Attachment 5 Geology Report Backhoe Pit Logs Location Map Lab Tests.pdf

embankment toe along the river. Due to sluffing, the river as well as internal ditches were periodically cleaned out to remove the sediment that had sluffed off from the embankments. In areas where the creeks/river are particularly constricted and embankments were susceptible to streambank type erosion, banks were previously either rock armored or pulled back in certain areas. To plan for needed maintenance on either the tops or slopes of the berms, there are several areas where a shelf was established on either side of the berm to provide an area for borrow material during maintenance. Several internal ditches around the main embankment are further in from the toe of the embankment to create a further distance between water sources while some ditches remain relatively close to the toe of the embankment. However, the landowner notes there has never seen lateral effect through the berms above ditch lines and no evidence of seepage from one side to the other.”

The current plan to restore a wetland in this alluvial valley will include the following:

Figure 3- Drawing showing a plan view of the various proposed embankment sections A-E.

Figure 12-Modified soil block diagram of the site.

As seen in figures 10, 11, and 12 the test pits did match the Soil Survey pretty-well, except the firmer glacial lake sediment depths were commonly much deeper than the 5-6 feet that the Soil Survey maps to and were not shown on the map unit description.

Interpretations

While the test pit investigation gave a good summary of the geologic material we can expect to find on site I think many more holes would be required to fully characterize the depths to the various materials sufficiently across the site. But I believe we have enough information to make the following interpretations:

1. The soft organic peat soils that will be used to build the embankment will have significant primary consolidation.

2. If water is not drained from the soil, it will likely break down slowly over time and have minimal consolidation in the wet portions of the fill after the initial fill placement occurs. The area above the phreatic line may settle some but because the embankment height is low it should not be significant.

3. The fibric peat formed with slow accumulation of interlocking wetland vegetation stems in a shallow lake that will likely have some buoyancy when the pores are saturated (in a similar way that logs float on water). This may make the “in place” strength of this material higher than the dry sample lab results may suggest. As a result, I believe it is important to either devise a lab testing method that accounts for this or use some in-situ strength testing method.

Ht Pa

Glacial Lake

Sediment

Peat Silty Marl

Thinner Peat and Marl

(<3 Feet Thick)

Thicker Peat and Marl (3-20 feet Thick) with deeper alluvial meanders present

V. Soft to Soft

Firm to Hard

4. Organic peat soils are notoriously difficult to build roads in because the soft organic soil cannot handle the weight of the mineral soil, gravel, or pavement placed on top to make a roadbed. As a result, I would be very hesitant to plan any heavy road surfacing materials on the embankments unless it is in an area of thinner organic or marl material like the Palms soils (figure 11 and 12) and built out of mineral soils.

5. Due to the extra weight of over building the structure to account for settlement, I would also suggest not building the structure any higher than needed. A better use of that time and material may be building berms and flattening the slope on the sides of the embankment to make it more stable and less likely to have expensive maintenance related to slope failures over time as a phreatic line establishes itself in the material.

6. The silty marl below the peat is a very soft mineral soil that will continue to consolidate with additional weight of an embankment and can be tested with standard lab tests. Thick areas of marl with less fibric peat on top may differentially settle more than areas of thinner marl.

7. The glacial lake sediment below the peat and marl seems firm enough to have less consolidation but it should still be tested to determine the strength parameters for design.

8. The peat and marl soils will be a marginal fill material but since the foundation is also peat and marl, it may not make any sense to go looking for better mineral soils (SM or ML till from the end moraines to the south of the site). Because the added weight of these materials may cause additional settlement of the peat and marl foundation. They will also likely have a low PI and high sand content (based on the general properties of the Horicon member of the Holy Hill formation described above) and be more expensive to haul to the site.

Summary and proposed Follow-up Investigations:

The soft soils, length of easement, and large size of the project make it necessary to do an adequate investigation to help minimize the potential long term maintenance issues that may be present on site. As a result, I suggest some of the following additional investigation steps be considered:

1. Continue to process the Tromino data and possibly collect additional data to estimate the depth to firm soil in various portions of the site.

2. If the engineering staff is concerned about the Marl consolidation, we will need to hire a geotechnical firm to do additional borings across the site and take SPT blow counts of that material to estimate strength and consolidation because the geophysics equipment will not be able to estimate the difference between the peat and the marl in most situations.

3. Devise some in-situ consolidation testing method and take many measurements across the site to estimate material strength and consolidation better than we can with other methods due to the organic soils on site.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or if there is anything else I can do to help.

Submitted January 27, 2022 by:

NRCS State Geologist MN / WI Onalaska, WI and

NRCS Agricultural Engineer Madison, WI

Appendix A: Test Pit Logs

Ki nc ai d

0.

Je ffe rs on

W et la nd

N

.3

,E

.8 ft

Ex ca va to r Su m m it of

La ke

Pl ai n

TP

W

,K P

8.

H ou gh to n

/0 4/

N /A no ne

PT

sa pr ic pe at

5-no n

Y

R

2/ m oi st m as si ve re ce nt or ga ni c

>9 5%

O rg an ic

M at te r, fie ld c on si st en cy es tim at e= s of t t o ve ry s of t (

PP

=1

.6

T/ sq ft an d To rv an e= 2.

L ar ge

H ea d)

1 A

PT

fib ric p ea t no n

3/ m oi st m as si ve re ce nt or ga ni c

>9 5%

O rg an ic

M at te r, Fi el d co ns is te nc y es tim at e so ft to v er y so ft, (P P=

.2 t/s qf t a nd T or va ne

4.

L ar ge h ea d)

3. 5 1 B

3.

PT

W et

F ib ric

Pe at no n

3/ w et m as si ve re ce nt or ga ni c >9

5% O rg an ic M at te r, so ft to v er y so ft (s of te st w ith in w at er ta bl e (P

P=

.7 t/s qf t a nd

T or va ne

=5 .0

L ar ge H ea d

3. 5

1 C

3.

7.

M L

Si lty

M ar l no n

5/ w et m as si ve R ec en t N ea r Sh or e

Si lty

M ar l s he ll ca lc ar io us m at er ia l, sa tu ra te d, v er y so ft

(P P=

0.

t/ sq ft an d To rv an e

4.

L ar ge h ea d)

3. 5

7. 5

1 D

7.

9.

M L

Si lty

M ar l no n G le y

8, w et m as si ve

R ec en t N ea r

Sh or e Si lty M ar l sa tu ra te d, v er y so ft

9.

SP

C le an La cu st rin e or

O ut w as h Sa nd no n

G le y

B

4/ w et m as si ve

G la ci al

L ak e Sc up pe rn on g N ea r

Sh or e Sa nd o r O ut w as h

C le an sa nd ,w at er be gi nn in g to se ep

,F irm

.0 -E nd of bo rin g no re fu sa l nc ai d

Je ffe rs on

W et la nd

Ex ca va to r no ne

C L

Le an

C la y Ea rth F ill yr

/1 to y r 6

/1 m oi st w ea k, m ed gr an ul ar ea rth fi ll

Fi rm

, A nt hr op og en ic M at er ia l

2 A

2.

PT

Sa pr ic P ea t no n

YR

2/

YR

3/ m oi st m od er at e, m ed ia te

SB

K

R ec en t

O rg an ic s >9

5% O rg an ic M at te r, fie ld c on si st at e= s of t t o ve ry s of t

2. 3 2 B

2.

4.

PT

Fi br ic

P ea t no n

YR

3/ m oi st m as si ve

R ec en t

O rg an ic s >9

5% O rg an ic M at te r, Fi el d co ns is te nc y es tim at e so ft to v er y so ft

4.

6.

PT

W et F ib ric

Pe no n 7.

5Y R

4/ w et m as si ve

R ec en t

O rg an ic s >9

5% O rg an ic M at te r, so ft to v er y so ft (s of te st ),w ith in w at er ta bl e

4. 2

6. 3

2 C

6.

9.

M L

Si lty

M ar l no n 2.

5Y 5/

2.

5Y 6/ w et m as si ve R ec en t N ea r S ho re

Si lty M ar l

V.

So ft, 5% s he ll ca lc ar io us m er ia l, sa tu ra te d, v er y so ft

6. 3

9. 1 2 D

9.

M

L Si lty M ar l no n

2.

5Y

5/ m oi st m as si ve R ec en t N ea r S

M ar l

V.

So ft, o rg an ic

.0 -E nd of

Pi t=

N o re fu nc ai d

Je ffe rs on

/0

4/ no ne

1.

PT

Sa pr ic P ea t no n

YR

2/ m oi st m as si ve

R ec en t

O rg an ic s >9

5% O rg an ic M at te r, fie ld c on si st at e= s of t t o ve ry s of t (

PP

=1 .1

T/ sq ft)

1. 7

3 A

1.

3.

PT

Fi br ic

P ea t no n yr

/1 to

7.

yr

2.

5/ m oi st m as si ve R ec en t O rg an ic s

>9 5%

O rg an ic

M at te r, Fi el d co ns is te nc y es tim at e so ft to v er y so ft, (P P=

.7 t/s qf t a nd T or va ne

5.

La rg e he ad

1. 7

3. 9

3 B 3.

5.

M

L Si lty M ar l no n

7.

5Y

3/

2.

5Y

6/ w et m as si ve

R ec en t

N ea r S

M ar l so ft to v er y so ft

(s of te st

),w ith in w er ta bl e

(P P=

.0 t/s qf t a nd T or va ne =3

.9 la rg e H ea d)

3. 9

5. 6

3 C

5.

8.

C L

La cu st rin e Le an C la y lo w m ed iu m

G le y

5B 4/ w et m as si ve G la ci al L ak e

Sc up pe rn on g

O ffs ho re

C la y

H ar d (p p= 1.

t/s qf t a nd

To rv an e=

3.

w ith la rg e he ad

5. 6

8. 6

3 D

8.

C

H La cu st rin e

Fa t C la y m ed iu m to h ig h

2.

5Y

5/ sa tu ra te d la ye re d G la ci al L ak e

Sc up pe rn on g

O ffs ho re

D ee p W at er

C la y

H ar d (p p= 2.

an d To rv an e= 6.

w ith th e la rg e

8. 6

3 E

.0

-E nd of Pi t= N o re fu nc ai d

Je ffe rs on lin ea r ft

/0

4/ no ne

O L

O rg an ic

S ilt no n

G le y 2.

5/ 2.

5/ m oi st bl oc ky re ce nt or ga ni cs so ft to v er y so ft (P

P=

.7 t/ sq ft an d

To rv an e=

5.

w ith

" H ea d)

3. 0

4 A

PT

Sa pr ic

P ea t no n

0y r

2/

/4 m oi st m as si ve re ce nt or ga ni cs

>9 5%

O rg an ic

M at te r, fie ld c on si st at e= s of t t o ve ry s of t (

PP

=1

.0

T/ sq ft an d To rv an e= 2.

w ith

" H ea d)

5.

SM

D irt y La cu st rin or

O ut w as h Sa nd no n yr

5/ yr

5/ w et si ng le gr ai n

G la ci al

L ak e Sc up pe rn on g N ea r

Sh or e Sa nd o r O ut w as h ou tw as h, " t op m ar l, bo tto m fr ee er /s ee pi ng , F irm (P

P= 1.

t/s qf t, an d

To rv an e=

0.

w ith

" h ea d)

3. 0

5. 5

4 B

5.

9.

M L

La cu st rin e Si lt sl ig ht ly

2.

5y 5/ w et m as si ve

G la ci al

L ak e Sc up pe rn on g N ea r

Sh or e Si lt al te rn at in g w ith th e la ye r a bo ve in pl ac es , H ar d

(P P=

0.

t/s qf an e=

.5 w ith

"h ea d)

9.

9.

-E nd of Pi t= N o R ef us al nc ai d

Je ffe rs on

/0

4/ no ne

1.

PT

Sa pr ic P ea t no n pl as tic yr

/1 ith

7.

yr

/4 co nc en tra tio ns m oi st m as si ve R ec en t O rg an ic s

So ft to V

.S of t, >9

5% O rg an ic M at te r, fie ld co ns is te nc y es tim at e= s of t t o ve ry s of t (

PP

=4 .0

T/ sq ft an d

To rv an e=

4.

w ith

" H ea d)

1.

3.

M L

Si lty

M ar l no n pl as tic

2.

5y

/1

.5 y 6/

-1

5% y r

4/ co nc en tra tio ns m oi st m as si ve R ec en t N ea r Sh or e

Si lty

M ar l V.

So ft, 5% s he ll ca lc ar io us m at er ia l, sa tu ra te d, v er y so ft (P

P

0.

t/s qf an e

1.

w ith th e

1" h ea d)

3.

M

L La cu st rin e

Si lt sl ig ht ly pl as tic

2.

5y 6/

-3

4/ co nc en tra tio ns m oi st st ra tif ie d

G la ci al

L ak e Sc up pe rn on g N ea r

Sh or e Si lt

Fi rm

, g la ci al la ke s ed

, 1 /4

" t o1

/2 " o r m as si ve

, F irm

(P

P= 0.

a nd T or va ne

.0 w ith

" h ea d)

7.

M

L- C

L La cu st rin e

Si lt an d

C la y tra ns iti on al la ye r G la ci al L ak e

Sc up pe rn on g

N ea r Sh or e

Si lt

Fi rm

, T ra ns iti on al la ye r w ith m at er ia l f ro m th e pr ev ie ou sl y de sc rib ed

M L m ix ed w ith a lte rn at in g la ye rs o f t he C

H la ye rs

7.

.7

C H

La cu st rin e Fa t C la y m ed iu m to h ig h pl as tic ity

2.

5y 6/ sa tu ra te d la ye re d G la ci al L ak e

Sc up pe rn on g

O ffs ho re

D ee p W at er

C la y H ar d

(p p=

1.

a nd

T or va ne

=4 .5 ith th

1" h ea d)

.7

NRCS-ENG-354

Rev. June 2004 File Code ENG-210-22

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Soil Mechanics Laboratory Data

Sheet _1__ of _4__

Wisconsin

WRE

Location and Description Depth

Kincaid Wetland ft.

22 Jefferson County WI 182 1 Hole#1 Layer A SM 0-1.0 7 9 22 33 43 49 64 73 86 100 AD 176 16 Pt 1.94 147 63.2

OD 145 8

183 2 Hole#1 Layer B SM - 7 9 20 32 45 54 68 78 90 100 AD 264 14 Pt 1.67 456 88.0

OD - NP

184 3 Hole#1 Layer C SM - 14 24 54 91 92 100 AD 94 11 MH 2.59 177 12.1

OD 81 11

185 - Hole#1 Layer A&B SM - 8 12 22 35 41 44 52 61 76 100 AD 226 18 Pt 1.77 263 71.8

OD 169 2

186 - Hole#1 Layer A&B LG - 7 10 21 31 40 43 52 60 76 100 AD 222 13 Pt 1.77 249 73.4

OD 175 0

187 4 Hole#2 Layer A SM 0-1.0 16 24 41 51 60 63 67 71 79 100 AD 128 7 Pt 2.25 140 53.2

OD 91 7

188 5 Hole#2 SM 1-2.3 8 10 22 35 35 39 47 55 69 100 AD 268 7 Pt 1.65 385 88.3

OD 190 11

189 6 Hole#2 Layer B SM 4.2-6.3 6 9 20 38 39 42 58 75 97 100 AD 228 32 Pt 1.82 412 56.8

OD 142 13

190 7 Hole#2 Layer C SM 6.3- 15 22 55 86 92 100 AD 82 11 MH 2.59 127 9.2

OD 73 14

191 8 TP#3 Layer A SM - 8 12 24 39 45 46 58 72 90 100 AD 144 27 Pt 2.04 113 56.0

OD 135 19

192 9 TP#3 Layer B SM - 7 14 22 31 40 46 52 58 73 100 AD 204 23 Pt 1.81 247 67.3

OD 170 11

GS

Undisturbed Sample Data

Special Tests

Shears and Consolidations

#4 4.76 mm w0 % γd p.c.f.

wN % O rg an ic

C on te nt

As R ec 'd

M oi st ur e, Moisture-Density Relationships

□ Standard

□ Modified

Max γd p.c.f.

D is pe rs io n

Curve No.3/4"

19.05 mm

1" 25.4 mm

1 1/2" 38.1 mm

3" 76.2 mm

LL

C ru m b

#40 0.42 mm

#20 0.84 mm

#10 2.0 mm

Lab.

Sample

No.

Field Number

Sample Type

#60 0.250 mm

0.002 mm

0.005 mm

#140 0.105 mm

12/13/21 Atterberg Limits

PI

U ni fie d

C la ss ifi ca tio n

Fines Sand Gravel

Mechanical Analysis Grain Size Distribution Expressed as Percent Finer by Dry Weight

0.02 mm

0.05 mm

3/8" 9.525 mm

1/2" 12.7 mm

#200 0.074 mm

Date Reported: _____________ Initials: _____________

File Code ENG-210-22

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Soil Mechanics Laboratory Data

Sheet _2__ of _4__

Wisconsin

WRE

Location and Description Depth

Kincaid Wetland ft.

22 Jefferson County WI

GS

Undisturbed Sample Data

Special Tests

Shears and Consolidations

#4 4.76 mm w0 % γd p.c.f.

wN % O rg te nt

As R ec 'd

M oi st ur e, Moisture-Density Relationships

□ Standard

□ Modified

Max γd p.c.f.

D is pe rs io n

Curve No.3/4"

19.05 mm

1" 25.4 mm

1 1/2" 38.1 mm

3" 76.2 mm

LL

C ru m b

#40 0.42 mm

#20 0.84 mm

#10 2.0 mm

Lab.

Sample

No.

Field Number

Sample Type

#60 0.250 mm

0.002 mm

0.005 mm

#140 0.105 mm

12/13/21 Atterberg Limits

PI

U ni fie d

C la ss ifi ca tio n

Fines Sand Gravel

Mechanical Analysis Grain Size Distribution Expressed as Percent Finer by Dry Weight

0.02 mm

0.05 mm

3/8" 9.525 mm

1/2" 12.7 mm

#200 0.074 mm

193 10 TP#3 Layer C SM - 10 16 40 67 79 100 AD 70 13 MH 2.58 120 13.6

OD 65 12

194 11 TP#3 Clay Layer LG - 39 54 87 96 99 100 33 17 CL 1 112.9 16.7 2.79 17.8

195 12 TP#3 Bottom Clay Layer SM - 36 54 88 97 98 100 31 14 CL 2.80 20.7

196 - TP#3 Mixed Up Top Layer SM - 3 9 22 40 47 48 58 71 90 100 196 28 Pt 1.85 136 72.2

197 - TP#3 Mixed Up Top Layer SM - 7 10 22 38 46 50 58 68 84 100 189 12 Pt 1.86 192 72.1

198 13 TP#4 Mixed Up Top Layer SM - 8 15 25 35 50 53 57 61 71 100 187 18 Pt 1.85 204 64.5

199 - TP#4 Sand LG - 5 6 9 17 32 61 96 99 100 - NP SM 2 103.4 16.8 2.77 25.2

200 15 TP#5 LG - 12 17 30 59 81 100 29 7 CL-ML 3 102.8 19.5 2.77 22.0

201 16 TP#5 LG - 21 28 48 85 95 100 23 8 CL 4 115.4 15.0 2.77 6.9

202 - TP#1 LA DC - 6 8 19 29 41 43 51 61 77 88 93 97 98 100 AD 135 25 OH 35.6 73.9 2.00 46.5

OD - NP

203 - TP#2 LB DC - 7 10 27 42 49 53 65 76 93 100 AD 253 45 Pt 14.5 367 1.66 81.6

OD 192 17

φ = 42.1° c = 65 psfD ire ct

Sh ea r D ire ct

Sh ea r φ = 28.6° c = 350 psf

C on s Pc = -- psf Cc = 0.70 Cr = 0.24

C on s Pc = -- psf Cc = 1.96 Cr = 0.56

File Code ENG-210-22

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Soil Mechanics Laboratory Data

Sheet _3__ of _4__

Wisconsin

WRE

Location and Description Depth

Kincaid Wetland ft.

22 Jefferson County WI

GS

Undisturbed Sample Data

Special Tests

Shears and Consolidations

#4 4.76 mm w0 % γd p.c.f.

wN % O rg te nt

As R ec 'd

M oi st ur e, Moisture-Density Relationships

□ Standard

□ Modified

Max γd p.c.f.

D is pe rs io n

Curve No.3/4"

19.05 mm

1" 25.4 mm

1 1/2" 38.1 mm

3" 76.2 mm

LL

C ru m b

#40 0.42 mm

#20 0.84 mm

#10 2.0 mm

Lab.

Sample

No.

Field Number

Sample Type

#60 0.250 mm

0.002 mm

0.005 mm

#140 0.105 mm

12/13/21 Atterberg Limits

PI

U ni fie d

C la ss ifi ca tio n

Fines Sand Gravel

Mechanical Analysis Grain Size Distribution Expressed as Percent Finer by Dry Weight

0.02 mm

0.05 mm

3/8" 9.525 mm

1/2" 12.7 mm

#200 0.074 mm

204 - TP#2 DC - 17 34 64 90 93 100 AD 87 30 MH 27.6 >100 2.53 9.9

OD 73 13

205 - TP#3 CL above CH DC - 33 48 82 95 99 100 AD 31 14 CL 99.6 25.5 2.79

206 - TP#3 CH DC - 39 59 95 100 100 AD 34 16 CL 109.7 19.7 2.79

207 - TP#4 Sand DC - 4 5 8 20 31 55 94 99 100 AD - NP SM 105.5 22.3 2.80

D ire ct Sh ea r φ = 34.8° c = 75 psf q u c=200 psf - Nat c=230 psf - Vac q u c=800 psf - Nat c=1100 psf - Vac q u c=3700 psf - Nat c=1450 psf - Vac φ = 17.6°, φ' = 24.3° c = 112 psf, c' = 42 psf

CU

D ire ct Sh ea r φ = 29.5° c = 600 psf φ = 8.9°, φ' = 10.4° c = 515 psf, c' = 501 psf

CU

C on s Pc = -- psf Cc = 1.30 Cr = 0.18

C on s Pc = 1400 psf Cc = 0.17 Cr = 0.03

C on s Pc = 2600 psf Cc = 0.12 Cr = 0.02

C on s Pc = 5100 psf Cc = 0.30 Cr = 0.01

File Code ENG-210-22

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

Soil Mechanics Laboratory Data

Sheet _4__ of _4__

Wisconsin

WRE

Location and Description Depth

Kincaid Wetland ft.

22 Jefferson County WI

GS

Undisturbed Sample Data

Special Tests

Shears and Consolidations

#4 4.76 mm w0 % γd p.c.f.

wN % O rg te nt

As R ec 'd

M oi st ur e, Moisture-Density Relationships

□ Standard

□ Modified

Max γd p.c.f.

D is pe rs io n

Curve No.3/4"

19.05 mm

1" 25.4 mm

1 1/2" 38.1 mm

3" 76.2 mm

LL

C ru m b

#40 0.42 mm

#20 0.84 mm

#10 2.0 mm

Lab.

Sample

No.

Field Number

Sample Type

#60 0.250 mm

0.002 mm

0.005 mm

#140 0.105 mm

12/13/21 Atterberg Limits

PI

U ni fie d

C la ss ifi ca tio n

Fines Sand Gravel

Mechanical Analysis Grain Size Distribution Expressed as Percent Finer by Dry Weight

0.02 mm

0.05 mm

3/8" 9.525 mm

1/2" 12.7 mm

#200 0.074 mm

208 - TP#5 ML w/ Sand DC - 38 54 83 94 99 100 AD 32 15 CL 103.9 24.1 2.79 c=900 psf - Nat c=300 psf - Vac

D ire ct Sh ea r φ = 29.9° c = 210 psf q u C on s Pc = 3600 psf

Cc = 0.13 Cr = 0.03