieup, AZ

LOCATION MAP

Project Location

AZ US HWY 95

CERTIFICATIONS 000105- 1

SECTION 000105 - CERTIFICATIONS

I hereby certify that this technical submission was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and responsible charge in accordance with the rules and regulations governing Architects and Engineers practicing in the State of Arizona. I am a duly registered Professional in the State of Arizona.

Discipline: Civil

Name: James Dale Hayson

Registration No.: 62210

CERTIFICATIONS 000105- 2

Page left intentionally blank

GEOTECHNICAL DATA 003132 - 1

SECTION 003132 – GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.1 BORING NOTES

A. Data shown on boring logs is for the Bidders’ information. Bidder should be cognizant that materials between borings can vary from that shown on logs. Final and complete identification of all materials between borings can be verified only by Site excavation.

Bidder shall assume full responsibility for excavating all materials encountered during construction regardless of density or groundwater condition.

B. The boring logs are an exact copy of the originals made by photo process reproduction. This information was obtained for design purposes and is made available to Bidders so they may have the same information the designers used. This information is not intended as a substitute for Bidder’s personal investigations, interpretations, or judgment. Bidder may make his own soils investigation, but he must first obtain Government’s approval. Failure of Bidder to conduct his own investigation or to analyze available data shall not relieve Bidder of any responsibility in excavating difficult materials.

C. Water levels indicated on the boring logs are subject to seasonal and/or annual variations.

D. The original investigation report is available for Bidder’s inspection at Government’s office.

1.2 ATTACHMENTS

A. Geotechnical Report: Geotechnical Engineering Report – Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation, Burro Creek Recreation Site, Wikieup, Arizona; Prepared by Terracon and dated October 15, 2020; Terracon Project No. 65205214.

END OF SECTION 003132

GEOTECHNICAL DATA 003132 - 2

REPORT C OVER PAGE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation

Burro Creek Recreation Site

Wikieup, Arizona

October 15, 2020

Terracon Project No. 65205214

Prepared for:

SEH, Inc.

Pueblo, Colorado

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

4685 South Ash Avenue, Suite H-4

Tempe, Arizona

10/15/2020

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 4685 S. Ash Avenue Ste. H-4 Tempe, Arizona 85282

P (480) 897 8200 F (480) 897 1133 terracon.com

REPORT C OVER LETTER TO SIGN

SEH, Inc.

503 North Main Street

Pueblo, Colorado 81003

Attn: Mr. Jimmy Hayson

Phone: (719) 423 7403

Email: jhayson@sehinc.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation Burro Creek Recreation Site Wikieup, Arizona

Dear Mr. Hayson:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with Terracon

Proposal No. P65205214 dated August 26, 2020. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical engineering parameters which will assist in the design and construction of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Matthew R. Kleinholz, E.I.T. Donald R. Clark, P.E.

Senior Staff Engineer Sr. Principal/Sr. Consultant

10/14/2020

Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation ■ Wikieup, Arizona

October 15, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 65205214

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

REPORT TOPICS

INTRODUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

CORROSIVITY

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

EARTHWORK

EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS/SHORING SYSTEMS

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

GENERAL COMMENTS

Note: This report was originally delivered in a web-based format. Orange Bold text in the report indicates a referenced section heading. The PDF version also includes hyperlinks which direct the reader to that section and clicking on the

GeoReport logo will bring you back to this page. For more interactive features, please view your project online at client.terracon.com.

ATTACHMENTS

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Note: Refer to each individual Attachment for a listing of contents.

http://client.terracon.com/

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation

Burro Creek Recreation Site

Wikieup, Arizona

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services performed for the Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation project to be located at the Burro Creek Recreation Site in Wikieup, Arizona. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

■ Subsurface soil conditions ■ Excavation considerations

■ Groundwater conditions ■ Lateral earth pressures

■ Site preparation and earthwork ■ Design soil parameters for trench shoring

The geotechnical engineering Scope of Services for this project included the advancement of seven (7) test borings to depths ranging from approximately 1½ to 9 feet below existing site grades and three (3) seismic refraction survey lines.

Maps showing the site, and boring and seismic refraction survey locations are shown in the Site

Location and Exploration Plan sections, respectively. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are contained in part on the boring logs and as separate graphs in the Exploration Results section.

SITE CONDITIONS

The following description of site conditions is derived from our site visit in association with the field exploration and our review of publicly available geologic and topographic maps.

Item Description

Parcel Information The project is located at the Burro Creek Recreation Site in Wikieup, Arizona.

See Site Location for additional site location information.

Existing

Improvements

The site is an existing campground. The campground consists of an RV dump station, two restroom facilities, and shaded picnic tables.

Current Ground

Cover

At the time of our field exploration, the ground surface at the site generally consisted of bare soil and some desert vegetation.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Existing Topography The site slopes down from the east towards the west. The topographic relief across the site is approximately 65 feet.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Our initial understanding of the project was provided in our proposal and was discussed during project planning. A period of collaboration has transpired since the project was initiated, and our final understanding of the project conditions is as follows:

Item Description

Project Description

Based on the information provided in the Scope of Work dated August 20, 2020, the proposed project will consist of the complete replacement of the existing site water and RV Dump Station system. The Burro Creek

Recreation Site potable water system was originally constructed in 1970 and collectively serves eight (8) hose bibs throughout the site, two (2) water fountains (developed in 1990), one (1) dump station, and two (2) flush toilet restroom facilities (developed in 1990). The project will also include the removal and replacement of 3/4" galvanized sewer pipe with 4” plastic sewer pipe to the septic system, removal and reconstruction of the dump area retention concrete pads, and removal and reconstruction of the rock retaining wall around the dump station. We understand the existing rock retaining wall is approximately 5 feet high with a length of approximately

50 feet. We understand new foundations will not be constructed as part of the proposed project.

Planned Construction We understand the existing rock retaining wall will be removed and will be replaced with a new gravity rock retaining wall.

Grading/Slopes

We anticipate there will not be any grading operations across the site. We understand trench excavations on the order of up to 6 feet will be required to remove and replace the existing water and sewer pipes are anticipated.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

The field exploration for the project consisted of the following test borings:

Number of Borings Boring Depth (feet) Project Location

5 1.5 to 9 1 Proposed Trench Excavation Areas

2 7.5 to 8 2 Proposed Rock Retaining Wall Area

1. The borings were planned to be advanced to a depth of 10 feet, but all borings encountered auger refusal prior to full boring advancement.

2. The borings were planned to be advanced to a depth of 15 feet, but both borings encountered auger refusal prior to full boring advancement.

Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the initial boring layout and made adjustments in the field as necessary based on conflicts with underground utilities. Coordinates were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±15 feet). If elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend the borings be surveyed.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: The borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drill rig using continuous flight hollow stem augers. Penetration testing was attempted in every boring. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the boring logs at the test depths. A

3-inch O.D. split-barrel sampling spoon with 2.5-inch I.D. ring lined sampler was also used for sampling. Ring-lined, split-barrel sampling procedures are similar to standard split spoon sampling procedure; however, blow counts are typically recorded for 6-inch intervals for a total of

12 inches of penetration. Bulk samples of auger cuttings were obtained from the borings at selected depth intervals Groundwater was not encountered in the borings during the field exploration. For safety purposes, all borings were backfilled with auger cuttings immediately upon their completion.

The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information were recorded on the field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on observations and the results of tests of the samples in our laboratory.

Seismic Refraction Surveys

Seismic refraction survey test lines were performed at 3 locations across the project site to complement the field exploration and further evaluate the subsurface characteristics. The seismic refraction survey test line locations are shown on the attached Exploration Plan. The compressional p-wave velocity profiles interpreted along the survey test lines are also presented in the Exploration Results section of this report.

The seismic refraction testing was completed with a 2-man crew equipped with a 24-channel seismograph, 24 geophones and a computer to record and to store field data. The seismograph equipment used for the seismic refraction surveys was an ES-3000 manufactured by Geometrics.

The seismic refraction method of field exploration consists of measuring (at known points along the surface of the ground) the travel time of compressional waves (p-waves) generated by an impulse energy source, recorded by a detector (geophone). The field data recorded consists of the time it takes the compressional wave to travel from the source to the detectors, and the distance between the detector and the source. Depending upon the hardness and depth of subsurface materials, the travel time of the compressional waves are shortened and refracted quicker as the material becomes harder with depth.

The seismic refraction surveys were performed with geophone spacings of approximately 3 feet resulting in a total line length of approximately 75 feet. Off-end shot points were completed for the test lines at a distance equal to the geophone spacing, in addition to various shot points performed at selected points along the seismic refraction survey line. The field data obtained was processed with the SeisImager software program to generate appropriate time-distance curves. The data obtained from our field exploration was evaluated and interpreted using Snell's law to determine the compressional wave velocities of each stratum. The seismic survey data obtained in the field was interpreted to obtain seismic compressive wave velocities of the subsurface material layers which can also be correlated to rippability and excavation characteristics.

Laboratory Testing

Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil

Classification System (USCS). At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

General laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in the Exploration Results section of this report. These results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation recommendations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.

Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties:

◼ Atterberg Limits ◼ Sieve Analysis

◼ Moisture Content ◼ Dry Density

◼ Moisture Density Relationship ◼ Minimum Resistivity

◼ Soluble Chloride ◼ pH

◼ Soluble Sulfate

GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Site Geology

The project is located in the Transition Zone or Central Mountain Region (Nations and Stump1) physiographic province of Arizona. The Central Mountain Region is a northwest trending structure between the Basin and Range physiographic province to the southwest and Colorado Plateau to the northeast. Landscape features of the Central Mountain Region include the Black Hills near

Jerome and Prescott, the Mazatzal and Sierra Ancha Mountains near Roosevelt Lake, and the

Salt River Canyon between Show Low and Globe. The Central Mountain Region is characterized by rugged mountains of igneous, metamorphic and deformed sedimentary and volcanic rocks of

Precambrian age, with erosional remnants of the Paleozoic age.

Surficial geologic conditions mapped at the site (2Richard, et al, 2000) consist of Late to Middle

Miocene Basaltic Rocks. This unit is described as mostly dark, mesa-forming basalt deposited as lava flows. Rocks of this unit are widely exposed south of Camp Verde (Hickey Formation basalts), in the Mohon Mountains north of Bagdad, "The Mesa" east of Parker, and at other scattered locations in western Arizona. Rocks of this unit were not tilted by middle-Tertiary normal faulting except in a narrow belt from north of Phoenix to the northwest corner of the state.

Subsurface Profile

Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs presented in the Exploration Results section. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be

1Nations, Dale and Edmond Stump, 1981, “Geology of Arizona”, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.

2 Richard, S. M., Reynolds, S.J., Spencer, J. E., and Pearthree, P. A., 2000, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Map 35, 1 sheet, scale 1:1,000,000.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 gradual. Based on conditions encountered in the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description

Approximate

Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet)

Material Description Relative

Density

Approximate Compressional

Wave Velocity (feet/second)

Stratum 1

1.5 to 9

Clayey Sand, Clayey

Gravel with Sand, Poorly-Graded Gravel with Sand, Silty Sand

Medium

Dense to

Very Dense

1,300 to 1,650

Stratum 2

9 (maximum depth explored)

Poorly-Graded

Gravel, Bedrock

Very

Dense

Gravel and Cobbles: 2,750 to 2,900

Bedrock: 5,100

1. Auger refusal was encountered in every boring in Stratum 2 soils or bedrock.

2. The elevated compressional wave velocity was only encountered at the location of seismic refraction line

SL-1 and is assumed to be associated with bedrock underlying the project site.

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in the Exploration Results section. Test results indicate the near surface sand soils exhibit non-plastic to medium plasticity characteristics.

Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not observed in any test boring at the time of our field exploration, nor when checked upon completion of drilling. These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations.

Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather conditions, and other factors.

Based on information obtained from the Arizona Department of Water Resources – Groundwater

Data website (https://gisweb.azwater.gov/waterresourcedata/GWSI.aspx), the depth to regional groundwater was measured in May 1967 to be approximately 15.75 feet below the ground surface

(approximate elevation of 1,894 feet above mean sea level) at an Arizona Department of Water

Resources (ADWR) monitored well site (Local I.D.: B-14-11 19CDA1UNSURV) located approximately 100 feet northwest of the project site.

CORROSIVITY

The following table lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electrical resistivity, and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for project construction.

https://gisweb.azwater.gov/waterresourcedata/GWSI.aspx

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Boring Sample

Depth (feet) Soil Description

Soluble

Sulfate

(ppm)

Soluble

Chloride

(ppm)

Electrical

Resistivity

(Ω-cm) pH

B-1 0 – 3 Clayey Sand 27 91 1,241 8.5

B-4 0 – 3 Clayey Sand 33 13 3,090 8.4

B-5 0 – 4 Clayey Sand 138 71 1,656 8.4

B-6 0 – 4 Clayey Sand 262 854 389 8.0

Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that samples of the on-site soils tested classify as S0 according to Table 19.3.1.1 of Section 318 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building Code

Requirements for Structural Concrete. Concrete should be designed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, Section 318, Chapter

19.

These values should be used to help determine potential corrosive characteristics of the on-site soils with respect to contact with the various underground materials which will be used for project construction. Refer to Summary of Laboratory Results contained in Exploration Results for the complete results of the corrosivity testing performed on the site soils in conjunction with this geotechnical exploration. The corrosion information presented is specific to the samples tested.

If the actual soils that will be in contact with the structures at the site are different than those tested, then additional corrosion testing should be performed. Terracon is not a corrosion engineer, and our scope of work was limited to performing corrosion laboratory tests on selected samples, presenting these results, and providing a brief comparison of the results to selected criteria. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted if corrosion of underground utilities and structures is a concern.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

The subsurface conditions on the project site in the vicinity of the proposed improvements are somewhat variable, ranging from medium dense to very dense sand soils to very dense gravel overlying bedrock. Results of the seismic refraction survey lines in the upper 4 to 6 feet generally indicated the seismic velocities ranged from about 1,300 to 1,650 feet/second. This material may require the use of heavy-duty equipment capable of handling very dense soils with significant gravel content. The seismic velocities of the material beneath the near-surface soils generally ranged from about 2,750 to 2,900 feet per second at the locations of SL-2 and SL-3 which is indicative of very dense soil with significant gravel and cobble contents and possibly boulder sized particles. The seismic profile at the location of SL-1 below a depth of approximately 7.5 feet indicates a seismic velocity of over 5,000 feet/second which is indicative of bedrock. The Caterpillar Performance

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Handbook should be consulted to determine the rippability characteristics and equipment required to handle these materials.

The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.

EARTHWORK

Earthwork is anticipated to include excavations, trenching, and engineered fill placement. The following sections provide recommendations for use in the preparation of specifications for the work. Recommendations include critical quality criteria, as necessary, to render the site in the state considered in our geotechnical engineering evaluation. We recommend trench excavations and materials conform to the requirements outlined in the Maricopa Association of Governments

(MAG) Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Section 601 – Trench Excavation, Backfilling, and Compaction, including the minimum and maximum trench widths.

Fill Material Types

All trench backfill materials should conform to the requirements and specifications outlined in the applicable MAG standards.

Pipe Bedding

As per MAG 601.4.2, the pipe bedding material should conform to Aggregate Base Course (ABC) as described in MAG Specification 702. The minimum bedding thickness should be at least 4 inches, except in the case where rock is encountered at the bottom of the trench excavation. If rock is encountered in the trench bottom, it should be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 6 inches below the pipe barrel and the over-excavation backfilled with ABC as per MAG 601.2.5.

Pipe Haunching

Pipe haunching is defined in MAG 601.4.3 as the material placed between the bedding material and the springline. All haunching material should consist of ABC per MAG Specification 702.

Initial Backfill

The initial backfill is defined in MAG 601.4.4 as the material placed between the springline and

12 inches above the top of the pipe. All initial backfill material should consist of ABC per MAG

Specification 702. The lift thickness of the initial backfill material should not exceed 12 inches for flexible pipes.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Final Backfill

The final backfill is defined in MAG 601.4.5 as the material placed above the initial backfill to the top of the trench. Final backfill material may consist of suitable on-site soils. The loose lift thickness of the final backfill material should not exceed 12 inches.

Fill Compaction Requirements

Engineered fill should meet the following compaction and moisture requirements:

Material Type and Location Per the Standard Proctor Test (ASTM D698)

Minimum

Compaction

Requirement

Range of Moisture Contents for Compaction (referenced from optimum moisture content)

Minimum Maximum

Beneath any structural feature including proposed pavements (or roadways), curb, gutter or where the trench excavation is within 2 feet of these elements:

Upper 2 feet below surface 100 -3% +3%

From 2 feet below surface to 1 foot above top of pipe 2 95 -3% +3%

From 1 foot above the pipe to bottom of trench 95 -3% +3%

Outside limits of structural features as outlined above:

Upper 2 feet below surface 95 -3% +3%

From 2 feet below surface to 1 foot above top of pipe 95 -3% +3%

From 1 foot above the pipe to bottom of trench 95 -3% +3%

1. The moisture content and compaction should be measured for each lift of engineered fill during placement.

Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

2. For intervals where the distance from 2 feet below the surface to 1 foot above the top of the pipe exceeds 5 feet, the recommended level of compaction should be increased to a minimum of 98%.

Construction Observation and Testing

The earthwork efforts should be monitored under the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

Each lift of compacted fill should be tested, evaluated, and reworked, as necessary, until approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of additional lifts. Each lift of fill should be tested for density and water content at a frequency of at least one test for every 50 linear feet of compacted utility trench backfill.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

In addition to the documentation of the essential parameters necessary for construction, the continuation of the Geotechnical Engineer into the construction phase of the project provides the continuity to maintain the Geotechnical Engineer’s evaluation of subsurface conditions, including assessing variations and associated design changes.

EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS/SHORING SYSTEMS

Excavation and Trenching Considerations

Shallow excavations/trenching for the proposed improvements are anticipated to be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment capable of handling very dense soils with significant gravel contents. Some additional effort may be necessary to extract cobble and possibly boulder sized materials, particularly in deep narrow excavations such as utility trenches.

Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade water content. Water collecting in the trench bottom should be removed. If the subgrade desiccates, saturates, or is disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or the materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to pipe bedding placement.

If excavations need to penetrate into the bedrock, ripping or jack-hammering may be needed to advance the excavation. Consideration should be given to obtaining a unit price for difficult excavation in the contract documents for the project.

The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottoms.

Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, state and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Instability in the form of caving, sloughing, and raveling should be expected in shallower excavations in the loose sand soils encountered along the alignment. The contractor should be advised that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed those specified by these safety regulations. Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending upon the soil conditions encountered and other external factors. These regulations are strictly enforced and if they are not followed, the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractor could be liable and subject to substantial penalties. Under no circumstances should the information provided in this report be interpreted to mean that Terracon is assuming any responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of the construction operations.

OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations classify soils into three basic types (i.e., Type

A, B, and C). Depending upon the soil type, OSHA required excavation slopes range from:

◼ 3/4H:1V (horizontal:vertical) for Type A soils;

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

◼ 1H:1V for Type B soils; and, ◼ 1-1/2H:1V for Type C soils.

OSHA dictates that any excavation extending to a depth of more than 20 feet shall be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer. Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, it appears the excavations will extend primarily into sand soils with variable amounts of gravel, and gravel soils with variable amounts of sand. The granular soils are generally medium dense to very dense. Rock could be encountered in trench excavations in some areas on the project site.

Based on the soil profile the soils at the site will classify as Type C. The contractor should evaluate the soils as excavations are made for the proposed improvements.

In lieu of trench slopes as defined by OSHA, trench shoring or shields (trench boxes) may be utilized to increase excavation slopes. We anticipate that trench boxes will be utilized where the waterline alignment lies adjacent to existing narrow unimproved roadways and parking areas. The contractor would be responsible for the design of the temporary shoring in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Care should be taken during excavation to protect the structural integrity of any existing structures or adjacent underground utilities. Depending upon factors such as the depth of excavation, the location of the existing improvements, groundwater and soil conditions, temporary sheeting and/or shoring may be required. For preliminary designs, excavations should not be performed within a surface defined as 5 feet horizontal from the nearest edge of existing foundations or other settlement sensitive structures and then downward at 2H:1V slope. Flatter slopes may be required, and the contractor should be advised to consult with a Registered Professional Engineer to provide specific recommendations regarding measures to protect existing improvements.

Particular caution should be exercised when excavations are performed near existing utility lines.

The OSHA trench safety guidelines for adequate side slopes based on soil types may not apply in these situations. Existing underground utilities should be shored and braced as required to maintain their integrity and appropriately designed trench boxes or sheeting and bracing should be used to provide for worker safety.

All vehicles and soil piles should be kept a sufficient lateral distance from the crest of the trench slope to maintain safe working conditions. Vehicles and soil piles located adjacent to trenches would significantly influence the stability of the slopes as outlined by the OSHA regulations. A detailed stability analysis would be required for these conditions. Additionally, vibrations from traffic, construction equipment, or similar sources can influence slope stability. The exposed slope faces should be protected from the elements. Surface water should be diverted from all excavations. If water enters an excavation it should be removed along with any loosened or softened soil. The length of open trench should be held to a minimum.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

The materials which may be encountered along the excavation of the proposed water line alignment will and should be expected to vary. The borings represent soil conditions at discrete locations and are not necessarily representative of conditions along the entire alignment. Thus, the stability of the excavation slope should be reviewed continuously by qualified personnel during construction.

The generalized guidelines provided above are based solely upon the materials encountered in the widely spaced exploratory borings.

Braced Excavation/Shoring Systems

For braced excavations in either the sand soils above any free water surface, shielding or shoring systems should be designed for an apparent pressure envelope in psf of at least 25H, where H is the height of the shored excavation in feet supporting the soils. Appropriate surcharge values should be included in the pressure envelope to account for anticipated traffic next to the trench, the effect of excavation spoils or other external loads. For a uniform pressure at the surface due to excavation spoils, the apparent pressure envelope to add to the pressure envelope due to the soil would be 0.34q where q is equal to the surcharge pressure in psf.

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The following lateral earth pressure parameters are presented for use in the design of the proposed rock retaining wall at the site. These values are based on using the re-use of on-site soils as fill and backfill material.

For soils above any free water surface, recommended equivalent design parameters for unrestrained foundation elements are:

Earth Pressure Design Case Design Recommendation

2,4

Equivalent Fluid Pressure for the Active Case (Ka) 35 psf/ft

Equivalent Fluid Pressure for the Passive Case (Kp) 330 psf/ft

Equivalent Fluid Pressure for the At-Rest Case (Ko) 55 psf/ft

Coefficient of Base Friction 0.45

Allowable Bearing Capacity (embedment depth of at least 1 foot below grade) 2,000 psf

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

Earth Pressure Design Case Design Recommendation

2,4

1. For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height. For passive earth pressure, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

2. The design values are based on utilizing on-site soils as backfill placed and compacted as outlined in the

Earthwork section of this report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to walls should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors.

3. The coefficient of base sliding should be reduced to 0.35 when used in conjunction with passive pressure.

4. The lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety, they assume drained conditions, and they are not applicable for submerged soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if such conditions are to be included in the design.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather.

The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction.

Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer, where noted in this revised report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental recommendations.

Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the sole benefit and exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to our client.

Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to our client and is not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.

Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate excavation cost. Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the excavating cost estimator as there may be variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact excavation cost. Any parties charged with estimating excavation costs should seek their own site characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14

Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

ATTACHMENTS

SITE LOCATION AND EXPLORATION PLANS

Contents:

Site Location Plan

Exploration Plan

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

SITE LOCATION

Water System and RV Dump Station Renvovation - Burro Creek Recreation Site ■ Wikieup, AZ October 13, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 65205214

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: KAISER SPRING, AZ (1/1/1980).

SITE

EXPLORATION PLAN

Water System and RV Dump Station Renvovation - Burro Creek Recreation Site ■ Wikieup, AZ October 13, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 65205214

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY

MICROSOFT BING MAPS

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

EXPLORATION RESULTS

Contents:

General Notes

Unified Soil Classification System

Boring Logs (B-1 through B-6)

Seismic Refraction Survey P-Wave Velocity Profiles (SL-1 through SL-3)

Atterberg Limits

Grain Size Distribution

Moisture Density Relationship (3 pages)

Summary of Laboratory Results

Note: All attachments are one page unless noted above.

Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation - Burro Creek Recreation Site Wikieup, Arizona less than 0.25

0.50 to 1.00

> 4.00

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Qu, (tsf)

0.25 to 0.50

1.00 to 2.00

2.00 to 4.00

Auger Cuttings

Ring Sampler

Standard Penetration Test

N

(HP)

(T)

(DCP)

UC

(PID)

(OVA)

Standard Penetration Test Resistance (Blows/Ft.)

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Unconfined Compressive Strength

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS

GENERAL NOTES

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are the levels measured in the borehole at the times indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations.

Water Initially Encountered

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Water Level After a Specified Period of Time

Cave In Encountered

Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and Longitude are approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the exploration points for this project. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area.

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used. ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance with ASTM D2487.

In addition to USCS classification, coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The soil boring logs contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this document. Use of these soil boring logs for any other purpose may not be appropriate.

RELEVANCE OF SOIL BORING LOG

Descriptive Term (Consistency)

0 - 6

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Hard

Very Loose

Loose

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

Descriptive Term (Density)

Standard Penetration or N-Value Blows/Ft.

0 - 3

4 - 9 7 - 18

10 - 29 19 - 58

30 - 50 59 - 98

> 50 > 99 Very Stiff

Standard Penetration or N-Value

Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler Blows/Ft.

5 - 9

Stiff

Medium Stiff

Soft

Very Soft

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)

Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

STRENGTH TERMS

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)

Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

2 - 4

4 - 8

8 - 15

15 - 30

> 30

0 - 1

3 - 4

< 3

10 - 18

19 - 42

> 42

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group Name B

Coarse-Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H

Sands:

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

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J

CL Lean clay K, L, M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL

Organic clay K, L, M, N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH

Organic clay K, L, M, P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.

B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

10-13

50/0"

11.0 102

34-15-19

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, fine to coarse sand, medium plasticity, brown, medium dense hard drilling

Auger Refusal on Gravel and Cobbles at 4 Feet

4.0 1927+/-

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

W

A T

E R

S Y

S T

E M

A N

D .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

0/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Latitude: 34.538° Longitude: -113.4503°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev.: 1931 (Ft.) +/-

Advancement Method:

8' O.D. Hollow-Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: 65205214

Drill Rig: CME 75

BORING LOG NO. B-1

Short Elliott Hendrickson IncorporatedCLIENT:

Pueblo, Colorado

Driller: J&R Drilling

Boring Completed: 08-16-2020

PROJECT: Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation - Burro Creek Recreation Site

Elevations Obtained from Google Earth Pro

Burro Creek Recreational Site Wikieup, Arizona

SITE:

Boring Started: 08-16-2020

4685 S Ash Ave, Ste H-4 Tempe, AZ

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, low to medium plasticity, brown, medium dense, hard drilling

Auger Refusal on Gravel and Cobbles at 2.5 Feet

2.5 1927.5+/-

6-7-13 N=20

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G E

O S

M A

R T

L O

G -N

O W

E

LL

W

A T

E R

S Y

S T

E M

A N

D .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

0/

/2

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

Latitude: 34.5376° Longitude: -113.4505°

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev.: 1930 (Ft.) +/-

Advancement Method:

8' O.D. Hollow-Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion.

Notes:

Project No.: 65205214

Drill Rig: CME 75

BORING LOG NO. B-2

Short Elliott Hendrickson IncorporatedCLIENT:

Pueblo, Colorado

Driller: J&R Drilling

Boring Completed: 08-16-2020

PROJECT: Water System and RV Dump Station Renovation - Burro Creek Recreation Site

Elevations Obtained from Google Earth Pro

D E

P T

H

F t.)

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

S

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

D R

Y U

N

IT

W E

IG

H

T pc f)

ATTERBERG

LIMITS

LL-PL-PI

LOCATION See Exploration Plan

Burro Creek Recreational Site Wikieup, Arizona

SITE:

Boring Started: 08-16-2020

4685 S Ash Ave, Ste H-4 Tempe, AZ

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

Groundwater not encountered

S A

M P

LE

T

Y

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP), fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, nonplastic, light brown, very dense, hard drilling

Auger Refusal on Gravel and Cobbles at…