DOCSLIB.ORG

Arizona Missing Linkages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arizona Missing Linkages ARIZONA MISSING LINKAGES Granite Mountain - Black Hills Linkage Design Paul Beier, Emily Garding, Daniel Majka 2008 GRANITE MOUNTAIN-BLACK HILLS LINKAGE DESIGN Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. We thank Dr. Phil Rosen, Matt Good, Chasa O’Brien, Dr. Jason Marshal, Ted McKinney, and Taylor Edwards for parameterizing models for focal species and suggesting focal species. Catherine Wightman, Fenner Yarborough, Janet Lynn, Mylea Bayless, Andi Rogers, Mikele Painter, Valerie Horncastle, Matthew Johnson, Jeff Gagnon, Erica Nowak, Lee Luedeker, Allen Haden, Shaula Hedwall, and Martin Lawrence helped identify focal species and species experts. Robert Shantz provided photos for many of the species accounts. Shawn Newell, Jeff Jenness, Megan Friggens, and Matt Clark provided helpful advice on analyses and reviewed portions of the results. Funding This project was funded by a grant from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Northern Arizona University. Recommended Citation Beier, P., E. Garding, and D. Majka. 2008. Arizona Missing Linkages: Granite Mountain-Black Hills Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ I LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. III TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... VI INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 NATURE NEEDS ROOM TO MOVE ............................................................................................................................... 1 A STATEWIDE VISION ................................................................................................................................................. 1 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GRANITE MOUNTAIN – BLACK HILLS LINKAGE ................................................ 2 EXISTING CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................................... 3 THREATS TO CONNECTIVITY ...................................................................................................................................... 4 LINKAGE DESIGN & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 7 THREE ROUTES PROVIDE CONNECTIVITY ACROSS A DIVERSE LANDSCAPE ............................................................... 7 LAND OWNERSHIP, LAND COVER, AND TOPOGRAPHIC PATTERNS WITHIN THE LINKAGE DESIGN ............................. 7 REMOVING AND MITIGATING BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT ......................................................................................... 12 IMPACTS OF ROADS ON WILDLIFE ............................................................................................................................ 12 Mitigation for Roads ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Standards and Guidelines for Wildlife Crossing Structures ................................................................................ 15 EXISTING ROADS IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN AREA .................................................................................................... 18 Existing Highway Crossing Structures in the Linkage Design ............................................................................ 18 Recommendations for Highway Crossing Structures in Strand A, B, and C ....................................................... 21 Additional Road Crossing Structures Needed to Avoid Isolation of Pronghorn Populations Not Served by the Three Main Linkage Strands ............................................................................................................................... 21 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS BARRIERS TO MOVEMENT .............................................................................................. 24 Urban Barriers in the Linkage Design Area ........................................................................................................ 25 Mitigation for Urban Barriers ............................................................................................................................. 28 IMPEDIMENTS TO THE UPPER VERDE RIVER ............................................................................................................. 29 Importance of Riparian Systems in the Southwest ............................................................................................... 29 Stream Impediments in the Linkage Design Area ................................................................................................ 30 Mitigating Stream Impediments ........................................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX A: LINKAGE DESIGN METHODS .................................................................................................. 32 FOCAL SPECIES SELECTION ...................................................................................................................................... 32 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELS ............................................................................................................................... 33 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BREEDING PATCHES & POTENTIAL POPULATION CORES .................................................. 34 IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICALLY BEST CORRIDORS ....................................................................................................... 35 PATCH CONFIGURATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 36 MINIMUM LINKAGE WIDTH ...................................................................................................................................... 37 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 38 APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL SPECIES ANALYSES .......................................................................................... 39 BLACK BEAR (URSUS AMERICANUS) .......................................................................................................................... 41 ELK (CERVUS ELAPHUS) ............................................................................................................................................ 45 JAVELINA (TAYASSU TAJACU) .................................................................................................................................... 49 MOUNTAIN LION (PUMA CONCOLOR) ........................................................................................................................ 53 MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) ..................................................................................................................... 57 PRONGHORN (ANTILOCAPRA AMERICANA) .................................................................................................................. 61 RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC SPECIES ............................................................................................................................. 67 Arizona Missing Linkages i Granite Mountain-Black Hills Linkage Design APPENDIX C: FOCAL SPECIES NOT MODELED ............................................................................................ 69 APPENDIX D: CREATION OF LINKAGE DESIGN .......................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF LAND COVER CLASSES .......................................................................... 72 APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX G: DATABASE OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................. 81 Arizona Missing Linkages ii Granite Mountain-Black Hills Linkage Design List of Tables & Figures List of Tables TABLE 1: FOCAL SPECIES SELECTED FOR GRANITE MOUNTAIN – BLACK HILLS LINKAGE .......................................... VII TABLE 2: APPROXIMATE LAND COVER FOUND WITHIN LINKAGE DESIGN ....................................................................... 8 TABLE 3: CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAKE SPECIES VULNERABLE TO THE THREE MAJOR DIRECT EFFECTS OF ROADS (FROM FORMAN ET AL. 2003). .............................................................................................................................. 13 TABLE 4: ROADS IN THE LINKAGE DESIGN. MANY OF THESE ARE DIRT ROADS. ........................................................... 18 TABLE 5: HABITAT SUITABILITY SCORES AND FACTOR WEIGHTS FOR EACH SPECIES. SCORES RANGE FROM 1 (BEST) TO 10 (WORST), WITH 1-3 INDICATING OPTIMAL HABITAT,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains Prescott National Forest, Arizona
    Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains Prescott National Forest, Arizona Prepared for: USDA Forest Service 333 Broadway SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 Prepared by: Weston Solutions, Inc. 960 West Elliot Road, Suite 201 Tempe, Arizona 85284 Contract No. AG-8371-D-09-0191 December 2010 Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Big Bug Watershed: Money Metals and Providence Mines Bradshaw Mountains, Prescott National Forest, Arizona December 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................E1 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 AREA POPULATION ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Geologic and Hydrologic Setting .......................................................................... 2 1.3.1.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Regional Climate ................................................................................................... 4 1.4 SITE OPERATION
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum
    Arizona Forest Action Plan 2015 Status Report and Addendum A report on the strategic plan to address forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities as identified in the 2010 Arizona Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy. November 20, 2015 Arizona State Forestry Acknowledgements: Arizona State Forestry would like to thank the USDA Forest Service for their ongoing support of cooperative forestry and fire programs in the State of Arizona, and for specific funding to support creation of this report. We would also like to thank the many individuals and organizations who contributed to drafting the original 2010 Forest Resource Assessment and Resource Strategy (Arizona Forest Action Plan) and to the numerous organizations and individuals who provided input for this 2015 status report and addendum. Special thanks go to Arizona State Forestry staff who graciously contributed many hours to collect information and data from partner organizations – and to writing, editing, and proofreading this document. Jeff Whitney Arizona State Forester Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial On the second anniversary of the Yarnell Hill Fire, the State of Arizona purchased 320 acres of land near the site where the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots sacrificed their lives while battling one of the most devastating fires in Arizona’s history. This site is now the Granite Mountain Hotshots Memorial State Park. “This site will serve as a lasting memorial to the brave hotshots who gave their lives to protect their community,” said Governor Ducey. “While we can never truly repay our debt to these heroes, we can – and should – honor them every day. Arizona is proud to offer the public a space where we can pay tribute to them, their families and all of our firefighters and first responders for generations to come.” Arizona Forest Action Plan – 2015 Status Report and Addendum Background Contents The 2010 Forest Action Plan The development of Arizona’s Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy (now known as Arizona’s “Forest Action Plan”) was prompted by federal legislative requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Prescott Valley Relocation Guide 2015-2016 1 Location & Climate
    www.azrelocationguides.com Top quality education is offered by many local area colleges and universities, along with the local school district. TABLE OF CONTENTS Location & Climate ...........................2 Housing & Shopping .........................3 Community Profile ........................ 4-6 Prescott Valley, Arizona Education ...................................... 7-9 Adult Living ......................................10 Healthcare ................................ 11-13 Recreation & Attractions .......... 14-16 ocated among the midst rolling hills and Day Trips .................................... 17-20 L grasslands between the Bradshaw and Cultural Arts ....................................21 Mingus Mountains, lies one of the newest and friendliest communities in Arizona. History ..............................................22 Situated about two hours by car north of Resources .................................. 23-27 Phoenix, Prescott Valley (incorporated in Places of Worship ......................23 1978) offers many opportunities for it's size Organizations & Clubs ..............23 in a generally mild four season climate. Coming Events ..........................24 The Town Center in citizen friendly Restaurants ................................25 Prescott Valley offers many amenities, such as the Harkins 14 Screen Luxury Cineplex, Important Numbers ............. 26-27 located within the Prescott Valley Entertainment Center. Numerous Advertisers Index ............................28 restaurants have joined the theater in making
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona
    DIGITAL GEOLOGIC MAP DGM-80 Arizona Geological Survey www.azgs.az.gov GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE CHINO VALLEY NORTH 7½’ QUADRANGLE, YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, V. 1.0 Brian. F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer and Joseph P. Cook December 2010 ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Geologic Map of the Chino Valley North 7½' Quadrangle, Yavapai County, Arizona by Brian F. Gootee, Charles A. Ferguson, Jon E. Spencer, and Joe P. Cook Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map DGM-80 version 1.0 December, 2010 Scale 1:24,000 (1 sheet, with text) Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress St., #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 This geologic map was funded in part by the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, award no. 08HQAG0093. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. ii Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Geologic Discussion ................................................................................................................... 3 Quaternary faulting ...........................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012
    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Arizona History Index, M
    Index to the Journal of Arizona History, M Arizona Historical Society, [email protected] 480-387-5355 NOTE: the index includes two citation formats. The format for Volumes 1-5 is: volume (issue): page number(s) The format for Volumes 6 -54 is: volume: page number(s) M McAdams, Cliff, book by, reviewed 26:242 McAdoo, Ellen W. 43:225 McAdoo, W. C. 18:194 McAdoo, William 36:52; 39:225; 43:225 McAhren, Ben 19:353 McAlister, M. J. 26:430 McAllester, David E., book coedited by, reviewed 20:144-46 McAllester, David P., book coedited by, reviewed 45:120 McAllister, James P. 49:4-6 McAllister, R. Burnell 43:51 McAllister, R. S. 43:47 McAllister, S. W. 8:171 n. 2 McAlpine, Tom 10:190 McAndrew, John “Boots”, photo of 36:288 McAnich, Fred, book reviewed by 49:74-75 books reviewed by 43:95-97 1 Index to the Journal of Arizona History, M Arizona Historical Society, [email protected] 480-387-5355 McArtan, Neill, develops Pastime Park 31:20-22 death of 31:36-37 photo of 31:21 McArthur, Arthur 10:20 McArthur, Charles H. 21:171-72, 178; 33:277 photos 21:177, 180 McArthur, Douglas 38:278 McArthur, Lorraine (daughter), photo of 34:428 McArthur, Lorraine (mother), photo of 34:428 McArthur, Louise, photo of 34:428 McArthur, Perry 43:349 McArthur, Warren, photo of 34:428 McArthur, Warren, Jr. 33:276 article by and about 21:171-88 photos 21:174-75, 177, 180, 187 McAuley, (Mother Superior) Mary Catherine 39:264, 265, 285 McAuley, Skeet, book by, reviewed 31:438 McAuliffe, Helen W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tectonic Evolution of the Madrean Archipelago and Its Impact on the Geoecology of the Sky Islands
    The Tectonic Evolution of the Madrean Archipelago and Its Impact on the Geoecology of the Sky Islands David Coblentz Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM Abstract—While the unique geographic location of the Sky Islands is well recognized as a primary factor for the elevated biodiversity of the region, its unique tectonic history is often overlooked. The mixing of tectonic environments is an important supplement to the mixing of flora and faunal regimes in contributing to the biodiversity of the Madrean Archipelago. The Sky Islands region is located near the actively deforming plate margin of the Western United States that has seen active and diverse tectonics spanning more than 300 million years, many aspects of which are preserved in the present-day geology. This tectonic history has played a fundamental role in the development and nature of the topography, bedrock geology, and soil distribution through the region that in turn are important factors for understanding the biodiversity. Consideration of the geologic and tectonic history of the Sky Islands also provides important insights into the “deep time” factors contributing to present-day biodiversity that fall outside the normal realm of human perception. in the North American Cordillera between the Sierra Madre Introduction Occidental and the Colorado Plateau – Southern Rocky The “Sky Island” region of the Madrean Archipelago (lo- Mountains (figure 1). This part of the Cordillera has been cre- cated between the northern Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico ated by the interactions between the Pacific, North American, and the Colorado Plateau/Rocky Mountains in the Southwest- Farallon (now entirely subducted under North America) and ern United States) is an area of exceptional biodiversity and has Juan de Fuca plates and is rich in geology features, including become an important study area for geoecology, biology, and major plateaus (The Colorado Plateau), large elevated areas conservation management.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology and Geomorphology of the Santa Maria and Big Sandy Rivers and Burro Creek, Western Arizona
    Hydrology and Geomorphology of the Santa Maria and Big Sandy Rivers and Burro Creek, Western Arizona By Jeanne E. Klawon Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-02 March, 2000 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 46 p. text Investigations supported by the Arizona State Land Department As part of their efforts to gather technical information for stream navigability assessments Investigations done in cooperation with JE Fuller Hydrology / Geomorphology Hydrology and Geomorphology of the Santa Maria and Big Sandy Rivers and Burro Creek, Western Arizona by Jeanne E. Klawon Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides hydrologic and geomor- than 10 cfs. Flood events are dramatic in phologic information to aid in the evaluation of comparison. Historical peak flow estimates for the navigability of the Big Sandy River, Santa these rivers have been estimated at 68,700 Maria River, and Burro Creek. These streams cubic feet per second (cfs) (2/9/93) for the Big flow through rugged mountainous terrain of Sandy River, 47,400 cfs (2/14/80) for Burro Mohave, Yavapai, and La Paz counties in Creek, and 23,100 cfs (3/1/78) for the Santa western Arizona and join to form the Bill Maria River. The largest flow events have Williams River at what is now Alamo Dam occurred during the winter months when and Reservoir. The rivers reflect a diversity of meteorological conditions cause a series of channel patterns, and include the mainly wide storms to pass through the region, frequently and braided sandy alluvial channels of the Big generating multiple floods within a given year.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Incident Management Situation Report Saturday, August 19, 2000 - 0700 Mdt National Preparedness Level V
    INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SITUATION REPORT SATURDAY, AUGUST 19, 2000 - 0700 MDT NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS LEVEL V CURRENT SITUATION: Eleven new large fires were reported, including six in the Eastern Great Basin Area and three in the Northern Rockies Area. Containment was reached on 11 large fires in the Southern, Eastern Great Basin and Rocky Mountain Areas. Initial attack activity was moderate in most areas, with precipitation received on some of the large fires. High winds are forecast today for Idaho and Montana, severely challenging firelines in those states. Firefighters from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Mexico are participating in the fire suppression efforts. Two more military battalions have been ordered. An Army battalion will fill one order from Fort Campbell, Kentucky and the other order will be filled by a Marine battalion from Camp LeJeune, North Carolina. Very high to extreme fire indices have been reported in North Dakota, Texas, and all the western states except New Mexico. NORTHERN ROCKIES AREA LARGE FIRES: An Area Command Team (Edrington) is assigned to manage the large fires in the Hamilton area. An Area Command Team (Mann) is assigned to manage the large fires in southwest Montana. An Area Command Team (Meuchel) is assigned to manage the large fires in central Montana. A Type I Incident Management Team (Wands) is assigned to manage the large fires in northwest Montana. Priorities are being established by the Northern Rockies Multi- Agency Coordinating Group based on information submitted via Wildfire Situation Analysis reports and Incident Status Summary (ICS-209) forms. BLODGETT TRAILHEAD, Bitterroot National Forest. A Type I Incident Management Team (Gage) is assigned.
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Details and Initial Performance of Two High-Performance Base Sections
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/TX-07/5-4358-01-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND INITIAL PERFORMANCE OF November 2006 TWO HIGH-PERFORMANCE BASE SECTIONS Published: March 2008 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Tom Scullion Report 5-4358-01-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project 5-4358-01 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report: Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2004-August 2005 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Project Title: Pilot Implementation of High Performance Flexible Base Specifications URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/5-4358-01-1.pdf 16. Abstract Traditional Texas flexible bases specified under Item 247 perform well as long as they are kept dry. However, rapid and sudden failures can occur if water enters these bases. In Project 0-4358 draft specifications (proposed Item 245) were developed for high-performance flexible base materials. These specifications tighten all existing specifications, place an upper limit of 10 percent on the amount of material passing the No. 200 sieve, and introduce new procedures to ensure that the base is not moisture susceptible.
    [Show full text]