BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT FOUNTAIN LAKE RESTORATION …9804AD9D... · Balance earthwork with site...

234 W. Florida Street, Fifth Floor

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204

(P) 414.837.3607

(F) 414.837.3608

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

FOUNTAIN LAKE RESTORATION PROJECT CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY

Project No. 2248

Prepared For:

SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT 214 West Main Street

Albert Lea, Minnesota 56007

Prepared By:

Natural Resource Technology, Inc. 234 W. Florida Street, Fifth Floor

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204

May 6, 2016

_____________________________ ________________________________ Andrew M. Millspaugh, PE Richard H. Weber, PE Environmental Engineer Environmental Engineer

Environmental Consultants

WWW.NATURALRT.COM

CDF BODR - Final 160506 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Description of Project and Purpose .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................ 1-1

2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 3 CDF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ................................................................................. 3-1 4 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Land Development Limits .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Development Offsets ................................................................................................................. 4-1

5 PERMITS .............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 MDNR Dam Safety .................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 MPCA Construction Stormwater ............................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 USACE/MPCA Section 404/401 ............................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Freeborn County Land Use ....................................................................................................... 5-2 5.5 Board of Water and Soil Resources .......................................................................................... 5-3 5.6 Minnesota Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 5-3

6 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Berm Foundation Conditions ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Berm Borrow Source Soil .......................................................................................................... 6-2

7 CONTAINMENT BERM DESIGN ........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Berm Profile ............................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Slope Stability Modeling ............................................................................................................ 7-1 7.3 Seepage Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.4 Consolidation/Settlement Analysis ............................................................................................ 7-3

8 CDF DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Existing Site Conditions ............................................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 Cell Location & Berm Alignment ............................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 Cell Grading Plan ...................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.4 General Construction Elements ................................................................................................ 8-1 8.5 Stormwater Management .......................................................................................................... 8-2 8.6 Outlet Weir Structure ................................................................................................................. 8-3 8.7 Dredge Material Settling Test .................................................................................................... 8-3 8.8 CDF Flow Pattern ...................................................................................................................... 8-4

9 WATER TREATMENT ......................................................................................................................... 9-1 10 SITE CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Berm Construction .................................................................................................................. 10-1

10.2.1 Construction Documentation .................................................................................... 10-1 10.2.2 Construction Tolerances ........................................................................................... 10-2

11 SITE OPERATIONS & PHASED DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 11-1 12 BENEFICIAL USE & LONG TERM CARE ........................................................................................ 12-1 13 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 13-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CDF BODR - Final 160506 ii

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Site Layout

Figure 3 Soil Boring Locations

Figure 4 CDF Site Development Plan

Figure 5 CDF Berm Section Detail

TABLES

Table 1 Geotechnical Testing Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A Preliminary Project Schedule

Appendix B Boring Logs

Appendix C Geotechnical Laboratory Reports Received as of May 6, 2016

Appendix D Jones, Haugh & Smith Plat of Survey

Appendix E FAA No Hazard Determination Letter

CDF BODR - Final 160506 ACR-1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Barr Barr Engineering, Co.

BODR Basis of Design Report

BWSR Board of Water and Soil Resources

CDF confined disposal facility

CY cubic yard

CQA construction quality assurance

CUP conditional use permit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

JHS Jones, Haugh & Smith, Inc.

MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

MNDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRT Natural Resource Technology, Inc.

QC quality control

SDS State Disposal System

SRRWD Shell Rock River Watershed District

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

TMDL total maximum daily load

TSS total suspended solids

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USGS United States Geological Survey

WSB WSB & Associates

CDF BODR - Final 160506 1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Description of Project and Purpose

Fountain Lake, located in Albert Lea, Freeborn County, MN, (Figure 1) covers approximately 555 acres,

and is central to the City’s identity and tourism. In 2008, Fountain Lake was added to Minnesota’s list of

impaired waters due to nutrient loading and eutrophication. The Shell Rock River Watershed District

(SRRWD) continues to implement improvements to water-related resources within the district limits, which

includes Fountain Lake. SRRWD has worked in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) to perform a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study to determine pollution reduction strategies

for Fountain Lake. As a result, several upland watershed protection initiatives have been implemented

with examples including tributary creek stabilization, septic system improvements, and rough fish

management. Investigatory work performed by Barr Engineering and summarized in technical reports

(Barr 2009, 2014) determined that a significant nutrient source to Fountain Lake is internal phosphorus

loading from lakebed sediment. Phosphorus can become resuspended in the water column when

sediment is disturbed from wind, waves, fish, and boats, causing algae to grow.

With the substantial completion of upstream management practices, SRRWD seeks to further improve

lake water quality by removing phosphorus-laden sediment through dredging. Sediment dredging will

decrease internal phosphorus loading and will provide areas of deeper water as an additional benefit. To

manage removed sediment from dredging, a confined disposal facility (CDF) will be constructed and

used. A CDF is an engineered facility for containment of dredged material in one or more areas or cells.

The constructed containment berms or structures of a CDF enclose the disposal area above any adjacent

water surface, isolating the dredged material from adjacent waters during placement. This document

serves as the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for a CDF facility to support the hydraulic dredging of

Fountain Lake. Dredging is currently targeted to commence in 2017 and span up to 5 years to achieve

the targeted volume of sediment removal.

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities

Several entities are involved in the CDF design; these entities and their roles include the following:

Shell Rock River Watershed District: SRRWD is the project owner and holds, or will hold,

contracts and permits with various entities for the design and execution of this project. SRRWD

will secure access to the site for development. SRRWD will contract directly with one or more

contractors for CDF construction.

INTRODUCTION


Natural Resource Technology, Inc. (NRT): NRT is contracted to SRRWD and is the engineer of

record for CDF design.1 NRT will perform the CDF design as described in this BODR and prepare

permit applications, construction plans, and technical specifications for inclusion in project bid

documents. NRT will maintain a project schedule for the design and permitting.

WSB & Associates (WSB): WSB is contracted to SRRWD and will provide support for site

characterization and wetland or floodplain considerations related to CDF development.

Jones, Haugh & Smith (JHS): JHS is contracted to SRRWD and will provide land surveying

support.

Barr Engineering (Barr): Barr is contracted to SRRWD and will provide technical support related

to a berm breach/inundation study hydraulic model of the CDF design.

Earthwork Contractor: An earthwork or general contractor will be selected from qualified bids

and will be contracted to SRRWD for CDF construction.

1 SRRWD and NRT entered into a professional services agreement dated March 8, 2016 based on a proposal dated February 18, 2016, and that agreement is incorporated herein in full by reference and may be referred to herein as the “Agreement.” The review and approval of this Basis of Design Report in no way alters or amends the terms of the Agreement.


2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES

Beginning in July 2015, NRT provided technical review of potential CDF sites as locations were identified by

SRRWD. The selected area is shown in Figure 2 outlining the extents available for development into one or

more CDF cells. This land was secured by SRRWD for project use in April 2016. The CDF site development

design will proceed to achieve the following objectives:

1. Maximize CDF storage of dredged sediment: This design objective seeks to maximize the storage of dredged sediment based on the shallow dredge scenario of an amount estimated to be between 1 and 1.5 million cubic yards (CY).

2. Balance earthwork with site terrain: This design objective seeks to effectively use existing site conditions with the CDF configuration to balance earthwork grading activities, such as cut and fill quantities, and to minimize project cost.

3. Use Passive Water Treatment: This design objective seeks to design the CDF facility such that influent dredge slurry is managed through gravity separation of the sediment from lake water used to convey the sediment without the need for additional active water treatment of CDF effluent. Separated water will be returned to Fountain Lake through an adjacent drainage ditch and Bancroft Creek.


3 CDF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

The CDF schedule is driven by the overall project goal to begin hydraulic dredging in 2017. To achieve

this goal, at least one containment cell of the CDF site will be designed and constructed during 2016. The

CDF design will proceed expeditiously to support preparation of permit applications and project bid

documents. A detailed project schedule is shown in Appendix A. The schedule for CDF development

includes the following critical elements:

CDF Design: This task includes the technical site design consisting of the following elements:

o CDF cell configuration and containment berm alignment. Available land will be used as efficiently as possible considering existing topography, physical and administrative constraints, and soil properties. CDF design may include one or more CDF cells.

o BODR review with SRRWD and concurrence on design approach. Following concurrence on the BODR approach, further review and input by SRRWD will occur during weekly progress conference calls.

o Berm geotechnical stability analysis to evaluate the designed berm configuration following review of geotechnical investigation boring logs and laboratory data.

o CDF cell inundation study to assess projects risks for MDNR dam safety permit. A preliminary inundation study was performed by Barr Engineering (Barr, March 2016) and reviewed by MDNR (MDNR, March 2016). This study determined the siting of the CDF presents a low risk hazard to life and property.

o CDF operational components including slurry influent locations, outlet structure location, and type of outlet structure.

o Site stormwater management features to accommodate surface runoff.

o Technical plans and specifications to support construction bid documents. The plan set is anticipated to include the following sheets:

1. Title Sheet

2. Existing Site Conditions

3. Confined Disposal Facility Base Grades

4. CDF Cell 1 Base Grades

5. CDF Cell 1 Cross Sections




CDF DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE



10. Stormwater Management Plan

11. Details (e.g., Berms, Roads, Ditches, BMPs)

12. Water Control Structure Details

CDF Permitting: This task requires elements from the CDF design task to complete permit applications for submittal. Permit applications (See Section 5) will be submitted at the direction of SRRWD as soon as required design information is completed and reviewed. Permitting agency personnel will be contacted prior to submittal to facilitate permit application preparation to potentially streamline agency review. Permit review is anticipated to take at least 45 days for most permits. This duration could be extended if a longer review period is needed or if revisions and resubmittal is required. CDF permitting will proceed concurrent with lake dredging permitting process.

Bidding & Contracting: This task requires completion of the CDF design task to prepare bid documents, but will be performed concurrent with CDF permitting. NRT will work in coordination with SRRWD to prepare a unified bid package, which may include multiple bid options, for bid solicitation. NRT will prepare general conditions, construction plans, and technical specifications. SRRWD will prepare supplementary conditions and other contract documents that they require (e.g., insurance, bonding). The bid solicitation will be released by SRRWD as required by Minnesota law, and the bid period (anticipated to be 3 weeks) will be administered by NRT. Thereafter, NRT will deliver to SRRWD a bid tabulation summary and engineers recommendation for awarding the bid to the lowest qualified bidder. SRRWD shall have 3 to 6 weeks to review bids and award a contract or contracts.

Site Access: This task requires SRRWD to identify development boundaries and to acquire physical site access (through ownership or easements).

CDF Construction: This task includes the physical site development and construction of the CDF cells. Construction in 2016 may be limited to one cell and general site development features (e.g., access roads and stormwater controls). The design is based on construction and operation of the CDF in above freezing conditions, generally anticipated to be between the months of April and October. The construction duration in the project schedule will be revised following receipt of contractor bids.


4 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

Design of the CDF facility will incorporate the following constraints:

Available land for development

Required offsets from physical and administrative features

Permit limitations

Siting restrictions

Operational use of the CDF for 1 to 5 years

4.1 Land Development Limits

SRRWD has purchased land for CDF construction as shown on Figure 2. The available land covers an

estimated 101 acres, as reported on a plat of survey performed by JHS (Appendix D). Additional land is

under consideration by SRRWD that may be added to the current land extents. Changes will be

documented in an updated plat of survey.

Known development restrictions through easements or other site constraints are described in this BODR.

The land to be developed is former agricultural farm ground with no observed environmental impacts. The

land is void of buildings and no subsurface foundations are known to be present. Agricultural drain tile

may be encountered during site development and will be removed as necessary to accommodate CDF

cell construction. There are apparent unpaved access roads, presumably for agricultural equipment that

traverse areas of the site and will be affected by CDF construction.

4.2 Development Offsets

Within the available land purchased by SRRWD there will be several offsets from physical and

administrative features that will limit construction extents. Anticipated offsets are from parcel boundaries,

utilities, surface water features, wetlands, and floodplains.

Siting Requirements: CDF design will adhere to siting restrictions outlined in MPCA’s guidance

document “Managing Dredge Materials” (MPCA, 2014) related to proximity to groundwater, proximity to

parcel boundaries, and construction within wetlands. Siting requirements for regulated disposal facilities,

such as municipal or industrial landfills, are not considered in this design.

Groundwater: Final CDF surface elevations will be above the observed groundwater table. Observations

of the groundwater depths will occur through temporary piezometers installed around the site as shown in

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS


Figure 3. Depths to groundwater are periodically be recorded by SRRWD personnel. Piezometers will be

abandoned in accordance with Minnesota regulations prior to CDF construction.

Parcel Boundaries: Construction of containment berms will be located at least 50 feet from site property

lines shown on Figure 2. The 50-foot offset will apply to the outside toe of CDF cell containment berms.

Ancillary features, such as stormwater conveyance swales or temporary access roads, may be

constructed within 50 feet of property lines.

Wetlands and Floodplains: Development of the south portion of the site may include areas containing

identified wetlands and floodplains as shown on Figure 2. Site development will be designed using the full

extents of available land; however, construction within these areas will not occur without necessary

federal, state, and local approvals. SRRWD and their wetland consultant WSB will coordinate obtaining

necessary approvals and delineations.

Utilities: Adjacent known utilities are shown on Figure 2 based on a survey of marked utilities from a

Minnesota one-call utility locate. Identified utilities include overhead electric, buried gas, and buried fiber

optic. Access easements associated with the identified utilities will be reviewed on plat of survey

documents prepared by JHS to determine use restrictions. Construction that may limit access, such as

containment berms, will not be constructed within utility easements. Features that do not limit access,

such as temporary site roads, may be constructed if allowed.

Surface Water Features: An unnamed drainage ditch is located adjacent to the development area.

Freeborn County’s ditch system program requires a minimum of 16.5 feet of grass along the ditch bank

that serves a filter for influent water runoff. Site construction will minimize disturbance of existing grass

filter strips. CDF effluent pipes or ditches may cross the grass strip to access the drainage ditch for return

of effluent water to Fountain Lake. Disturbances will be stabilized with appropriate measures to maintain

the integrity of the grass buffer. If existing drainage ditches or swales are identified within the CDF

development footprint, water flow will be rerouted through stormwater conveyance features.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The site is located within 5 miles of an FAA regulated airport,

which restricts land development within and adjacent to aircraft approach zones. The FAA provided a

“Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” (Appendix E) provided site development and equipment

does not exceed a maximum elevation of 1270 feet at specified coordinates that correspond to the

easternmost extent of the development area. The design will comply with the identified elevation

restriction.


5 PERMITS

Several permits from various regulatory agencies are required prior to construction and operation of the

proposed CDF cells. Permit coordination and acquisition will be conducted by NRT on behalf of SRRWD

as set forth in the Agreement. Any permit fees will be provided by SRRWD to accompany prepared

applications.

5.1 MDNR Dam Safety

Based on planned CDF containment berm heights and the containment volume of CDF cells, a Dam

Safety Permit will be required from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) pursuant to

Minnesota Administrative Rule 6115.0400. The CDF design will include components necessary to

complete a Dam Safety Permit application for review by MDNR. Design elements for the permit

application include the following:

Site location map: This will show the CDF site location with ground surface elevation contours in relation to nearby infrastructure such as buildings and roadways.

Site geotechnical investigation summary: This will include a map of soil boring locations, boring logs summarizing subsurface geological conditions, groundwater elevations, and geotechnical properties of site soil.

CDF berm alignment: This will include a site map showing the planned construction alignment of CDF berms.

CDF berm typical cross section: This will include profile cut-through cross section(s) of containment berms for the designed CDF cell(s).

CDF berm slope stability analysis: This will include modeling software output files of slip surfaces and associated safety factors for various berm profiles and failure conditions. Stability analyses will be performed on the maximum planned berm height. Additional analyses will be performed if differing foundation material or berm borrow source materials are identified from the geotechnical investigation. Stability analysis will include end of construction, long-term operation at full storage capacity, rapid drawdown, and seismic. Both interior and exterior slopes will be evaluated.

CDF berm seepage analysis: This will include a graphical flow path analysis of water seepage through the CDF berm and an estimation of the hydraulic gradient at the berm outside toe at full storage capacity.

Consolidation/Settlement analysis: This will include consolidation and settlement calculation of both the CDF berm and foundation material based on information obtained from the geotechnical evaluation.

Dam Breach Inundation Study: This will include a hydraulic model using HEC-RAS software to evaluate the effects of a sudden breach of a CDF berm based on volumes and berm geometries of planned CDF cells. SRRWD’s consultant Barr Engineering will prepare this study. A

PERMITS


preliminary study was prepared in January 2016 using conceptual CDF volumes and berm geometries to initiate discussions with MDNR. Following discussions and comments from MDNR, the model assumptions and input parameters were modified and a revised study was completed in March 2016 and summarized in a technical memorandum. MDNR responded by email on March 14, 2016 stating the model approach is suitable for use in the permit application for the CDF design.

5.2 MPCA Construction Stormwater

MPCA requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System

(SDS) Construction Stormwater General Permit for any construction activity that will disturb one or more

acre of land. Application for this permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) outlining site management methods for controlling stormwater and preventing off-site

transportation of sediment during construction. NRT will prepare the SWPPP for inclusion in the permit

application.

5.3 USACE/MPCA Section 404/401

Operation of the constructed CDF will discharge lake water separated from the dredge slurry to the

adjacent unnamed ditch and ultimately back to Fountain Lake. The US Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) classifies CDF effluent as the discharge of dredged material, which is regulated under Section

404 of the Clean Water Act. MPCA determines discharge parameters for the discharge of dredged

material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This permit is obtained through submittal of a joint

application form to USACE and MPCA. NRT will prepare this permit application on behalf of SRRWD.

Available laboratory data for sediment and lake water samples are assumed adequate for

characterization and permitting purposes. Additional sampling is not included in the design.

5.4 Freeborn County Land Use

SRRWD, with assistance from NRT, will request a conditional use permit (CUP) from Freeborn County.

This conditional use permit will address elevations in a shoreland district, excavations within 100 feet of a

property line, extraction and storage of sand, gravel and other materials, water control structures,

mosquito control, pest control, odor control, and placement of fill. NRT, on behalf of the Shell Rock

Watershed District, will prepare all documents needed to present to the Freeborn County Planning

commission and County Commissions for the approval of the CUP. Possible attendance of NRT

engineers can be arranged for the planning commissioners meeting and/or County Commissioner’s

meeting.

PERMITS


5.5 Board of Water and Soil Resources

SRRWD is required to submit a copy of a CDF design report (the “Project Plan”) to the Board of Water

and Soil Resources (BWSR) and the director of the MDNR Division of Waters (“Director”), as required by

Minn. Stat. section 103D.605. NRT, in coordination with SRRWD, will prepare a final document to be

designated as the Project Plan. The BWSR and Director are required to review and report on the Project

Plan back to the SRRWD. After receiving these reports, the SRRWD is required to hold a public hearing

on the Project Plan and thereafter Establish the Project pursuant to Minnesota Law, Chapter 103D.

5.6 Minnesota Department of Transportation

MNDOT requires a permit for the installation of temporary dredge slurry pipe under the I-90 highway

bridge/culvert crossing. NRT will prepare this permit application on behalf of SRRWD.


6 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY

A geotechnical investigation and laboratory testing program was performed by WSB during March and

April 2016 to characterize site soils. Site soils are assumed satisfactory to support and construct CDF

containment berms; an objective of this geotechnical investigation is to inform that assumption. Standard

penetration tests and split spoon samples were collected from 35 borings using a hollow-stem auger drill

rig. Temporary piezometers were installed in 11 borings to evaluate groundwater conditions. Soil boring

locations are shown on Figure 3 and consisted of the following types:

Berm Foundation Borings: These borings were located along anticipated alignments of CDF berms to evaluate foundation soil conditions to support slope stability and consolidation analyses.

Berm Borrow Source Borings: These borings were located in anticipated excavation areas for obtaining material to construct CDF berms. Borings evaluated soil types for use in berm design and slope stability analyses.

General Investigation Borings: These borings were located throughout the anticipated CDF construction areas to evaluate soil conditions and identify subsurface stratigraphy.

Piezometers: Following completion of 11 borings around the site perimeter, the borings were converted to temporary piezometers (i.e., water table wells) to evaluate the depth of groundwater below ground surface. Groundwater depths will periodically be recorded by SRRWD personnel beginning in April and continuing until final bid documents are prepared. Groundwater conditions from April monitoring are shown on Figure 3.

Samples were collected and tested according to the geotechnical testing plan in Table 1 to obtain site soil

properties from discrete samples of observed soil types. Results of laboratory testing are summarized in

Table 2. Boring logs and completed laboratory testing reports are included in Appendix B and C. More

subsurface investigation is planned for potential additional land under consideration for purchase by

SRRWD, to provide additional information for identified soft deposits in the southern areas of Cells 2 and

3. Geotechnical data will be used to inform the final berm design and construction process.

6.1 Berm Foundation Conditions

Eighteen (18) soil borings were performed along anticipated berm alignments. On Figure 3, berm

alignment borings included borings 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 39, 41, 44, 45, 48, and 49.

Boring logs are included in Appendix B. Samples were collected from berm foundation borings and tested

for physical and strength properties indicated in Table 1. Laboratory data received as May 6, 2016 of this

report are included in Appendix C. Remaining laboratory tests are still in process by WSB and will be

reviewed upon receipt. All laboratory data will be reviewed and considered in the CDF design.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY


The generalized subsurface profile beneath perimeter berms is primarily sandy lean clay (i.e., glacial till)

overlain by varying thicknesses of organic clay (i.e., topsoil). Layers of sand were encountered in a few

borings with no apparent consistent pattern of thickness or depth/elevation.

Along the anticipated south berm alignments of Cells 2 and 3, soft organic deposits were encountered,

described by WSB as “peat”, “muck”, and “swamp deposits.” These soft deposits were encountered in

borings 41, 48, and 49. Soft deposits are generally unsuitable for foundation material and require

consideration in the CDF design. As a result, a secondary investigation will be implemented to target this

area of identified soft deposits, to obtain physical and strength properties to evaluate potential

construction methods or removal and replacement during CDF construction.

6.2 Berm Borrow Source Soil

Eleven (11) borings were performed from areas of higher elevation around Cells 1, 2, and 3 that will be

targeted as borrow source areas for berm construction material. On Figure 3, borings from berm borrow

source areas include borings 10, 16, 17, 18, 20, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, and 42. Boring logs are included in

Appendix B. Samples were collected from berm borrow source borings and tested for physical and

strength properties indicated in Table 1. Laboratory data received as of the date of this report are

included in Appendix C. Remaining laboratory tests continue to be performed and will be reviewed upon

completion. All laboratory data will be reviewed and considered in the CDF design. Berm borrow source

material is generally described by WSB as lean clay to sandy lean clay (i.e., glacial till) overlain by varying

thicknesses of organic clay (i.e., topsoil). Like the borings under the berm alignments, layers of sand were

encountered in a few borings with no apparent consistent pattern of thickness or depth/elevation.


7 CONTAINMENT BERM DESIGN

CDF containment berms will be designed as earthen dikes following recommended practices in USACE

design manuals EM110-2-5025 (Dredging and Dredged Material Management) and EM110-2-1913

(Design and Construction of Levees). The containment berm design will include the following

components:

Berm profile development (i.e., side slope, height, crest width).

Slope stability modeling of the containment berm.

Seepage analysis of water from CDF through the containment berm.

Consolidation/settlement analysis of berm and foundation soil.

7.1 Berm Profile

The containment berm will be constructed with a general trapezoidal geometry consisting of a maximum

side slope, a maximum crest height, and a minimum crest width. The maximum crest height will be

measured from the lowest ground surface elevation of the planned berm alignment. Berm sections along

the alignment at higher ground surface elevations will have a lower height than the maximum section. A

representative berm cross section detail is shown in Figure 5 and includes the following components:

Side Slopes: MPCA’s guidance document “Managing Dredge Materials” (MPCA, 2014) states that the exterior slopes of all dikes or berms must be no steeper than 3:1 horizontal:vertical. Steeper side slopes up to 2.5:1 will be considered for the interior side slope based on stability analyses to maximize storage capacity and minimize earthwork.

Crest Width: The width of the berm crest will be wide enough to accommodate inspection vehicles (e.g., pickup truck) and potential construction equipment (e.g., excavator). The design minimum crest width will be 12 feet, which is the US Interstate Highway System standard traffic lane width.

Crest Height: The crest height will be a factor for determining the CDF storage capacity and will be based balancing earthwork costs with storage capacity gains. The maximum crest height will be set at the lowest existing ground elevation along the planned berm alignment. The selected maximum height will be converted into a maximum crest elevation for use along the remaining berm alignment where ground surface elevations are higher. Therefore, the maximum crest height will only be constructed at the point of lowest ground surface elevation. The maximum design crest height is estimated to be 25 feet.

7.2 Slope Stability Modeling

The containment berm design cross section at the maximum crest height will be modeled for slope

stability using limit equilibrium computer software (Geostudio’s Slope/W). The slope stability analysis will

CONTAINMENT BERM DESIGN


determine safety factors at failure for various modeled conditions. The following failure conditions will be

modeled:

End of Construction: The interior and exterior berm slopes will be modeled using strength parameters and drainage conditions representative of the berm and foundation material following completion of construction and prior to filling the CDF.

Long-Term Steady Seepage: The interior and exterior berm slopes will be modeled using strength parameters and drainage conditions representative of the berm and foundation material with the CDF at full storage capacity with dredged sediment and water.

Rapid Drawdown: The interior and exterior berm slopes will be modeled using strength parameters and drainage conditions representative of the berm and foundation material for the condition where elevated exterior water conditions fall rapidly but remain elevated within the containment berm. Such conditions could occur during emergency cell dewatering of ponded water or receding of floodwaters around the exterior of the CDF.

Seismic Pseudo-static: The interior and exterior berm slopes will be modeled using strength parameters representative of the berm and foundation material with the CDF at full storage capacity and applying a representative horizontal ground acceleration of a potential earthquake. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program, Minnesota has a low seismic activity hazard with 4 recorded earthquakes from 1973 to 2012. The 2014 seismic hazard map indicates a peak ground acceleration of 2-4% gravity (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) for the CDF site. This model scenario will apply a horizontal seismic acceleration 0.04g (i.e., 4% gravity).

Slope stability modeling scenarios will be performed for the maximum berm height. Additional analyses

will be performed as needed to account for areas with different foundation soil types or berm construction

materials. Safety factor output from slope stability modeling will be compared to the following

recommended safety factors from the USACE Engineering and Design guidance document, “Dredging

and Dredged Material Management” (EM 110-2-5025, 2015):

Stability Analysis Condition Minimum Safety Factor

End of Construction 1.3

Steady Seepage 1.3

Rapid Drawdown 1.0

There is no minimum safety factor guidance for seismic analyses as seismic evaluations are generally

related to deformation of the design element. For the CDF seismic analysis, a minimum safety factor of

1.0 will be used.

7.3 Seepage Analysis

A seepage analysis will be performed to evaluate the profile of water seepage through the containment

berm at the maximum planned storage or dredge material and water. The seepage profile will be

graphically estimated using the Casagrande Method for earth dams (Casagrande, 1937). The seepage

CONTAINMENT BERM DESIGN


profile will be used within the limit equilibrium slope stability model for the long-term steady seepage,

rapid drawdown, and seismic scenarios.

A hydraulic gradient (pressure) calculation will be performed to estimate the seepage pressure at the

outside slope of the containment berm based on the seepage profile. Results of the seepage analysis and

hydraulic gradient estimate will be used to determine if seepage control measures are needed for the

containment berm. Examples of seepage control measures include toe drains to capture seepage flow or

toe berms to resist excessive hydraulic gradients.

7.4 Consolidation/Settlement Analysis

A consolidation/settlement analysis will be performed for the maximum height berm section and

foundation soils using soil characteristics obtained from laboratory testing. The analysis will estimate the

magnitude of vertical consolidation or settlement resulting from the increased overburden pressure of the

constructed berm. Results of the analysis will be used to specify the constructed berm height such that

the target height is achieved following post-construction consolidation.


8 CDF DESIGN

8.1 Existing Site Conditions

Existing site conditions are shown in Figure 2 with ground surface elevation contours and available land

for CDF development. Additional site features include design constraints such as utilities, buildings,

surface water, wetlands, and flood plains. The CDF construction within the available area will be designed

to achieve identified design objectives and may include multiple CDF cells. The maximum anticipated

flowrate into a CDF cell will be 6,000 gallons per minute; however, the flowrate may be adjusted by the

dredging contractor.

8.2 Cell Location & Berm Alignment

CDF cells will make use of existing ground surface topography to the greatest extent possible to minimize

earthwork. The anticipated CDF cell configuration will include up to three cells as shown in Figure 4

identified as Cells 1, 2, and 3.

8.3 Cell Grading Plan

A cut/fill grading plan will be developed for each CDF cell showing design elevation contours for

containment berms, borrow source excavation areas, and appurtenant areas (e.g., stormwater

management features). Soil quantities will be estimated based on the grading plan for use in preparing a

cost estimate and a project bid form.

8.4 General Construction Elements

General construction elements associated with site development are shown in Figure 4 and include the

following:

Site Access: A site entrance will be designed to access the west portion of the site from 740th Avenue directly north of the overhead electric utility.

Staging Area: The main site staging area for equipment, materials, and construction offices will be located east of the site access point on high elevation land that will not be part of the storage area for CDF Cell 1. A second staging area may be developed on the high ground elevation between CDF Cells 2 and 3 for closer access during construction of these cells.

Access Roads: Site access roads will extend from the site access point to the staging area. During construction, earthwork equipment will perform grading operations without the need for access roads around the site. Final site development will include access roads for inspecting and maintaining the CDF cells. Access roads will extend from the main staging area to each of the constructed CDF cells and allow for access to the top of the containment berms.

CDF DESIGN


Temporary Fencing: Site fencing may be installed around the CDF cells and staging areas with appropriate signage to identify the area as an active construction site. The type of fencing will be determined in coordination with SRRWD. Fencing options could be wire or plastic mesh attached to posts driven into the ground or permanent chain link fence.

Utilities: No connections to off-site utilities are anticipated to support CDF construction or operation. Buried discharge lines will be designed for conveyance of CDF effluent from the cell outlet structure to the unnamed ditch and Bancroft Creek for return to Fountain Lake.

Site Vegetation: Containment berm side slopes and other disturbed areas that are not access roads will be seeded for vegetation. Vegetation will protect the constructed areas from erosion and be maintained by mowing. Eroded areas, should they occur either inside or outside the CDF, will be repaired to maintain berm integrity.

Instrumentation and Control: Operation of the CDF cells will be through physical inspections and manual operation. Instruments for monitoring or logic process control are not part of the design. Electric distribution and/or lighting are not part of the design.

Redundant Systems: The site will be designed to operate passively except for pumping of dredge slurry influent into the CDF. Effluent will be controlled through a gravity flow weir structure. Should the influent or withdrawal systems malfunction (e.g., pipe failure, pipe plug, or weir problem), the dredging contractor will be required to stop dredging and repair the malfunction. Redundant systems are not in the design.

Flood Management: The CDF discharge to the drainage ditch will have a check valve to minimize backflow in the event of elevated flow conditions in the ditch. The weir structure will incorporate a manual gate valve to close the effluent pipe and shut off CDF discharge if necessary to limit additional flow to the drainage ditch.

8.5 Stormwater Management

Site development will be designed to manage stormwater during active construction and during long-term

operation of the CDF cells. Construction operations will require an NPDES construction stormwater permit

from MPCA for disturbing more than one acre of land. The permit requires preparation of a Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for implementing stormwater management controls during

construction. The SWPPP will outline measures for controlling stormwater on the site and for preventing

the off-site transport of sediment from disturbed land. Example control measures include diversion

ditches/berms, sediment traps, and silt fence.

The CDF site design will include a comparison of stormwater flow paths between pre-construction

conditions and the designed post-construction condition. Overland flow paths will be evaluated to

determine the need for features to convey stormwater around, under, or away from CDF containment

berms. Analysis and design of stormwater management features will be based on the 2-year recurrence

interval storm for sediment retention BMPs and the 25-year recurrence interval storm for stormwater

conveyance features.

CDF DESIGN


8.6 Outlet Weir Structure

CDF cells will incorporate an overflow weir-type outlet structure for controlling the elevation of ponded

water within the cell intended to allow adequate sediment settling to meet permit requirements for TSS

removal. The outlet is anticipated to be a pre-cast concrete or prefabricated steel structure. The overflow

weir length will be determined based on anticipated CDF influent flow rates and dredge material settling

characteristics. Adjustable weir boards will be added to the control structure to increase the weir elevation

as the CDF cell is filled. Weir boards may also be removed for dewatering the CDF and the dredged

materials at the completion of dredging into a cell. Stock models from vendors of pre-fabricated and

pre-engineered outlet control structures will be prioritized for evaluation over custom structures. Soil

conditions will be evaluated for bearing capacity and consolidation at the outlet structure location.

Nominal ground improvement (e.g., compacted aggregate base) or concrete spread footings are

anticipated to be sufficient.

The outlet structures will be designed to be within the CDF cells just beyond the interior toe of the

containment berm slope. Effluent from each outlet structure will flow through a buried pipe under the

adjacent containment berm and continue through buried pipe outside of the berms. It is anticipated that

flow from each CDF will be combined into a single pipeline to the southeast corner of the facility property

for a single permitted outfall, with discharge to the unnamed drainage ditch for return to Bancroft Creek

and Fountain Lake. The design will determine the size, alignment, and installation requirements of the

effluent pipe. Access to the outlet structure for operation and maintenance will be by an elevated

personnel catwalk from the adjacent containment berm. The elevated catwalk is anticipated to be a pre-

fabricated and pre-engineered structure based on the design span from the berm to the structure for the

anticipated load of personnel only. Operation of the adjustable weir boards is anticipated to be through

mechanical means such as pulleys and cranks such that electrical power is not needed.

8.7 Dredge Material Settling Test

Bulk sediment and water samples were collected from Fountain Lake by Barr Engineering in 2013 and a

Long Tube Column Settling Test was performed. Test results provide sediment settling characteristics for

use in evaluating CDF parameters such as settling surface area and influent flow rate in relation to

achieving a target effluent concentration for total suspended solids (TSS). The laboratory data will be

analyzed for determination of settling characteristics. Obtained information will be used with the available

land area to evaluate influent flow rates that would provide suitable reduction in TSS in CDF effluent by

gravity settling without aid of chemical conditioning or active water treatment. The required effluent TSS

concentration will be set by MPCA through the Section 404 permit program.

CDF DESIGN


8.8 CDF Flow Pattern

Available land, existing topography, sediment settling characteristics, and anticipated influent flow rate will

be evaluated to design the CDF flow pattern. This will determine the locations of the dredge material

influent pipe and the weir outlet structure for each cell. The dredging contractor will be responsible for

installing and relocating, as necessary, the slurry discharge pipe into CDF cells. Following discharge of

dredge slurry into a CDF cell, sediment settling will proceed through gravity flow and separated water will

be returned to Fountain Lake. Use of slurry or water pumping equipment is not anticipated during normal

CDF operation.


9 WATER TREATMENT

Effluent from the CDF is considered the discharge of dredged material and is regulated by USACE under

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In Minnesota, the MPCA certifies the discharge of dredged material

complies with state water quality standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Sediment from

Fountain Lake will be transported to the CDF as a slurry where the sediment will settle in the CDF and the

water will return to Fountain Lake. Therefore, the water quality parameter of concern is TSS to ensure

removed sediment is not being returned to the lake. Initial correspondence with MPCA in August 2015

indicated that there is not a numeric standard, but the discharge must not contain “excessive suspended

solids.” Sediment settling characteristics from the single referenced column settling test will be evaluated

to estimate effluent TSS concentrations. TSS of the effluent will be monitored during CDF operation as

required by the obtained permit conditions. Ability to meet the established effluent TSS limit is anticipated

to be possible without the need of supplementary water treatment. Additional SRRWD water discharge

limits, if any, have not been identified at this time. A designated area will be reserved for the possible

installation of a temporary water treatment system if determined necessary in the future during CDF

operation.


10 SITE CONSTRUCTION

Site construction is anticipated to proceed with preparation and grading of CDF Cell 1, which will be used

first when dredging commences. Remaining cells will be constructed in a phased manner with CDF Cell 2

and then Cell 3. Development of the CDF cell areas will begin with site preparation and progress to

containment berm construction.

10.1 Site Preparation

The CDF areas will first be prepared through survey layout and staking according to design plans.

Stormwater management controls, such as silt fence, will be installed around the areas to be disturbed.

Site preparation will continue with clearing and grubbing of trees and vegetation within the planned

construction footprint. Topsoil will be stripped from the berm alignment and borrow source excavation

areas. Stripped topsoil will be stockpiled in an accessible area on site for use on the constructed berm

side slopes. Additional topsoil may be stripped from remaining areas within the CDF footprint if needed

based on cut/fill calculations or if segregation is desired for potential use. Topsoil quantities will be

estimated based on site investigation boring log stratigraphy.

Rough grading of the CDF interior is generally anticipated to ensure a predominant ground surface slope

in the direction of the outlet structure. Site enhancements for sediment dewatering through seepage

drains or lower permeability layers is not included the design. Along centerline base of the containment

berm alignment, a continuous inspection trench will be excavated at least 6 feet deep to observe

subsurface conditions directly below the berm focusing on unsuitable soil types or near surface

agricultural drain tiles. Any unsuitable soil types or drain tiles as determined by NRT and SRRWD will be

removed. The trench will be backfilled and compacted prior to berm construction.

10.2 Berm Construction

As site preparation activities progress, containment berms will be constructed. Berm construction will be

performed in compacted lifts until the target crest elevation is achieved.

10.2.1 Construction Documentation

Construction oversight is anticipated by a competent engineering professional to ensure construction

proceeds as intended in the plans and specifications. Actual site conditions will be observed and

documented as construction progresses. Operations will be documented through daily reports by the

earthwork contractor and oversight personnel. Facility documentation will be through record (i.e., as-built)

SITE CONSTRUCTION


documentation surveys and a construction completion report. Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) and

Quality Control (QC) requirements will be included in the construction specifications and may be

incorporated into a separate CQA document.

10.2.2 Construction Tolerances

The earthwork contractor will be required to provide adequate survey control to achieve horizontal and

vertical tolerances of +/- 0.1 feet. Compaction tolerances for containment berms will be based on berm

soil properties and will be monitored through moisture-density testing at a frequency dictated in the

construction specifications.


11 SITE OPERATIONS & PHASED DEVELOPMENT

Operation of the CDF will be outlined in a separate operation and maintenance plan that will be provided

to the selected dredging contractor who will operate the CDF during dredging. Dredging into the CDF is

anticipated to occur up to 5 years after initiating dredging of Fountain Lake. Following dredging, CDF cells

will be operated to minimize water retention, and operations will proceed in accordance with a separate

CDF closure plan, which will be prepared after evaluating options with SRRWD.

Operation, inspection, and maintenance will be performed or coordinated by SRRWD when dredging

operations are not taking place. The operation and maintenance plan will include provisions for

inspections, flow rates, outlet structure operation, effluent sampling, and berm maintenance.

Site development may be performed in phases based on factors such as permitting, land acquisition,

cost, and schedule. CDF Cell 1 will be constructed first, followed by Cells 2 and 3.


12 BENEFICIAL USE & LONG TERM CARE

The design includes passive separation for depositing the sediment in the CDF and further dewatering of

the deposited materials. Over time, it is estimated that water in the sediment will be reduced through

evaporation; active dewatering following dredging is not included in the current design. Long-term care

and ultimate use of deposited dredge material will be outlined in a separate document. Following the

completion of the dredging program, site closure options may include returning the site to agricultural use

or harvesting dredge material for beneficial use. The project lifetime of the CDF cells is anticipated to be

associated only with the Fountain Lake Restoration Project as defined in this BODR. Use of the CDF cells

for future dredging projects beyond this timeframe is not part of the design.


13 REFERENCES

Barr Engineering, March 2016, “Fountain Lake Dredging Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) Dam Break Analysis,” Technical Memorandum.

Barr Engineering, May 2014, “Draft Preliminary Engineering Report,” Fountain Lake Restoration

Barr Engineering, May 2009, “Draft Fountain Lake Sediment and Dredging Assessment,”

Casagrande, Arthur, June 1937, “Seepage Through Dams,” Journal of the New England Water Works Association.

Engineering Soil Testing, Inc., April 2016, Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Data: Unconfined Compressive Strength, Grain Size, Atterberg Limits, Moisture Content, Direct Shear.

Jones, Haugh, & Smith, April 22, 2016, “Certificate of Survey in NW1/4, E1/2 SW1/4, SE1/4 & SW1/4 NE1/4 Section 29-T103-R21W.”

MDNR, March 14, 2016, “RE: Fountain Lake – Dam Safety Regs,” Email Correspondence, Jason Boyle (MDNR) to Andrew Millspaugh, Andy Henschel, Omid Mohseni, and Janna Kieffer.

MPCA, August 4, 2015, “RE: 401 Water Quality Certification Question,” Email Correspondence, Jim Brist (MPCA) to Andrew Millspaugh.

MPCA, April 2014, “Managing Dredge Materials in the State of Minnesota.”

USACE, July 31, 2015, “Dredging and Dredged Material Management,” Engineering and Design, Manual EM1110-2-5025.

USACE, January 1, 2001, “Geotechnical Investigations,” Engineering and Design, Manual EM1110-1-1804

USACE, April 30, 2000, “Design and Construction of Levees,” Engineering and Design, Manual EM1110-2-1913

USGS, Earthquake Hazards Program, Minnesota Earthquake Information, www.earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/?region=Minnesota, Accessed April 12, 2016.

WSB & Associates, April 2016, “Log of Test Boring,” Boring Logs for Geotechnical Site Investigation.

FIGURES

SITE

PROJECT NO.

FIGURE NO.

2248/4.0

1

DMD 05/05/16AMM

ATURALN

TESOURCERECHNOLOGY

AMMDRAWN: CHK'D: APP'D: DATE:04/13/16DATE: 05/05/16DATE:

SITE LOCATION

FOUNTAIN LAKE RESTORATION PROJECT

CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITY

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

SHELL ROCK RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT

ALBERT LEA, MINNESOTA

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

0

SCALE IN FEET

10002000

N

I-90 W

I-90 E

74

0T

H A

VE

NU

E

237TH STREET

0

SCALE IN FEET

200400

N

1

2

3

0

12

40

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1250

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1230

1240

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

GAS LINE

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE

EXISTING GRADE CONTOUR

MAJOR


MINOR

1250

FIBER OPTIC LINE

500 YEAR FLOOD

100 YEAR FLOOD

PARCEL LINES

WETLAND

CDF PARCEL LINE

SOURCE NOTES:

1. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS NAD 83 FREEBORN COUNTY, MINNOSOTA COUNTY SYSTEM (US FEET)

2. AERIAL IMAGE SOURCE: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,

USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

3. CDF PARCEL LINE, UTILITY LINES FROM JONES HAUGH SMITH ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS FILE 16-038.DWG.

4. EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS AND PARCEL LINES PROVIDED BY FREEBORN COUNTY VERTICAL DATUM

NAVD 88 (US SURVEY FOOT).

5. 100 YEAR AND 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINES PROVIDED BY FEMA FLOOD MAP SERVICE CENTER:

HTTP://MSC.FEMA.GOV/PORTAL/ADVANCE SEARCH

6. WETLAND BOUNDARIES FROM WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.

DRAINAGE

DITCH

DRAINAGE DITCH

CROSSING

WETLAND

POND

PROJECT NO.

2248/4.0

FIGURE NO.

2

04/13/16

RE

FE

RE

NC

E:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AP

PR

OV

ED

B

Y:

DR

AW

IN

G N

O:

DA

TE

:

DA

TE

:

DM

D

.

DA

TE

:

AM

M05/05/16

AM

M

05/05/16

ATURALN

TESOURCERECHNOLOGY

Fig 2_S

ite Layout

FO

UN

TA

IN

L

AK

E R

ES

TO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JE

CT

CO

NF

IN

ED

D

IS

PO

SA

L F

AC

IL

IT

Y

BA

SIS

O

F D

ES

IG

N R

EP

OR

T

SH

EL

L R

OC

K R

IV

ER

W

AT

ER

SH

ED

D

IS

TR

IC

T

AL

BE

RT

L

EA

, M

IN

NE

SO

TA

SIT

E LA

YO

UT

amillspaugh

Text Box

MINNESOTA

I-90 W

I-90 E

74

0T

H A

VE

NU

E

237TH STREET

0

SCALE IN FEET

200400

N

1

2

3

0

12

40

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1240

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1230

1240

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

GAS LINE



MAJOR


MINOR

1250

PIEZOMETER

BORING

FIBER OPTIC LINE

500 YEAR FLOOD

100 YEAR FLOOD

PARCEL LINES

WETLAND

CDF PARCEL LINE

1

2

4

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

2

5

PB-3

PB-7

PB-8

PB-20

PB-18

PB-24

PB-14

PB-23

PB-11

PB-22

PB-17

PB-16

PB-10

PB-26

PB-32

PB-30

PB-27

PB-31

PB-35

PB-37

PB-44

PB-42

PB-45

PB-45

PB-47

PZ-1

1228.75

PZ-2

1237.35

PZ-6

1221.60

PZ-12

1225.70

PZ-9

1241.20

PZ-25

1228.70

PZ-33

1224.30

PZ-39

PZ-41

PZ-48

PZ-48

PZ-49

1219.00

1

2

2

5

1

2

2

0

1220

NOTE: DASHED LINE ON GROUNDWATER

CONTOURS IS INFERRED.

GROUNDWATER CONTOUR,

APRIL 13, 2016

GROUNDWATER FLOW

DIRECTION

DRAINAGE

DITCH

DRAINAGE DITCH

CROSSING

WETLAND

POND

SOURCE NOTES:










PROJECT NO.

2248/4.0

FIGURE NO.

3

04/13/16

RE

FE

RE

NC

E:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AP

PR

OV

ED

B

Y:

DR

AW

IN

G N

O:

DA

TE

:

DA

TE

:

DM

D

.

DA

TE

:

AM

M05/05/16

AM

M

05/05/16

ATURALN

TESOURCERECHNOLOGY

Fig 3_S

oil B

oring Locations

FO

UN

TA

IN

L

AK

E R

ES

TO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JE

CT

CO

NF

IN

ED

D

IS

PO

SA

L F

AC

IL

IT

Y

BA

SIS

O

F D

ES

IG

N R

EP

OR

T

SH

EL

L R

OC

K R

IV

ER

W

AT

ER

SH

ED

D

IS

TR

IC

T

AL

BE

RT

L

EA

, M

IN

NE

SO

TA

SO

IL B

OR

IN

G LO

CA

TIO

NS

amillspaugh

Text Box

MINNESOTA

I-90 W

I-90 E

74

0T

H A

VE

NU

E

237TH STREET

0

SCALE IN FEET

200400

N

1

2

3

0

12

40

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1250

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

7

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

4

0

1

2

5

0

1

2

6

0

POTENTIAL CDF CELL

LIMITS

GAS LINE



MAJOR


MINOR

1250

FIBER OPTIC LINE

500 YEAR FLOOD

100 YEAR FLOOD

PARCEL LINES

WETLAND

CDF PARCEL LINE

1

2

3

0

1240

1

2

5

0

POTENTIAL STAGING/

STOCKPILE/ STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT AREA (TO BE

DETERMINED BASED ON

PROPERTY PURCHASE)

DRAINAGE

DITCH

DRAINAGE DITCH

CROSSING

WETLAND

POND

SITE

ENTRANCE

CELL 1

29.4 ACRES

TOP OF BERM ELEV. = 1,251

POOL ELEVATION = 1,248

TOP OF SEDIMENT = 1246

SITE ACCESS

ROAD

SITE STAGING/

STOCKPILE AREA

POTENTIAL WATER

TREATMENT AREA

POTENTIAL WATER

TREATMENT AREA

CELL 2

12.6 ACRES




CELL 3

7.7 ACRES




SOURCE NOTES:










PROJECT NO.

2248/4.0

FIGURE NO.

4

04/13/16

RE

FE

RE

NC

E:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AP

PR

OV

ED

B

Y:

DR

AW

IN

G N

O:

DA

TE

:

DA

TE

:

DM

D

.

DA

TE

:

AM

M05/05/16

AM

M

05/05/16

ATURALN

TESOURCERECHNOLOGY

Fig 4_C

DF

S

ite D

evelopm

ent

FO

UN

TA

IN

L

AK

E R

ES

TO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JE

CT

CO

NF

IN

ED

D

IS

PO

SA

L F

AC

IL

IT

Y

BA

SIS

O

F D

ES

IG

N R

EP

OR

T

SH

EL

L R

OC

K R

IV

ER

W

AT

ER

SH

ED

D

IS

TR

IC

T

AL

BE

RT

L

EA

, M

IN

NE

SO

TA

CD

F S

IT

E D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T P

LA

N

amillspaugh

Text Box

MINNESOTA

EDGE OF DRAINAGE DITCH

TOE OF BERM

CENTERLINE OF DITCH AND PARCEL LINE

EDGE OF DRAINAGE DITCH

3

1

3

1

PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURFACE

PRE-CONSTRUCTION

SURFACE

TOP OF BERM

ELEVATION

TOE OF BERM

EMBANKMENT

KEYWAY

P

L

TOE OF BERM

3

1

3

1

PRE-CONSTRUCTION

SURFACE

TOP OF BERM

ELEVATION

TOE OF BERM

EMBANKMENT

KEYWAY

PRE-CONSTRUCTION

SURFACE

P

L

NOT TO SCALE

1

TYPICAL CDF BERM CROSS-SECTION ALONG A DRAINAGE DITCH AND PARCEL LINE

PARCEL

LINE OFFSET

MIN. 50.0'

DRAINAGE

FEATURE

OFFSET

MIN. 16.5'

WHICHEVER IS GREATER

12.0' TYP.

VARIES

~0'-25'

12.0' TYP.

4.0'

2.0'

PARCEL

LINE OFFSET

MIN. 50.0'

UTILITY EASEMENT

(WIDTH VARIES)

WHICHEVER CONTROLS

STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT

DITCH

2

TYPICAL CDF BERM CROSS-SECTION ALONG A UTILITY EASEMENT AND PARCEL LINE

VARIES

~0'-25'

NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT NO.

2248/4.0

FIGURE NO.

5

04/13/16

RE

FE

RE

NC

E:

DR

AW

N B

Y:

CH

EC

KE

D B

Y:

AP

PR

OV

ED

B

Y:

DR

AW

IN

G N

O:

DA

TE

:

DA

TE

:

DM

D

.

DA

TE

:

AM

M05/05/16

AM

M05/05/16

ATURALN

TESOURCERECHNOLOGY

Fig 5_B

erm

S

ection D

etail

CD

F B

ER

M S

EC

TIO

N D

ET

AIL

FO

UN

TA

IN

L

AK

E R

ES

TO

RA

TIO

N P

RO

JE

CT

CO

NF

IN

ED

D

IS

PO

SA

L F

AC

IL

IT

Y

BA

SIS

O

F D

ES

IG

N R

EP

OR

T

SH

EL

L R

OC

K R

IV

ER

W

AT

ER

SH

ED

D

IS

TR

IC

T

AL

BE

RT

L

EA

, M

IN

NE

SO

TA

TABLES

CDF Pre-Design Geotechnical Investigation Testing PlanShell Rock River Watershed DistrictFountain Lake Restoration ProjectAlbert Lea, MN

DRAFT

CDF# of Borings for

investigationTarget Boring

Depth (ft) Testing ParametersASTM D1586

SPTASTM D1587Shelby Tube

ASTM D2216Water Content

ASTM D421/422Gradation

ASTM D4318 Atterberg

ASTM D2435 Consolidation

ASTM D2166 Unconfined

Compressive Strength

ASTM D4767 Triaxial Shear

ASTM D2937In Situ Density

ASTM D698Compaction Piezometer

West Cell 8 25 80 8 16 4 4 1 7 1 8 - 5

SW1 Cell 5 25 50 5 10 3 3 1 4 1 5 - 3

SW2 Cell 5 25 50 5 10 3 3 1 4 1 5 - 3

TOTALS 180 18 36 10 10 3 15 3 18 - 11

CDF# of Borings for



SPT Shelby TubeASTM D2216Water Content Gradation Atterberg Consolidation

Unconfined Compressive

StrengthASTM D2850 / D3080 Shear In Situ Density

ASTM D698Compaction Piezometer

West Cell 9 25 90 - 18 - - - - 2 - 3 -

SW1 Cell 8 25 80 - 16 - - - - 2 - 2 -

SW2 Cell 5 25 50 - 10 - - - - 2 - 2 -

TOTALS 220 - 44 - - - - 6 - 7

CDF# of Borings for



SPT Shelby Tube water content water content Gradation Atterberg

Unconfined Compressive

Strength Consolidation Shear Compaction Piezometer

West Cell 6 15 36 - - - - - - - - - -

SW1 Cell 1 15 6 - - - - - - - - - -

SW2 Cell 2 15 12 - - - - - - - - - -

TOTALS 54 - - - - - - - - - -

Testing Summary

Testing Summary

Testing SummaryGeneral CDF Storage Area Characterization

Split Spoon Standard Penetration Test▪ SPT N-Value (ASTM D1586) - 2.5 ft intervals.▪ USCS Visual Classification (ASTM D2487)- All split spoon samples for general classification▪ Pocket Penetrometer / Torvane - All Intact samples for general strength▪ Assume that visual classification can correlate to geotechnical testing properties of materials tested in berm alignment and excavation areas.

Split Spoon Standard Penetration Test▪ SPT N-Value (ASTM D1586) - 2.5 ft intervals.▪ USCS Visual Classification (ASTM D2487)- All split spoon samples for general classification▪ Pocket Penetrometer / Torvane - All Intact samples for general strength▪ Water Content (ASTM D2216) - Assume 2 per boring (above/below water table) for general classification▪ Compaction - Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) - 5-point tests of remolded soils for berm construction.▪ Shear - Triaxial compression (ASTM D2850 Unconsolidated Undrained - fine grained soils) and/or Direct (ASTM D3080 - coarse grained soils), Assume 1 for each soil type per CDF.

Split Spoon Standard Penetration Test▪ SPT N-Value (ASTM D1586) - 2.5 ft intervals.▪ USCS Visual Classification (ASTM D2487)- All split spoon samples for general classification▪ Pocket Penetrometer / Torvane - All Intact fine-grained samples for general strength▪ Water Content (ASTM D2216) - Assume 2 per boring (above/below water table) for general classification▪ Gradation: Sieve & Hydrometer (ASTM D421/422) - Assume 1 from 50% of borings▪ Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) - paired with moisture samples on fine grained material for general classification. Assume 1 test from 50% of borings.▪ Undisturbed fine-grained sample collection (ASTM D1587 - Shelby Tube) - for consolidation and shear testing if fine-grained material is present. Assume 1 per boring.▪ In situ density (ASTM D2937) on collected undisturbed samples for unit weight determination.▪ Consolidation (ASTM D2435) - fine grained material only for design of berm foundation/construction settlement. Assume 1 per CDF.▪ Shear - Triaxial compression (ASTM D4767 - fine grained) - Consolidated undrained test (3-point) with pore pressure measurements. Test 1 shelby tube per CDF.▪ Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D2166) - fine grained material from remaining shelby tube samples.▪ Temporary Piezometer for groundwater level observation

Cell Berm Perimeter

Excavation / Berm Material Borrow Areas

Geotechnical Investigation Plan DRAFT 160202 Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX A

PROJECT SCHEDULE

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors1 CDF Site Development / Due Diligence 26 days Fri 3/11/16 Fri 4/15/162 Board Authorization ‐ NTP 1 day Fri 3/11/16 Fri 3/11/163 Site Geotechnical Investigation & Survey 24 days Mon 3/14/16 Thu 4/14/16 24 Establish Site Property Boundaries & Easements 1 day Fri 4/15/16 Fri 4/15/16 35 Final Design of CDF / Plans & Specs 83 days Mon 4/11/16 Wed 8/3/166 CDF BODR Report 15 days Mon 4/11/16 Fri 4/29/16 4FS‐5 days7 Final Berm Configuration 10 days Mon 4/18/16 Fri 4/29/16 4,6FF8 Stability Analysis 10 days Mon 4/25/16 Fri 5/6/16 7FS‐5 days9 District Review of BODR / Final Configuration *** 5 days Mon 5/2/16 Fri 5/6/16 710 Update BARR Inundation Analysis 14 days Mon 5/2/16 Thu 5/19/16 711 Stormwater and Access Design 10 days Mon 5/9/16 Fri 5/20/16 912 Independent QA Review of CFD Plan ‐ 5 days Fri 5/20/16 Thu 5/26/16 1013 Final Design & Specifications 42 days Mon 5/9/16 Tue 7/5/1614 Complete Plans / Drawing Set 20 days Mon 5/9/16 Fri 6/3/16 915 Technical Specifications 20 days Mon 5/9/16 Fri 6/3/16 916 Contract From ‐ Bid Tables 20 days Mon 5/9/16 Fri 6/3/16 917 Update CDF cost estimates (phased construction)10 days Mon 5/16/16 Fri 5/27/16 14SS+5 days

18 Advertise for Bids / Bidding Period 22 days Mon 6/6/16 Tue 7/5/16 16,15,1419 CDF Permitting 63 days Fri 5/6/16 Wed 8/3/1620 Dam Safety Permit 54 days Fri 5/20/16 Wed 8/3/16 1021 Dredge Material Disposal Notice 30 days Fri 5/27/16 Thu 7/7/16 1222 MPCA ?Section 404 & 401 Permits 42 days Fri 5/27/16 Mon 7/25/16 1223 Construction Stormwater Permit (over 1 AC) 21 days Mon 5/23/16 Mon 6/20/16 1124 Local & Other Permits (BWSR, Cond. Use) 30 edays Fri 5/6/16 Sun 6/5/16 925 Public Hearing / Board Meeting / Establish

Project15 days Mon 6/6/16 Fri 6/24/16 24

26 2016 CDF Facility Construction 81 days Wed 7/6/16 Wed 10/26/1627 Award of CDF Construction Contract 21 days Wed 7/6/16 Wed 8/3/16 1828 Mobilization 15 days Thu 8/4/16 Wed 8/24/16 27,2029 Cell 1 CDF Earthworks 45 days Thu 8/25/16 Wed 10/26/16 2830 Cell 2 Earthworks 40 edays Sat 4/1/17 Thu 5/11/17 2931 Cell 3 Earthworks 30 edays Thu 5/11/17 Sat 6/10/17 3032 Begin Operation & Maintenance of Sediment

Facility ‐ Ongoing until Closed1 day Mon 4/3/17 Mon 4/3/17

33 Dredging Procurement & Permitting 123 days Mon 4/18/16 Wed 10/5/1634 Determine staging areas / pipeline access way

/ alignment10 days Mon 4/18/16 Fri 4/29/16 4

35 Determine dredging restrictions (if any) 5 days Fri 5/20/16 Thu 5/26/16 1036 Dredge Prism Development 20 days Mon 4/18/16 Fri 5/13/16 437 Performance Specification for Dredging,

operation of disposal site and water treatment 30 edays Thu 7/7/16 Sat 8/6/16 21

38 Issue RFP / Bidding Period 30 edays Sat 8/6/16 Mon 9/5/16 3739 Proposal Evaluation & Award 30 edays Mon 9/5/16 Wed 10/5/16 3840 Dredge Permitting 42 days Thu 5/26/16 Mon 7/25/1641 Env. Assessment Worksheet 60 edays Thu 5/26/16 Mon 7/25/16 1242 MDNR Public Waters Work Permit 60 edays Thu 5/26/16 Mon 7/25/16 1243 Water Appropriation Permit 60 edays Thu 5/26/16 Mon 7/25/16 1244 Lake Dredging Season 1 7 mons Thu 4/13/17 Wed 10/25/17 29FS+6 mons

CDF Site Development / Due Diligence

3/11

Site Geotechnical Investigation & Survey

4/15

CDF BODR Report

Final Berm Configuration

Stability Analysis

District Review of BODR / Final Configuration ***

Update BARR Inundation Analysis

Stormwater and Access Design

Independent QA Review of CFD Plan ‐

Complete Plans / Drawing Set

Technical Specifications

Contract From ‐ Bid Tables

Update CDF cost estimates (phased construction)

Advertise for Bids / Bidding Period

CDF Permitting

Dam Safety Permit

Dredge Material Disposal Notice

MPCA ?Section 404 & 401 Permits

Construction Stormwater Permit (over 1 AC)

Local & Other Permits (BWSR, Cond. Use)

Public Hearing / Board Meeting / Establish Project

2016 CDF Facility Construction

Award of CDF Construction Contract

Mobilization

Cell 1 CDF Earthworks

Cell 2 Earthworks

Cell 3 Earthworks

Begin Operation & Maintenance of Sediment Facility ‐ Ongoing until Closed

Dredging Procurement & Permitting

Determine staging areas / pipeline access way / alignment

Determine dredging restrictions (if any)

Dredge Prism Development

Performance Specification for Dredging, operation of disposal site and water treatment

Issue RFP / Bidding Period

Proposal Evaluation & Award

Dredge Permitting

Env. Assessment Worksheet

MDNR Public Waters Work Permit

Water Appropriation Permit

LaLake Dredging Season 1

Feb '16 Mar '16 Apr '16 May '16 Jun '16 Jul '16 Aug '16 Sep '16 Oct '16 Nov '16 Dec '16 Jan '17 Feb '17 Mar '17 Apr '17 May '17 Jun '17 Jul '17 Aug '17 Sep '17 Oct '17 N

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

Manual Task

Duration‐only

Manual Summary

Progress

critical

Schedule Estimate ‐ Through Dredging Season 1 only

Shell Rock River Watershed DistrictFountain Lake Restoration

CDF Construction and Dredging Schedule

Wed 4/13/16

Page 1 of 1

Project: Preliminary Project Schedule v09Date: Wed 4/13/16

APPENDIX B

SOIL BORING LOGS

34

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OH

CL

CL

CL

Topsoil

Fine Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

6

4

5

6

7

8

7

8

6

ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist

LEAN CLAY, grayish brown, mottled, wet,very soft

LEAN CLAY, gray to reddish brown, mottled,wet, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, soft

End of Boring 24.0 ft.

TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

SAMPLEDDEPTHDATE METHOD

START: 3/21/2016 END: 3/21/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:

LABORATORY TESTSMC(%)

DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22243:00 pm3/21/2016 None

PROJECT NAME: SRRWD-CPF Site

LOG OF TEST BORING

PROJECT LOCATION: Freeborn County, MN BORING NUMBER PB 1PAGE 1 OF 1SURFACE ELEVATION: 1232.3 ftCLIENT/WSB #: 02286-180

DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

25

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

SM

SC

SP-SM

ML

CL

Topsoil

Coarse Alluvium

Mixed Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

NR

SB

SB

SH

5

4

4

7

17

11

6

6

ORGANIC SILT, black, moist, loose

SILTY SAND, dark brown, wet, very loose

CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, wet, very soft

SAND WITH SILT, fine grained, brown, wet,loose to medium dense

SILT, gray, moist, medium dense

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray, wet, soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/21/2016 END: 3/21/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

222412:50 pm3/21/2016 5.9 1235.8


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218


14

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OH

CL

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

6

4

7

9

4

6

7

8

8

ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND GRAVEL,brown to grayish brown, mottled, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to grayish brown, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, firm to very soft tosoft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/28/2016 END: 3/28/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 21241:00 pm3/28/2016 None


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206


22

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OH

CL

SP

CL

SP

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Coarse Alluvium

Glacial Till

Coarse Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

4

4

4

4

1

1

3

4

3

ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist, very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown, mottled, wet, verysoft

SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL, medium tofine grained, gray, water bearing, very loose

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, fine to medium grained, gray, waterbearing, very loose

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, wet, very soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/21/2016 END: 3/21/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22245:10 pm3/21/2016 5.1 1222.8


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204


17

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 14.5'

CL

CL

CL

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

7

12

15

9

15

8

10

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown to reddish brown, mottled,moist, soft to firm (Sod at grade)

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown, moist, firm, a layer ofgrayish brown Lean Clay at 6-7'

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, wet, soft to firm


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/11/2016 END: 3/11/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

14.5 13.7161:50 pm3/11/2016 13.5 1221.6


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211


18

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 14.5'

OH

CL

SC

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Mixed Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

3

3

5

3

4

6

ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist, soft to verysoft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to reddish brown, mottled, wet,very soft

CLAYEY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,brown to reddish brown, mottled, wet, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray, mottled, wet, very soft to soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/14/2016 END: 3/14/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

14.5 11161:45 pm3/14/2016 8.0 1218.5


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204

1203


23

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OH

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

7

5

3

5

6

6

7

8

10


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to grayish brown, mottled, wet,very soft to soft, a few lenses of Sand

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, soft to firm


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/17/2016 END: 3/17/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

222412:40 pm3/17/2016 7.5 1237.4


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221


18

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

CL

CL

Fill

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

8

5

7

9

14

4

7

8

5

6

FILL, a mixture of Lean Clay, Organic Clay,brown, gray, black

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown to reddish brown,mottled, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown to reddish brown, mottled,moist, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL,dark gray, wet, very soft to soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/11/2016 END: 3/11/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 14.3241:15 pm3/11/2016 None


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220


24

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 14.5'

OH

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

3

5

6

6

4

5

ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown to reddish brown,mottled, wet, very soft to soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, soft to very soft tosoft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/14/2016 END: 3/14/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

14.5 141612:05 pm3/14/2016 None


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205


24

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OH

CL

SM

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Coarse Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

5

6

6

5

5

6

6

8

6


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown, mottled, wet, soft

SILTY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,gray, wet, loose

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown, mottled, wet, soft



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/22/2016 END: 3/22/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22245:25 pm3/22/2016 13.2 1216.1


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205


15

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 14.5'

OL

CL

CL

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

4

4

6

8

6

8

ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, reddish brown, mottled, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark grayish brown, mottled, moist,soft



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/14/2016 END: 3/14/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

14.5 141612:55 pm3/14/2016 None


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204

1203


17

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

SC

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Mixed Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

9

8

6

5

8

10

11

6

4

4

ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to reddish brown, mottled,moist, soft

CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray to red, mottled, moist, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray, wet, soft to very soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/11/2016 END: 3/11/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

24 22.22411:55 am3/11/2016 20.8 1236.4


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1256

1255

1254

1253

1252

1251

1250

1249

1248

1247

1246

1245

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233


36

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

SC

CL

CL

Fine Alluvium

Mixed Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

5

8

9

9

9

7

6

5

LEAN CLAY, brown to grayish brown,mottled, moist, soft

CLAYEY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,brown to grayish brown,mottled, moist, soft tofirm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown to grayish brown, mottled,wet, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, firm to soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/28/2016 END: 3/28/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 14.32411:30 am3/28/2016 7.5 1241.9


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1248

1247

1246

1245

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225


14

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

CL

SP

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Coarse Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

4

5

3

7

6

9

8

8

7

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown, wet, very soft to soft to verysoft to soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, soft to firm to soft

SAND, fine grained, gray, water bearing, loose


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/14/2016 END: 3/14/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 19.1243:40 pm3/14/2016 15.8 1220.7


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213


40

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

CL

CL-CH

CH

CL

SC

CL

Topsoil

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Mixed Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

6

8

7

3

4

4

3

3

6

7

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft, a fewOrganics

LEAN CLAY, brown to grayish brown,mottled, wet, soft, a layer of Silty Sand 6-7'

LEAN CLAY, gray to grayish brown, mottled,wet, very soft

FAT CLAY, dark gray to reddish brown,mottled, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY, dark gray, wet, very soft

CLAYEY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,dark gray, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY, grayish brown, mottled, moist,soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/28/2016 END: 3/28/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 19.5242:10 pm3/28/2016 18.8 1229.6


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1247

1246

1245

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224


14

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

SC

CL

CL

Topsoil

Mixed Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

6

12

9

15

9

9

7

6


CLAYEY SAND A LITTLE GRAVEL, brown,mottled, moist, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown to reddish brown, mottled,moist, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray to red, moist, firm to soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/17/2016 END: 3/17/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 21.1242:40 pm3/17/2016 19.5 1223.2


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219


15

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

6

6

10

10

7

7

7

9

7


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to reddish brown, mottled,moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown, moist, firm

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, firm to soft to firmto soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/22/2016 END: 3/22/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 21.82411:20 pm3/22/2016 None


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208


12

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

SM

SM

SM

CL

CL-CH

SM

Topsoil

Coarse Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

5

9

11

9

9

4

6

3

5

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft, a fewOrganics

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, moist,loose

SILTY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,gray, moist, medium dense

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, moist,loose

LEAN CLAY, brown to reddish brown,mottled, wet, firm to very soft to soft


SILTY SAND, gray, water bearing, loose


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/28/2016 END: 3/28/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 7.5244:05 pm3/28/2016 18.4 1231.7


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1249

1248

1247

1246

1245

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226


18

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

CL

CL-CH

Topsoil

Mixed Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

6

3

5

7

7

7

8

9

10


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown to reddish brown,mottled, moist, soft


LEAN CLAY, gray, wet, soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/17/2016 END: 3/17/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22245:05 pm3/17/2016 17.0 1212.7


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206


17

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OLCL

CL

CL

Glacial TillGlacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

4

6

6

5

5

7

7

9

8

ORGANIC CLAYLEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to grayish brown, mottled,moist, very soft to soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark brown to grayish brown,mottled, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, firm to soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/29/2016 END: 3/29/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 172412:10 pm3/29/2016 12.6 1230.7


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219


40

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

CL

CL-CH

Topsoil

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

2

7

7

5

6

5

4

3

3

ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY, grayish brown, mottled, wet,soft

LEAN CLAY, gray to reddish brown, mottled,moist, soft



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/29/2016 END: 3/29/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 21.82411:55 am3/29/2016 21.6 1233.1


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1254

1253

1252

1251

1250

1249

1248

1247

1246

1245

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231


52

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OLCL

ML

CL

CL

CH

TopsoilFine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

4

9

10

6

3

3

3

3

2

ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist, very softLEAN CLAY, brown to reddish brown,mottled, moist, very soft to firm

SILT, brown to reddish brown, mottled, moist,loose

LEAN CLAY, reddish brown to gray, mottled,wet, soft

LEAN CLAY, gray to reddish brown, mottled,wet, very soft

FAT CLAY, dark gray, wet, very soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/29/2016 END: 3/29/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 21.32410:45 am3/29/2016 21.0 1227.9


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1248

1247

1246

1245

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225


25

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OLCL

CL

SC

CL

Fine AlluviumFine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Mixed Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

4

6

5

4

7

8

7

8

11

ORGANIC CLAYLEAN CLAY, brown to grayish brown,mottled, wet, very soft to soft, a few lenses ofSand

LEAN CLAY, gray to reddish brown, mottled,wet, a few lenses of Sand, very soft to soft

CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, soft



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/29/2016 END: 3/29/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 16.2244:45 pm3/29/2016 14.4 1230.6


LOG OF TEST BORING

PROJECT LOCATION: Freeborn County, MN BORING NUMBER PB 31PAGE 1 OF 1SURFACE ELEVATION: 1245 ftCLIENT/WSB #: 02286-180

DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221


19

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 14.5'

OL

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

4

2

3

3

3

4

5


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to grayish brown, mottled, wet,very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, wet, very soft to soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/14/2016 END: 3/14/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

14.5 19.5165:00 pm3/14/2016 5.5 1222.4


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204


13

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

CL

CL

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

4

4

6

6

6

7

8

7

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft to verysoft, a few Organics

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown to reddish brown, mottled,moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, brown to grayishbrown, mottled, moist, soft



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/25/2016 END: 3/25/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

222412:05 pm3/25/2016 15.0 1212.1


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204

1203


26

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

ML

CL

CL

Topsoil

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

4

9

8

8

8

6

3

4

2


LEAN CLAY, brown, moist, soft

SILT, brown to grayish brown, mottled, wet,loose

LEAN CLAY, brown to grayish brown,mottled, wet, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, soft to very soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/29/2016 END: 3/29/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 13.8242:25 pm3/29/2016 12.9 1246.2


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1258

1257

1256

1255

1254

1253

1252

1251

1250

1249

1248

1247

1246

1245

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235


38

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

CL-CH

CL

SM

CL

Topsoil

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

3

4

7

2

4

4

2

10

6


LEAN CLAY, brown to grayish brown,mottled, moist, very soft to soft

LEAN CLAY, gray, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY, gray, moist, very soft, a fewlenses of Sand

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, gray, wet towater bearing at 19.7', very loose to loose



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/29/2016 END: 3/29/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 6.82412:00 pm3/29/2016 19.7 1221.4


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217


27

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

CL

CL

SP

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Coarse Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

1

1

2

5

3

4

8

8

7

ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray, mottled, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown, moist, soft to verysoft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, very soft to soft

SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL, fine tomedium grained, water bearing, loose


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/25/2016 END: 3/25/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22242:30 pm3/25/2016 1.0 1237.9


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

55 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215


52

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

PT

PT

SM

SP-SM

CL

Topsoil

Swamp Deposits

Swamp Deposits

Coarse Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

SB

SB

SBSH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

2

2

1

1

WH

WH

WH

5

5

5

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist, very soft

PEAT, black, wet, very soft

MUCK, gray, wet

SILTY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,gray, water bearing, loose

SAND WITH SILT AND WITH GRAVEL,medium to coarse grained, gray, water bearing,loose

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, wet, soft


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/23/2016 END: 3/23/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

222410:05 am3/23/2016 3.8 1230.2


LOG OF TEST BORING

PROJECT LOCATION: Freeborn County, MN BORING NUMBER PB 41PAGE 1 OF 1SURFACE ELEVATION: 1234 ftCLIENT/WSB #: 02286-180

DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

56 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210


17

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

SM

CL

CL

Fine Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

4

6

7

8

11

7

6

8

12

11

LEAN CLAY, brown to reddish brown,mottled, moist, very soft to soft

SILTY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,grayish brown, water bearing, at 10' a fewlenses of Lean Clay

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to grayish brown, mottled,moist

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark gray, moist, firm


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/29/2016 END: 3/29/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 6.5243:25 pm3/29/2016 6.0 1238.5


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

56 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1244

1243

1242

1241

1240

1239

1238

1237

1236

1235

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221


39

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

CL

CL

CL

ML

CL

SM

CL

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Fine Alluvium

Coarse Alluvium

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

7

5

5

5

7

9

7

3

7

LEAN CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft a fewOrganics

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark brown to reddish brown,mottled, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY, gray, mottled, wet, soft

SILT, gray, moist, loose

LEAN CLAY, gray, mottled, moist, soft

SILTY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,dark gray, water bearing, very loose



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/28/2016 END: 3/28/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 19.5246:30 pm3/28/2016 12.4 1222.8


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

56 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1234

1233

1232

1231

1230

1229

1228

1227

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211


17

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

OL

CL

CL

CL

SM

Topsoil

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Coarse Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

4

4

4

5

7

8

13

18

23



LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, brown to grayish brown, mottled,moist, soft


SILTY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,gray, water bearing, medium loose


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/28/2016 END: 3/28/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22 20.8245:20 pm3/28/2016 18.9 1204.3


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

56 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204

1203

1202

1201

1200

1199


20

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 14.5'

OL

SC

CL

CL

Topsoil

Mixed Alluvium

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

6

4

5

5

5

7

10


CLAYEY SAND WITH A LITTLE GRAVEL,gray, mottled, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray, moist, soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, gray to reddish brown, mottled,moist, soft to firm


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/22/2016 END: 3/22/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

14.5166:20 pm3/22/2016 12.7 1209.9


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

56 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204

1203

1202

1201

1200

1199


18

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

SC

PT

PT

CL

CL

SM

Topsoil

Swamp Deposits

Swamp Deposits

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

Coarse Alluvium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SB

5

2

2

3

5

6

1

CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, soft, afew Organics

PEAT, black, moist, very soft

MUCK, gray, wet, very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, dark brown to gray, mottled, moist,very soft to soft


SILTY SAND, dark gray, wet, very loose


TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/22/2016 END: 3/22/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22243:30 pm3/22/2016 None


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

56 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1226

1225

1224

1223

1222

1221

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204

1203


15

3 1/4" HSA 0' - 22'

PT

CL

CL

Swamp Deposits

Glacial Till

Glacial Till

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SB

SB

SB

SH

SB

SH

SB

SB

SB

SB

5

4

5

5

7

6

7

7

PEAT, black, moist, soft to very soft

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND A LITTLEGRAVEL, grayish brown, mottled, moist, soft



TIME CASINGDEPTH

CAVE-INDEPTH

WATERDEPTH

WATERELEVATION



START: 3/22/2016 END: 3/22/2016

Logged By:

DAJR. Kurth

Notes:

Crew Chief:


DD(pcf)

LL(%)

PL(%)

22241:05 pm3/22/2016 None


LOG OF TEST BORING


DEPTH(ft)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

USCS GEOLOGICORIGIN

SAMPLE

No. TYPEWLN

WS

B B

OR

ING

LO

G -

WS

B.G

DT

- 4

/11

/16

15:

56 -

K:\0

228

6-1

80\G

EO

TE

CH

-CM

T\S

RR

WD

-CP

F-S

ITE

, FR

EE

BO

RN

CO

UN

TY

, MN

.GP

J

ELEV.(ft)

1220

1219

1218

1217

1216

1215

1214

1213

1212

1211

1210

1209

1208

1207

1206

1205

1204

1203

1202

1201

1200

1199

1198

1197


APPENDIX C

GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY REPORTS RECEIVED AS OF MAY 6, 2016

1

9530 James Ave South Bloomington, MN 55431

.002.005

Hydrometer Analysis

Fines

.2 .5

Sample

Type

.02 .05

Fine

TWT

#20 #40

20 50

Other Tests

*

5

2.68*

39.1

14.7

24.4

2.68*

31.4

14.8

16.6

2.68*

pH

Shrinkage Limit

Penetrometer

Qu (psf)

Dry Density (pcf)

Specific Gravity

Porosity

Organic Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Water Content

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium

West

West

West

Sand

1

Gravel

3

6

Grain Size Distribution ASTM D422

4/21/16Report Date:

Test Date:

Reported To:

Project:

Job No. : 103084/19/16#02286-180

WSB & Associates

TWT

TWT

Sandy Lean Clay (CL)


Sandy Lean Clay w/a trace of gravel (CL)

*

Boring Depth (ft)

9.5-11

7-9

22-24

3/8"

2

#4

Mass (g)

*

2"

1.5"

#200

281.2

#100 #200

#10

#20

#40

#100

1"

3/4"

63.5

52.3

Location

2 3/4 3/8 #4

321.9

#10

72.1

100.0

98.2

88.8

84.3

100.0

98.9

96.1

92.2

86.3

100.0

90.4

Percent Passing

203.5

72.3

62.3

96.4

92.0

98.1

94.8

64.7

83.9

*

Remarks:

D60

D30

D10

CU

CC

Soil Classification

(* = assumed)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100 Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

0.001 20.5

Hydrometer Data

0.001 8.6 0.001 10.3

0.006 31.40.003 26.00.006 22.6 0.006 20.9

13.6 0.003 15.5 0.003

0.008 34.60.012 36.60.009 28.0 0.009 25.1

0.012 29.1

0.031 47.60.020 41.90.012 37.5

0.019 45.0 0.020 34.30.030 50.8 0.032 40.2

Diameter % Passing Diameter % Passing

RemarksSpecimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

88.884.3

63.552.3

#20#40

#100#200#200

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3

64.762.3

Reported To: WSB & Associates

3

Diameter (mm) % Passing

#20#40

#100#200

92.2

Report Date: 4/21/16

Boring Depth (ft)

Sample

Type Soil Classification

Spec 1

#40#100

86.372.3

#20

West 1 9.5-11

Spec 3

72.1

90.483.9

Grain Size Distribution ASTM D422Job No. : 10308

Project: #02286-180Test Date: 4/19/16

TWT Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

Location



Spec 2 West 7-9 TWT

West 6 22-24 TWT

Sieve Data

Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3Sieve % Passing

2"

#4 98.9

1.5"1"

#10 96.1

Sieve % Passing2"

1.5"

3/4"1"

3/4"

#4 98.1#10 94.8

Sieve % Passing2"

1.5"1"

98.23/4" 100.0

#4 96.4


#10 92.0

3/8" 100.0 3/8" 100.0 3/8"

1


.002.005

Hydrometer Analysis

Fines

.2 .5

Sample

Type

.02 .05

Fine

TWT

#20 #40

20 50

Other Tests

*

5

2.68*

37.4

22.2

15.2

2.68*

33.2

16.2

17.0

2.68*

pH

Shrinkage Limit

Penetrometer

Qu (psf)

Dry Density (pcf)

Specific Gravity

Porosity

Organic Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Water Content


West

SW1

SW1

Sand

23

Gravel

26

44


4/21/16Report Date:

Test Date:

Reported To:

Project:

Job No. : 103084/19/16#02286-180

WSB & Associates

TWT

TWT


Lean Clay w/sand (CL)

Lean Clay (CL)

*

Boring Depth (ft)

4.5-6

7-9

7-9

3/8"

2

#4

Mass (g)

*

2"

1.5"

#200

285.2

#100 #200

#10

#20

#40

#100

1"

3/4"

81.6

71.7

Location

2 3/4 3/8 #4

298.0

#10

95.2

99.8

99.5

100.0

98.3

97.2

95.3

91.3

85.3

100.0

94.6

Percent Passing

275.0

67.4

55.2

100.0

100.0

99.1

97.7

88.2

91.0

*

Remarks:

D60

D30

D10

CU

CC

Soil Classification

(* = assumed)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100 Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

0.001 8.3

Hydrometer Data

0.001 11.3 0.001 12.4

0.006 24.10.003 13.30.006 23.1 0.006 27.4

16.9 0.003 18.6 0.003

0.009 31.90.012 31.30.009 27.6 0.009 31.1

0.012 36.6

0.030 63.90.020 51.90.012 40.3

0.020 36.8 0.020 45.80.032 42.3 0.030 55.9



99.899.5

81.671.7

#20#40

#100#200#200


88.255.2


26


#20#40

#100#200

91.3


Boring Depth (ft)

Sample


Spec 1

#40#100

85.367.4

#20

West 23 4.5-6

Spec 3

95.2

94.691.0



TWT Sandy Lean Clay w/a trace of gravel (CL)

Location


Lean Clay (CL)

Spec 2 SW1 7-9 TWT

SW1 44 7-9 TWT

Sieve Data


2"

#4 97.2

1.5"1"

#10 95.3

Sieve % Passing2"

1.5"

3/4" 100.01"

3/4"

#4 99.1#10 97.7

Sieve % Passing2"

1.5"1"

3/4"

#4 100.0


#10 100.0

3/8" 98.3 3/8" 100.0 3/8"

1

(* = assumed)

Soil Classification

CU

CC

92.6

*

Remarks:

D60

D30

D10

66.7

53.0

98.2

95.1

100.0

99.5

58.0

Percent Passing

205.4

91.1

85.2

100.0

98.1

94.8

90.0

83.5

97.1

#10

68.0

100.0

71.5

52.4

Location

2 3/4 3/8 #4

311.6

#200

431.5

#100 #200

#10

#20

#40

#100

1"

3/4"

#4

Mass (g)

*

2"

1.5"

3/8"

2

Boring Depth (ft)

7-9

9.5-11

9.5-11

WSB & Associates

TWT

TWT


Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML/ML)


*


4/21/16Report Date:

Test Date:

Reported To:

Project:

Job No. : 103084/19/16#02286-180

Gravel

33

45

SW1

SW2

SW2

Sand

39


Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Water Content

Dry Density (pcf)

Specific Gravity

Porosity

Organic Content

pH

Shrinkage Limit

Penetrometer

Qu (psf)

25.4

14.8

10.6

18.3

111.8

2.68*

17.7

13.5

4.2

2.68* 2.68*

20 50

Other Tests

*

5 .2 .5

Sample

Type

.02 .05

Fine

TWT

#20 #40

.002.005

Hydrometer Analysis

Fines


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100 Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing


#10 95.1

3/8" 100.0 3/8" 3/8" 100.03/4"

#4 98.2

1.5"1"

Sieve % Passing2"

#4 100.0#10 99.5

1"3/4"

#10 94.8

Sieve % Passing2"

1.5"

3/4"

#4 98.1

1.5"1"

Sieve % Passing2"

Sieve Data



Spec 2 SW2 9.5-11 TWT

SW2 45 9.5-11 TWT


Location

Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML/ML)

68.0

97.192.6



Spec 1

#40#100

83.566.7

#20

SW1 39 7-9

Spec 3


Boring Depth (ft)

Sample



33


#20#40

#100#200

90.0

#200


58.053.071.552.4

#20#40

#100#200


91.185.2


0.032 40.0 0.033 35.0

0.012 33.60.020 34.4 0.021 26.7

0.031 46.70.020 40.0

0.009 29.00.012 27.50.009 23.2 0.009 16.6

0.013 20.3

20.70.006 19.0 0.006 13.0

12.3 0.003 6.7 0.0030.001 16.4

Hydrometer Data

0.001 7.1 0.001 5.4

0.006 25.20.003

1


.002.005

Hydrometer Analysis

Fines

.2 .5

Sample

Type

.02 .05

Fine

TWT

#20 #40

20 50

Other Tests

*

5

114.6

2.68*

16.6

pH

Shrinkage Limit

Penetrometer

Qu (psf)

Dry Density (pcf)

Specific Gravity

Porosity

Organic Content

Liquid Limit

Plastic Limit

Plasticity Index

Water Content


SW2

Sand

48

Gravel


4/21/16Report Date:

Test Date:

Reported To:

Project:

Job No. : 103084/19/16#02286-180

WSB & Associates

Sandy Lean Clay (CL)*

Boring Depth (ft)

17-19

3/8"

2

#4

Mass (g)

*

2"

1.5"

#200

203.5

#100 #200

#10

#20

#40

#100

1"

3/4"

Location

2 3/4 3/8 #4 #10

100.0

98.3

95.3

90.6

83.9

Percent Passing

69.3

52.1

*

Remarks:

D60

D30

D10

CU

CC

Soil Classification

(* = assumed)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100 Grain Size (mm)

Per

cen

t P

ass

ing

Hydrometer Data

0.001 7.00.0030.006 19.0

11.2

0.012 26.90.009 22.7

0.021 32.30.032 39.1



#20#40

#100#200#200


52.1



#20#40

#100#200

90.6


Boring Depth (ft)

Sample


Spec 1

#40#100

83.969.3

#20

SW2 48 17-19

Spec 3




Location

Spec 2

Sieve Data


2"

#4 98.3

1.5"1"

#10 95.3

Sieve % Passing2"

1.5"

3/4"1"

3/4"

#4#10

Sieve % Passing2"

1.5"1"

3/4"

#4


#10

3/8" 100.0 3/8" 3/8"

Project: Job: 10308

Client: Date: 4/25/2016

Boring # 2 3 6 12 26 44 39 24

Location West West West West SW1 SW1 SW1 SW2

Depth (ft) 22-24 7-9 22-24 14.5-16 7-9 7-9 7-9 19.5-21

Sample Type TWT TWT TWT TWT TWT TWT TWT TWT

Liquid Limit 30.5 31.4 39.1 25.4 33.2 37.4 25.4 42.4

Plastic Limit 14.1 14.8 14.7 13.2 16.2 22.2 14.8 19.2

Plasticity Index 16.4 16.6 24.4 12.2 17.0 15.2 10.6 23.2

Boring # 33 49

Location SW2 SW2

Depth (ft) 9.5-11 12-14

Sample Type TWT TWT

Liquid Limit 17.7 27.0

Plastic Limit 13.5 13.7

Plasticity Index 4.2 13.3

Sample Information & Classification


Lean Clay

(CL)

Lean Clay

(CL)

Sandy Lean Clay

w/a trace of

gravel

(CL)

Lean Clay w/sand

(CL)

#02286-180

WSB & Associates

Laboratory Test Summary

MaterialClassification

Sandy Silty Clay

(CL-ML/ML)

Sandy Lean Clay

w/a little gravel

(CL)

Atterberg Limits (ASTM:D4318)

Sandy Lean Clay

(CL)

MaterialClassification

Sandy Lean Clay

w/a trace of

gravel and some

patches of silty

sand

(CL)

Sandy Lean Clay

(CL)

Sandy Lean Clay

(CL)

Atterberg Limits (ASTM:D4318)

Project: Job: 10308

Client: Date: 4/26/16

Location West SW-1 SW-2

Boring 9 39 48

Depth (ft) 4.5-6.5 7-9 17-19

Type or BPF TWT TWT TWT

Water Content (%) 32.0 18.3 16.6

Dry Density (pcf) 88.9 111.8 114.6

Location

Boring

Depth (ft)

Type or BPF

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

Location

Boring

Depth (ft)

Type or BPF

Water Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

Water Content, Dry Density


Classification

Lean Clay (CL/CH)

Water Content, Dry Density (ASTM:D7263)

Water Content, Dry Density (ASTM:D7263)


Classification

Laboratory Test Summary

Sandy Lean Clay(CL)

#02286-180

WSB & Associates


Sandy Lean Clay(CL)

Classification

Project: Job:Client: Date:

Remarks:

Depth:

Ht. (in) 5.81

2.0

2.00 tsf

11.2

Depth:

Ht. (in): 5.78

2.0

1.52 tsf

6.6

LL:

PL:

PI:


Height to Diameter Ratio:

30.5

0.060Strain Rate (in/min):

Strain Rate (in/min):

Boring:

Sample #: West

Soil Type:Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

9.5-11PB-1

3T

Soil Type:

14.1

16.1

116.1

Dia. (in): 2.88

Unconfined Comp. Strength:

Strain at Failure (%):


16.4

Boring: PB-2

Sample #: West

Sandy Lean Clay w/a trace of gravel

and some patches of silty sand (CL)

Sketch of Specimen After

Failure

Sample Type:

22-24


21.8


W.C. (%):

104.4

Unconfined Stress/Strain Curves ASTM: D2166

WSB & Associates103084/27/16

#02286-180

Yd (pcf):

W.C. (%):

Yd (pcf):

Dia. (in) 2.88


Failure

0.060

Sample Type: 3T

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)

Deviator Stress (tsf)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)



Remarks:

Depth:

Ht. (in) 5.80

2.0

1.80 tsf

4.8

LL:

PL:

PI:

Depth:

Ht. (in): 5.86

2.0

1.33 tsf

20.0

LL:

PL:

PI:


31.4


16.6

39.1

14.8



Boring:

Sample #: West

Soil Type:Sandy Lean Clay (CL)

7-9PB-3

3T

Soil Type:

14.7

18.5

111.7

Dia. (in): 2.87




24.4

Boring: PB-6

Sample #: West

Sandy Lean Clay w/a trace of gravel

(CL)


Failure

Sample Type:

22-24


18.2


W.C. (%):

111.3



#02286-180

Yd (pcf):

W.C. (%):

Yd (pcf):

Dia. (in) 2.88


Failure

0.060

Sample Type: 3T

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)



Remarks:

Depth:

Ht. (in) 5.66

2.0

0.84 tsf

17.7

LL:

PL:

PI:

Depth:

Ht. (in): 5.75

2.0

1.39 tsf

7.8


25.4


12.2

13.2



Boring:

Sample #: West

Soil Type:Sandy Lean Clay w/a trace of gravel

(CL)

14-16.5PB-12

3T

Soil Type:

16.5

112.8

Dia. (in): 2.84




Boring: PB-22

Sample #: West



Failure

Sample Type:

9.5-11.5


16.6


W.C. (%):

120.9



#02286-180

Yd (pcf):

W.C. (%):

Yd (pcf):

Dia. (in) 2.85


Failure

0.060

Sample Type: 3T

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)



Remarks:

Depth:

Ht. (in) 5.70

2.0

1.29 tsf

7.9

Depth:

Ht. (in): 5.78

2.0

0.55 tsf

19.0

LL:

PL:

PI:



42.4



Boring:

Sample #: West

Soil Type:Sandy Lean Clay w/a trace of gravel

(CL)

4.5-6.5PB-23

3T

Soil Type:

19.2

33.8

87.4

Dia. (in): 2.85




23.2

Boring: PB-24

Sample #: SW2

Lean Clay (CL)


Failure

Sample Type:

19.5-21.5


26.5


W.C. (%):

95.9



#02286-180

Yd (pcf):

W.C. (%):

Yd (pcf):

Dia. (in) 2.88


Failure

0.060

Sample Type: 3T

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)



Remarks:

Depth:

Ht. (in) 5.83

2.0

1.02 tsf

8.6

Depth:

Ht. (in): 5.71

2.0

0.43 tsf

1.4

LL:

PL:

PI:

Yd (pcf):

W.C. (%):

Yd (pcf):

Dia. (in) 2.88


Failure

0.060

Sample Type: 3T

112.0



#02286-180


18.3


W.C. (%):

17.0

Boring: PB-26

Sample #: SW1

Lean Clay w/sand and some patches of

silty sand (CL)


Failure

Sample Type:

7-9

3T

Soil Type:

16.2

22.1

96.0

Dia. (in): 2.89





Boring:

Sample #: SW1

Soil Type:Lean Clay w/sand (CL)

7-9PB-25



33.2


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)



Remarks:

Depth:

Ht. (in) 5.64

2.0

0.46 tsf

3.2

LL:

PL:

PI:

Depth:

Ht. (in): 5.67

2.0

0.49 tsf

6.7

LL:

PL:

PI:


17.7


4.2

37.4

13.5



Boring:

Sample #: SW2

Soil Type:Sandy Silty Clay (CL-ML/ML)

9.5-11PB-33

3T

Soil Type:

22.2

31.2

90.2

Dia. (in): 2.83




15.2

Boring: PB-44

Sample #: SW1

Lean Clay (CL)


Failure

Sample Type:

7-9


16.4


W.C. (%):

117.5



#02286-180

Yd (pcf):

W.C. (%):

Yd (pcf):

Dia. (in) 2.85


Failure

0.060

Sample Type: 3T

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)



Remarks:

Depth:

Ht. (in) 5.92

2.1

1.37 tsf

3.7

Depth:

Ht. (in): 5.85

2.0

1.45 tsf

12.0

LL:

PL:

PI:



27.0



Boring:

Sample #: SW-2

Soil Type:Sandy Lean Clay w/a patch of sand

(CL)

9.5-11.5PB-45

3T

Soil Type:

13.7

15.6

115.4

Dia. (in): 2.87




13.3

Boring: PB-49

Sample #: SW-2

Sandy Lean Clay w/a little gravel (CL)


Failure

Sample Type:

12-14


16.1


W.C. (%):

114.2



#02286-180

Yd (pcf):

W.C. (%):

Yd (pcf):

Dia. (in) 2.87


Failure

0.060

Sample Type: 3T

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Axial Strain (%)


ASTM: D3080

Project/Client:

Boring No.: Sample No. Depth:

Location: Sample Type:

Soil Type:

0.2

φ=φ=φ=φ= 29.1 deg. φ=φ=φ=φ= 29.1 deg.

3.60

Direct Shear Test

Test Date:

Job No.:

#02286-180 / WSB Associates, Inc.

PB-18 West 7-9 Top 4/20/2016

0.55 1.48

0.72 1.80

Dry Density (pcf)

2.21

111.8 114.3 117.5

Normal Stress

Shear Stress

Dry Density (pcf)

Before Shear

Thickness (In.)

Water Content (%) 17.1 15.7

0.93 0.92 0.91

18.4

111.7

14.4 13.7

A B C D

(*) = Assumed Specific Gravity

Remarks: Specimens trimmed to given sizes; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and

sheared to given displacements at constant rate of 0.003 inches/minute.

Plastic Limit:

Plasticity Index:

Specific Gravity (*):

Liquid Limit:

2.67

4/25/2016

Max Stress

Failure Criterion:

Mixture of Silty Sand, Sand, Sand with Silt and Clayey Sand

TWT Date Reported:

Shear Rate

0.003 (in/min)

Initial

2.50 2.50Diameter (In.)

"These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a

qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are

appropriate for any particular design."

0.96Thickness (In.)

Water Content (%)

0.96

15.9

108.7 109.3

10308

CohesionTSF0.259

Apparent

X

0.96

2.50

Peak Conditions

Friction Angle: Friction Angle:

At Given Shear Disp. Of:

Apparent

Cohesion0.278 TSF

-0.025

-0.02

-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Ch

an

ge i

n T

hic

kn

ess (

inch

)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2Shear Displacement (inch)

Sh

ear

Str

ess (

TS

F)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Normal Stress (TSF)

Sh

ear

Str

ess (

TS

F)

APPENDIX D

JONES, HAUGH & SMITH PLAT OF SURVEY

APPENDIX E

FAA NO HAZARD DETERMINATION LETTER

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT FOUNTAIN LAKE RESTORATION …9804AD9D... · Balance earthwork with site...

Documents

Transcript of BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT FOUNTAIN LAKE RESTORATION …9804AD9D... · Balance earthwork with site...