Atch_14_Geotech_Report-NBFFCC_2001-4010.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET CONSERVATION CENTER

LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

Submitted to:

Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

Lakewood, Colorado

Prepared by:

GEl Consultants, Inc.

6950 South Potomac Street, Suite 200 Englewood, CO 80112

(303) 662-0100

April10, 2001 Project 00116

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET CONSERVATION CENTER

LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

April10, 2001

Submitted to:

Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

143 Union Boulevard, Suite 700

Lakewood, CO 80228

Prepared by:

GEl Consultants, Inc.

6950 South Potomac Street, Suite 200

Englewood, CO 80112

(303) 662-0100

Project 00116

Thomas A. Terry, P.E.

Project Manager

Geotechnical Evaluation for Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF APPENDICES

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 Scope ofWork ................. .............................. 1-1

1.3 Authorization and Project Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... .... . ...... .. ....... ........ .. ....... 2-1

2.1 Location ...................... ....................... ..... .. 2-1

2.2 Proposed Construction ......................................... 2-1

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM ............ 3-1

3.1 Subsurface Exploration ....... . ................................. 3-1

3.2 Phase II ..................................................... 3-1

3.3 Phase II ......................... . ........................... 3-2

3.4 Laboratory Testing ...... ............... . .... .. ....... .. ... . ... 3-2

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS .. .......... . ................................... 4-1

4.1 General Site Conditions ..................................... . .. 4-1

4.2 Regional Geology .... . ... ... ..... . .. .. .. ....... . .. . . ... ....... 4-1

4.3 Subsurface Stratigraphy ........................................ 4-1

4.3.1 Soils ........... . . .... ................................. 4-1

4.3.2 Bedrock ....... ... . . ...... ......... . ................... 4-2

4.4 Swelling Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4.5 Groundwater ..................................... .. . ..... .. . . 4-3

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING DESIGN

AND CONSTRUCTION ........................ .............. . 5-1

5.1 Buildings and Water Tank ...................................... 5-1

5.2 Pens .. .......................... . . ..... . .... . . .. ........... . 5-l

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................... .. ...... .......... 6-1

6.1 Foundations and Floor Slabs ......... .................. ......... . 6-1

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Report.wpd 1 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Continued)

AprillO, 2001

6.2 Foundation Drainage . .. ......... ....... ..... ................... 6-2

6.3 Permanent Slopes ............... ............ . ... ... .......... . 6-2

6.4 Pen Subgrade Barriers . ....................................... . 6-2

6.5 Roads and Parking Areas ....................................... 6-3

6.6 Leach Field .............. ................................... . 6-3

6. 7 Soil Chemistry ................. ........................ ...... 6-7

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........... ................. .. .. 7-1

7.1 General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.2 Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.3 Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.4 Foundation Preparation ......................................... 7-1

7.5 Fill Material and Placement ..................................... 7-1

7.6 Construction Water ............................................ 7-2

8.0 LIMITATIONS . ..... .. .................................... ... ..... 8-1

LIST OF TABLES

Boring Information Summary Table 1 Table2 Table 3 Table 4

Summary ofLaboratory Test Results-Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Post-Tensioned Slab Design Criteria Summary of Percolation Test Load

LIST OF FIGURES

Location Map Boring Location Plan Plasticity Chart

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Swell Consolidation Versus Applied Stress

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Report wpd 11 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

April tO, 2001

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present the results of a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center (BFFCC).

1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work performed by GEl Consultants, Inc. (GEl) includes the following:

• Identified and contracted with a drilling subcontractor to drill exploration borings.

• Performed 15 exploration borings and 6 percolation test holes to identify subsurface conditions and obtain samples of the materials for laboratory testing.

• Performed 4 hand auger borings to identify subsurface conditions.

• Performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained during the subsurface field explorations.

• Evaluated field and laboratory data and developed geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the BFFCC.

• Prepared this report that presents the results of our work.

1.3 Authorization and Project Personnel

The scope of work outlined above was authorized by Sellards & Grigg, Inc., under contract to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), Contract No. 14-48-0006-95-008, Task Order No.

60181-0-Y257. Personnel responsible for the completion of this work include:

Project Manager Engineering Technician Technical Review

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Report.wpd

Thomas A. Terry, P.E.

P.PaulPerri Gonzalo Castro, P.E.

1-1 • GEl Consultants, Inc.

SeJiards & Grigg, Inc.

April tO, 2001

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location

The BFFCC is located approximately 22 miles north of Fort Collins in Larimer County, Colorado, as shown on Figure 1. The proposed facilities will be located about 2,000 feet east of 1-25 and about 1 mile north of the 1-25 Buckeye Road exit. The site is located in the central portion of Section 1, Township 10 North, Range 68 West.

2.2 Proposed Construction

We understand that the facility will consist of:

• Entry/Service Road

• Administration Building

• Visitor's Center

• Breeding Building

• Holding Building

• Residence

• Maintenance Building

• Quarantine Building

• Mechanical and Electrical Building

• Water Tank

• Well

• 96 Pens and a Pen Enclosure

The buildings will primarily be Butler type metal buildings, except for the residence which will be a manufactured house. No basements or crawl spaces are planned. The proposed site grading will be primarily shallow cuts and fills of less than 4 feet in general.

The pens will consist of an above ground metal-mesh-fenced enclosure with a metal strip climbing barrier and a screen or netting top. The pens will include below-grade barriers, 8- to 12-feet-deep, either of cement-bentonite or concrete, possibly constructed using slurry-wall techniques. The pen enclosure will have a similar below grade barrier with a metal mesh fence above grade. Except for the barriers, excavation in the pens and pen enclosure will be minimal.

Black-Fooled Ferret Conservation Report.wpd 2-1 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM

3.1 Subsurface Exploration

The subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling 15 borings and 6 percolation test holes in Phase I, four hand auger borings in Phase II, and performing laboratory tests on selected samples from the borings. The borings in Phase I were located in the field by pacing from preliminary comer stakes as shown on Figure 2 and the ground surface elevations were estimated from a topographic map provided by Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

3.2 Phase II

The fifteen subsurface borings and six percolation test holes for Phase I were drilled by Dakota Drilling of Lakewood, Colorado, under subcontract to GEl on April 10 and 11, 2000. Boring information is summarized in Table 1 below. The borings were advanced using 4.0-inch outside-diameter solid-stem augers powered by aCME-55 truck-mounted drill rig. Soil samples were obtained at 2. 5- to 5. 0-foot intervals using a standard 2. 0-foot -long split-spoon soil sampler.

Soil samples were obtained in general accordance with ASTM 1586. Borings were backfilled with the auger cuttings from the borehole.

TABLE 1

BORING INFORMATION SUMMARY

Approximate Depth Drilled Boring Ground Surface (ft)

Location Number Elevation

(ft) Soil Bedrock Total

Entry/Service Road B-101 5712 10.5 NE 11 l 10.5

B-102 5725 10.5 NE 11 l 10.5

Administration Building B-103 5742 3 16.6 19.6

Visitors Center B-104 5738 1 18.7 19.7

Leach Field B-105 5740 5.5 24 29.5

Residence & Maintenance B-106 5756 1 18.5 19.5 Building

Water Tank B-107 5765 2 17.6 19.6

Quarantine Building B-108 5763 4 15.5 19.5

3-1 m GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

Approximate Depth Drilled Boring Ground Surface (ft)

Location Number Elevation

(ft) Soil Bedrock Total

Pavement, Mechanical/ Electrical B-109 5750 7 3 10 Building

Breeding Building B-110 5743 8 11.8 19.8

Holding Building B-111 5746 8 16.4 24.4

Pens B-112 5752 4 10.8 14.8

B-113 5742 4 10.8 14.8

B-114 5751 4 10.8 14.8

B-115 5742 1 13.5 14.5

(l) Not encountered.

Drilling and sampling were observed and documented by a representative from GEL Logs were prepared for each boring and are presented in Appendix A. Soil samples were visually classified and placed in zip lock bags to preserve the natural moisture content. Soil samples were transported to GEl's office.

Six percolation test holes were also drilled by Dakota Drilling to depths of 4.5 to 5 feet using 4-inch outside-diameter solid-stem augers. The test holes were observed and documented by a representative of GEL Samples of the auger cuttings were obtained, visually classified, and placed in zip lock bags to preserve the natural moisture content. Soil samples were transported to GEl's office.

3.3 Phase II

The four hand auger borings for Phase II were excavated and documented by a representative from GEL Logs were prepared for each boring and are presented in Appendix A. Soil samples were visually classified and placed in zip lock bags to preserve the natural moisture content. Soil samples were transported to GEl's office.

3.4 Laboratory Testing

Soil samples were examined and representative samples were selected for laboratory testing.

Laboratory tests were conducted by James L. Valentine, Inc., under subcontract to GEL

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Report. wpd 3-2 II GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

Laboratory tests included: grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, dry density, swell/consolidation, pH, resistivity, soluble sulfate content, unconfined compression, and moisture content. Results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Table 2, presented in Appendix B and discussed in Section 4.3.

Black-Footed Ferrel Conservation Report_wpd 3-3 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

Boring Sample Sample Number Number Depth Sample Description

(ft)

B-101 S-1 0.0-1.5 Sandy Lean Clay

B-102 S-2 2.0-3.5 Lean Clay with Sand

B-103 CA-1 2.0-3.0 Fat Clay

B-103 CA-2 4.0-5.0 Sandy Claystone

B-104 CA·3 9.0-9.6 Claystone

B-104 CA-4 14.0-14.6 Claystone

B-105 51 2.0-3.5 Clayey Sand

B-105 52 4.0-5.5 Sandy Lean Clay

B-105 53 9.0·10.5 Sandstone

B-106 CA-1 2.0-3.0 Claystone

B-106 CA-3 9.0-9.8 Claystone

B-107 CA-2 4.0·5.0 Claystone

B-107 CA-3 9.0-9.6 Silty Claystone

B-108 CA·1 2.0-3.0 Fat Clay

B-108 CA·3 9.0-10.0 Claystone

Geotechnical Evaluation for Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

TABLE2

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

BLACK FOOTED FERRET CONSERVATION CENTER

Atterberg Gradation Swell- Urn Its (percent passing) Consolidation

Moisture Dry Content Density LL PI No.4 No. 50 No.200 Load Change

rk) (pcf) (kips) (%)

8.8 44 27 99.6 87.3 62.6

10.0 47 31 99.9 95.3 77.2

15.3 109.4 64 43 100 99.4 96.6 0.5 11.2

11.4 107.1 41 19 2 1.9

18.3 89.4*

32 17 99.5 86.5 45.1

33 18 97.1 86 54.7

NP NP 100 99.4 22.9

17.4 104.5 68 45 0.5 7.8

15.2 112.0 67 44 8 0.3

17.4 104.5 68 41 0.5 13.1

7.8 107.5

13.4 99.0 54 35 2 0.4

15.0 94.0 57 36 8 ·2.2

AprillO, 2001

Soluble Unconfined pH Resistivity Sulfate Compression

(ohms/em) (%) (psf)

7.6 741 0.021

6.9 IS 0.147

5,980

J:\Projects\001 16 Blk-Foot Ferret Facility\Reports\Biack-Footcd Ferret Conservation Repon wpd m GEl Consultants, Inc.

Atterberg Limits

Boring Sample Sample Moisture Dry

Geotechnical Evaluation for Black· Footed Ferret Conservation Center Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

Gradation Swell- (percent passing) Consolidation

Soluble Unconfined Number Number Depth Sample Description Content Density LL PI No.4 No. 50 No.200 Load Change pH Resistivity Sulfate Compression

B-109

B-110

B-110

B-111

B-111

B-111

B-112

B-112

B-113

B-114

B-115

B-115

P-1

P-2

P-3

P-4

P-5

P-6 s

CA

LL

PI

NP

(ttl

S-1 0-1.5 Fat Clay with Sand

CA-2 4.0-5.0 Sandy Lean Clay

CA-3 9.0·9.8 Claystone

CA-1 2.0·3.0 Lean Clay

CA-2 4.0·5.0 Sandy Lean Clay

CA-3 9.0-10.0 Sandy Siltstone

CA-1 2.0-3.0 Sandy Lean Clay

CA-3 6.0-7.0 Claystone

CA-4 9.0-10.0 Claystone

CA-2 4.0-5.0 Sandy Claystone

CA-1 2.0·3.0 Silty Sandstone

CA-3 6.0-6.6 Silty Sandstone

0-4.5 Sandy Lean Clay

0-4.5 Sandy Lean Clay

0-4.5 Sandy Lean Clay

0-4.5 Sandy Fat Clay

0-4.5 Sandy Lean Clay

0-4.5 Sandy Lean Clay Split-spoon sample California Barrel Sample Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Non plastic

13.8

10.0

15.8

11.7

8.3

8.2

13.0

20.3

17.9

9.0

6.7

10.5

J:\Projects\00 116 Blk-Foot Ferret Facility\Reports\Biack-Footed Ferret Conservation Report wpd

(pet) (kips) (%) (ohms/em) (%) (psf)

52 33 99.1 92.1 79.3

98.5 29 13 2 ·2.5

101.6 60 38 0.5 5.8

100.6 48 31 8 -6.4

93.6 99.6 91.6 69.0 7.8 IS 0.030

100 98.7 53.1

88.8 43 23 99.8 96.7 73.7

105.0 65 41 100 98.3 91.8

65 41 100 99.4

111.2 42 25 100 98.3 76.9 7.9 743 0.036

89.2* NP NP 100 99.4 27.6

NP NP 100 99 9.8 8.1 1,345 0.029

40 26 100 84.6 52.7

38 25 100 87.1 51.7

43 27 99.6 86.7 64.7

55 36 100 91.5 76.2

39 24 100 88.7 55.3

42 27 100 89.2 56.4 ft feet pcf pounds per cubic foot psf pounds per square foot kips 1000's of pounds IS Insufficient Sample

~GEl Consultants, Inc.

April tO, 2001

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 General Site Conditions

The site is currently fenced range land owned and operated by the City of Fort Collins as undeveloped open space. The BFFCC will be built on a small saddle divide between two small drainages, which flow to the west and east, with the majority ofthe buildings and human activity on the west side of the divide and the holding building and ferret pens on the east side of the divide.

The breeding building is near the center of the saddle forming the divide. The residence, water tank, and quarantine building are located on the north side of the saddle and the remaining buildings are on the west side. There is a small intermittent pond south of the east end of the pen area along the drainage on the east side of the saddle.

There is a small prairie dog colony in the vicinity of the pond southeast of the site. Antelope herd.s also frequent the site and surrounding area.

4.2 Regional Geology

The BFFCC is located in north-central Colorado within the Plains Physiographic Province. The surficial bedrock geology in the area is primarily Cretaceous Age Laramie Formation with some of the higher hills being capped with Tertiary Age White River Formation. The Laramie Formation locally consists of silty shale with lenticular beds of sandstone, claystone, and seams of coal. The shale weathers to claystone and clays depending on the degree of weathering. The BFFCC is in seismic Zone 1 according to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC).

4.3 Subsurface Stratigraphy

4.3.1 Soils

The depth of soils within the facility range from 1 to 8 feet, except along the entry road where the borings penetrated 10.5 feet into soils without encountering bedrock. The soils range from sandy clays to clays. The ranges of measured index properties are as follows:

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Repon wpd 4-1 SV GEl Consultants, Inc.

Percent Sand (coarser than 0.074 mm, the No. 200 sieve)

Dry Unit Weight, pcf

Water Content, %

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

AprillO, 2001

3 to 55

89 to 109

8 to 15

29 to 64

13 to 43

The Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index are plotted in the Plasticity Chart (Figure 3). The data for the clays and sandy clays plot along a relatively narrow zone parallel to the A line, indicating that the type of clay is probably similar for all samples tested.

4.3.2 Bedrock

The borings penetrated into bedrock up to 24 feet, except for the 2 borings along the entry road which were terminated in the soils above bedrock. Three types of bedrock were encountered: claystone, sandstone, and an intermediate type classified as either sandy to silty claystone or clayey sandstone. No particular sequence for the 3 rock types could be determined from the borings. The properties of the three rock types are described below.

Claystone bedrock was encountered in eleven of the borings from depths of 1 to 20.5 feet and extended to depths of8 to at least 29.5 feet. The claystone bedrock is firm to very hard, slightly moist, slightly calcareous, iron oxide stained, with occasional gypsum crystal and lignites fragments, and dark brown to olive green in color. The claystone bedrock ranged from 92 to 99 percent medium to high plastic fines, had dry densities ranging from 89.4 to 112 pcf, moisture contents ranging from 11.4 to 20.3 percent, with Liquid Limits ranging from 41 to 68 and Plasticity Indexes ranging from 19 to 45. A sample of claystone bedrock was tested for corrosion potential and had a pH of 6.9, soluble sulfate content of 0.147 percent, and the resistivity was not measured due to insufficient sample.

Sandstone to silty sandstone bedrock was encountered in five of the borings from depths of 1 to 17 feet and extended to depths of 12 to 22 feet. The sandstone to silty sandstone bedrock is firm to very hard, slightly moist, slightly calcareous, iron oxide stained, and white to tan in color. The sandstone to silty sandstone bedrock generally ranged from 72 to 90 percent fine sand, with one sample tested being 53 percent nonplastic fines, the

4-2 II GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001 sample tested had a dry density of 89.2 pcf, moisture contents ranging from 6. 7 to 10.5 percent, with non plastic fines. A sample of sandstone to silty sandstone bedrock was tested for corrosion potential and had a pH of 8.1, soluble sulfate content of 0.029 percent, and a resistivity of 1345 ohms/em.

Sandy to silty claystone to clayey sandstone bedrock was encountered in three of the borings from depths of6 to 17 feet and extended to depths of8 to at least 19.5 feet. The sandy to silty claystone to clayey sandstone bedrock is medium hard to hard, slightly moist, slightly calcareous, iron oxide stained, contains occasional gypsum crystals, and is tan to dark brown in color. The sandy to silty claystone to clayey sandstone bedrock generally ranged from 40 to 80 percent fine sand, had dry densities ranging from 107.5 to 111.2 pcf, moisture contents ranging from 7.0 to 9.0 percent, one sample had a Liquid Limit of 42 and a Plasticity Index of 25. Samples of the sandy to silty claystone to clayey sandstone bedrock tested for corrosion potential had pHs of7.6 and 7.9, soluble sulfate contents of0.021 and 0.036 percent, and the resistivities of741 and 743 ohms/em.

4.4 Swelling Potential

The swelling potential of the clays and the claystone was investigated by means of one dimensional swell/consolidation tests. The samples were loaded to a predetermined vertical stress and were then flooded; the expansion or compression was measured. The results are plotted in Figure 4 as a plot of the measured volume change caused by flooding versus the vertical stress during flooding. Both the claystone and the clays show swelling potential upon flooding for stresses that are lower than 2 to 8 ksf.

4.5 Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered during drilling.

Black-Footed Ferret Conservution Report wpd 4-3 ~ GEl Consultants, Inc.

April 10, 2001

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING DESIGN

AND CONSTRUCTION

Based upon our analysis, data from the borings, examination of the samples, results of the laboratory test, our geotechnical experience and understanding ofthe proposed construction, we did not identify any subsurface conditions that would prohibit the proposed construction provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design and followed during construction. The geotechnical conditions that are expected to have the greatest effect on the design and construction of the proposed improvements are discussed below:

5.1 Buildings and Water Tank

1. Soil and shallow bedrock with high swell potential within the zone of foundation influence.

2. Access to water for moisture conditioning the soils during grading and foundation preparation.

5.2 Pens

1. Bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 1 to 4 feet in the pen area. This is similar to the soils in the existing prairie dog town south and east of the pen area.

2. The relatively dry soil and bedrock may ravel into trench excavations, with the sandstone bedrock materials being more likely to ravel than the clay and claystone bedrock material.

3. Access to water for mixing soil-bentonite and cement-bentonite slurries.

5-1 a'. GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Foundations and Floor Slabs

Three foundation options were considered for the buildings on the site: (1) drilled piers with grade beams and structural floors with void space beneath the floors and grade beams; (2) over excavate, moisture condition and recompact the soils on the site to a minimum depth of 1 0 feet below the bottoms of the footings (approximately 13 feet below final grade) with slab on grade floors; and (3) over-excavate, moisture condition and recompact the soils to a depth of six feet below a post-tensioned (PT) slab. All three options have risks, the drilled pier and structural floor has the lowest risk but is likely the most expensive option; the over-excavation with footing and slab on grade option has moderate risk of movement and damage, and is also relatively expensive; and the PT slab option has moderate risk of movement, with reduced damage due to the stiffness of the foundation and is moderately expensive.

We recommend that the buildings and water tank be founded on PT slabs on 6 feet of structural fill. Soils and bedrock with high swell potential were encountered on the site and represent the most significant foundation issue.

The PT slab foundation will allow the exterior and interior walls of the building to be built without flexible joints between them, which would be required with a floating slab on grade floor. PT slabs are generally 4 to 8 inches thick with integral beams below the slab in which the post tensioning cables are cast. The beams vary in depth, with the perimeter beams being the deepest, depending on the foundation loads and cable tensioning requirements.

In order to reduce the potential for large differential movement and provide a relatively uniform pad beneath the proposed PT slabs, we recommend that the soils and bedrock beneath the buildings and water tank be over-excavated to a depth of 6 feet below the final slab subgrade elevation, or 3 feet below the bottom of the perimeter beams, whichever is deeper. The excavated materials can be reused as fill if it is moisture conditioned and compacted as described in the section on fill material in this report. Laboratory testing performed on other sites in the Front Range indicate that the swelling and collapse potential of the on-site materials can be reduced if the materials are thoroughly moisture conditioned and recompacted.

The differential soil movements, Ym, shown in the Table 3, below, are extreme movements used in the design of the PT slabs. Differential movements on the order of 1 to 2 inches can be expected to occur over the life of the structures. The PT slab design criteria presented below assume that the soils around the foundation are not irrigated; if the soils around the foundations are irrigated, more severe movements can be expected.

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Repon wpd 6-1 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

TABLE 3

POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN CRITERIA

Condition Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em Differential Soil Movement, Ym (feet) (Inches)

Center Lift 6.0 6.76

Edge Lift 2.8 1.5

The foundations can be designed with an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The PT slab foundation should be supported on properly compacted structural fill. The perimeter beams should be founded at least 36 inches below the final exterior grade for frost protection. Trench spoils should not be placed permanently on the building pad between beams unless they are spread in thin uniform lifts and properly compacted as structural fill.

6.2 Foundation Drainage

The grade around the buildings should have a positive slope away from the foundations' walls on all sides. A minimum fall of 12 inches in the first 10 feet away from the foundations is recommended. If settlement of the backfill around the foundation results in low areas, these areas should be filled and compacted to reestablish the positive slopes described above. Down spouts and s111 cocks should discharge into splash blocks that extend at least 5 feet from the foundation.

6.3 Permanent Slopes

Permanent slopes for the project should have an inclination of 3H: 1 V or flatter.

6.4 Pen Subgrade Barriers

The purpose of the pen subgrade barriers is to prevent the prairie dogs and ferrets from escaping from the pens and to keep predators from entering the pens by digging beneath the pen fences.

These subgrade barriers will be constructed on all four sides of each pen below the fences and below the pen boundary fences. The sub grade barriers need to be resistant to rodent excavation, corrosion, constructable, and extend to a minimum depth of 8 feet, but preferably to 10 to 12 feet below the ground surface.

Bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 1 to 4 feet in the pen area which would make the installation of sheet piling very difficult. The installation of fencing below grade requires

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Report wpd II GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001 excavation of a trench which would be difficult to backfill to a high enough density to prevent burrowing adjacent to and below the fencing by animals. The pen subgrade barriers should be designed as a cement-bentonite, cement-soil, or low strength concrete wall that is cast-in-place or built using slurry wall methods. The barrier wall material in situ should have a compressive strength of at least 500 psi.

The soils and bedrock in the pen area should be excavatable using trenching equipment normally used in the Denver metro area. Trenches in the clayey soils and claystone bedrock should stand open for short periods of time without raveling or collapsing, which would allow construction of the barrier walls using cast-in-place techniques. The sandstone bedrock materials are more likely to ravel than the clay and claystone bedrock materials and may require the use of slurry wall construction techniques to maintain stable trench walls.

The slurry wall method consists of excavating the trench using conventional equipment, commonly a backhoe. As the trenching is excavated a slurry, which usually consists of water and onsite clays or bentonite, is placed in the trench to hold the walls of the trench open and stable. The slurry is continually pumped into and out of the trench, which allows the slurry to be mixed and its consistency adjusted depending on the conditions encountered. After a length of trench is excavated, the barrier wall mixture is tremied into the trench and displaces the slurry material. The slurry wall can be built as a continuous wall or in sections. The wall sections can be overlapped or keyed into adjacent sections to provide a continuous barrier using either the cast-in-place or slurry wall methods.

6.5 Roads and Parking Areas

The roads and parking areas will be unpaved gravel roads and parking areas. The traffic loads are assumed to be light, mostly passenger vehicles with occasional delivery vehicles. All roads can be constructed over the existing soils with sub grade preparation as described in the section on fill placement. We recommend a minimum of 9 inches of Colorado Department of Transportation Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base course be placed and compacted on the prepared subgrade. The gravel surface will require frequent maintenance, and low areas that pond water may require additional attention.

6.6 Leach Field

An on-site sewage disposal system with a leach field is planned for the restoration center. The proposed site for the leach field is shown on Figure 2. Six percolation tests were performed in the area of the proposed leach field, in accordance with the Colorado Department of Health (CDOH) guidelines. Percolation rate measurements are provided in Table 4. Results of percolating tests for the last 1 0 minutes range from 5. 0 to 5. 7 minutes per inch of drop in the

6-3 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

April tO, 2001 water surface. According to CDOH, the standard acceptable range for leach fields is 5 to 60 minutes per inch of water drop. It is likely that the bottoms of percolation test holes were either in or within a few inches of a sandstone with a higher percolation rate than the surficial clays. If the leach field is constructed in contact with the sandstone, the percolation rates from the tests should be accurate. However if the field is built in the overlying clays, percolation rates of 30 to 40 minutes per inch or higher are likely.

Final design ofleach field should be in accordance with the CDOH guidelines, Larimer County regulations.

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Report. wpd 6-4 • GEl Consultants, Inc.

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS

P1 P2 P3

Water Water Water Time Level Rate Time Level Rate Time Level Rate linch~!s\ ! (minlinchl (il"' ...... .,.\ (l""i .. li .... .,l linches\ (min/inch\

2:16pm 1.75 2:17pm 1.75 2:18pm 2 2:26pm 3.75 5.0 2:27pm 3.75 5.0 2:28pm 4.25 4.4 2:36pm 6 4.4 2:37pm 5.75 5.0 2:38pm 6.5 4.4 2:46pm 7.75 5.7 2:47pm 7.5 5.7 2:48pm 8.25 5.7

2:56pm 9.75 5.0 2:57pm 9.25 5.7 2:58pm 10 5.7

3:06pm 11.5 5.7 3:07 J>m 11 5.7 3:08pm 11.75 5.7

3:06pm 1.75 0.0 3:07pm 1.75 0.0 3:08pm 2 0.0

3:16pm 3.5 5.7 3:17pm 3.5 5.7 3:18pm 3.75 5.7

3:26pm 5.25 5.7 3:27pm 5.25 5.7 3:28pm 5.5 5.7

3:36pm 7 5.7 3:37pm 7 5.7 3:38pm 7.25 5.7 3:46pm 8.75 5.7 3:47pm 8.75 5.7 3:48pm 9 5.7 3:56pm 10.5 5.7 3:57pm 10.5 5.7 3:58pm 11.5 4.0 4:06pm 12.25 5.7 4:07pm 12.25 5.7 4:08pm 13.5 5.0 4:16pm 14 5.7 4:17pm 14 5.7 4:18pm 15.5 5.0

J:\Projects\00116 Blk-Foot Ferret Facility\Reports\Biack-Footed Ferret Conservation Rcport.wpd <1}, GEl Consultants, Inc.

P4 P5 P6

Water Water Water Time Level Rate Time Level Rate Time Level Rate

(j .~ ;\ , (min/inch\ lil""'h .. ~\ (min/in ... .,\ linches} {J"in/in~h)

2:19pm 2 2:20pm 2 2:21pm 1.75 2:29pm 4 5.0 2:30pm 4.25 4.4 2:31pm 3.75 5.0

2:39pm 6.25 4.4 2:40pm 6.25 5.0 2:41pm 6 4.4 2:49pm 8.25 5.0 2:50pm 8.25 5.0 2:51pm 8 5.0 2:59pm 10.25 5.0 3:00pm 10.25 5.0 3:01pm 10 5.0 3:09pm 12.25 5.0 3:10 J)m 12.25 5.0 3:11 pm 12 5.0 3:09pm 2 0.0 3:10pm 2 0.0 3:11pm 1.75 0.0

3:19pm 4 5.0 3:20pm 4 5.0 3:21pm 3.75 5.0

3:29pm 6 5.0 3:30pm 6 5.0 3:31pm 5.75 5.0

3:39pm 8 5.0 3:40pm 8 5.0 3:41pm 7.75 5.0

3:49pm 10 5.0 3:50pm 10 5.0 3:51pm 9.75 5.0

3:59pm 12 5.0 4:00pm 12 5.0 4:01pm 11.75 5.0 4:09pm 14 5.0 4:10pm 14 5.0 4:11pm 13.75 5.0 4:19pm 16 5.0 4:20pm 16 5.0 4:21pm 15.75 5.0

J:\Projecls\00116 Blk-Fool Ferrel Facilily\Reports\Biack-Fooled Fenel Conservalion Report.\vpd <fj GEl Consultants, Inc.

6. 7 Soil Chemistry

Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

Soil chemistry testing, including water soluble sulfates, resistivity and pH, was performed to evaluate the potential for the corrosion of buried structures.

Water soluble sulfates provide a measure of the potential for soils to accelerate the deterioration ofburied concrete structures. Sulfate concentrations ranging from 0. 021 and 0.14 7 percent were measured. These values fall within the range of concentrations considered to be negligible to moderate for accelerated sulfate attack on buried concrete structures according to the American Concrete Institute Design Manual Section 318, Chapter 4.3, 1999. The resistivities measured ranged from 741 to 1,345 ohms/em and the pHs ranged from 6.9 to 8.1.

6-7 m GEl Consultants, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 General Considerations

GEl should be contacted to review the plans and specifications to verify that the intent of the geotechnical recommendations has been incorporated in the design.

GEl should be contacted to observe the excavations, fill placement, foundation construction, and pen subgrade barrier construction. This will provide the opportunity to confirm that soil conditions exposed in the excavations are consistent with the borings and our report.

7.2 Excavation

Prior to beginning excavations, cut-and-fill areas should be stripped of all vegetation and debris.

This material should be stockpiled for reuse in site reclamation or landscaping. The subsurface soils can be excavated with conventional construction equipment, such as a backhoe, front end loader, self-propelled scraper or dozer. Excavations for construction should be shored or sloped to maintain temporary slope stability and conform to appropriate OSHA standards. Some erosion and spalling of temporary slopes should be expected.

7.3 Dewatering

Groundwater was not encountered in the borings and is not expected in the excavations.

However, if groundwater is encountered, removal and control of groundwater should be possible with ditches and sumps.

Surface water should be controlled to prevent it from entering excavations.

7.4 Foundation Preparation

The PT slabs should be supported on structural fill. All bearing surfaces should be free of any loose, crusted, frozen or wetted materials and be at their as-compacted moisture content when concrete is placed. Should a wetted, crusted, or disturbed surface develop as a result of exposure to the environment or from construction workers in the excavations, the bearing surface should be skimmed to expose undisturbed materials, or the area scarified and compacted.

7.5 Fill Material and Placement

Foundation preparation is required prior to placement of structural fill. Preparation of the exposed subgrade surfaces will require scarifying the upper 12 inches of exposed soil, and

B1ack-Footed Ferret Conservation Report.wpd 7-1 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

April tO, 2001 compacting to at least 95 percent of standard Proctor compaction ( ASTM D 698). Any wet, soft, yielding, unstable, or dry and crusted materials should be evaluated and stabilized, or over excavated to firm material as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Backfill or structures should not be placed while the subgrade material is frozen, thawing, or during unfavorable weather conditions. If fill placement is interrupted by rain or snow, fill operations should not resume until the surface of the fill or exposed excavation has been moisture conditioned and recompacted, if necessary, to the required density. Bearing surfaces should be clean and dense or stiff, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.

Structural fill is required around and below footings and floor slabs. Structural fill can be the excavated on-site soils and bedrock with a maximum particle size of 1 inch and between 40 and 100 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and having a maximum PI of 40 percent. Most of the onsite excavated soils meet these criteria. Structural fill should be placed in maximum 9-inch thick loose lifts and compacted with moisture contents between 1 and 4 percent above optimum moisture content to at least 95 percent of maximum Standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698).

It is possible that the structural fill will become unstable under heavy rubber tire equipment.

This material would then need to be removed and recompacted, or otherwise stabilized, as directed by the geotechnical engineer.

7.6 Construction Water

Water for use in construction will need to be hauled to the site, or the well for the facility will need to be completed and available for construction use. Wellington, which is about 12 miles south of the site on I-25, is likely the closest town where municipal water can be purchased by a contractor.

7-2 m GEl Consultants, Inc.

8.0 LIMITATIONS

Sellards & Grigg, Inc.

AprillO, 2001

The geotechnical recommendations for the BFFCC were developed based on our understanding ofthe proposed construction, explorations, and general properties ofthe soil materials identified.

Borings and related information depict subsurface conditions only at specific locations and times identified. They do not reflect variations in geology and stratigraphy that exist between locations. Our recommendations are based in part on assumptions and interpretations made by the geotechnical engineer. Also, subsurface conditions and water levels will vary with different locations and the passage oftime. The number of borings and laboratory tests performed were selected to furnish information to develop design recommendations.

Our recommendations are not intended to dictate construction methods or sequences. Instead, they are intended to help designers identify potential construction challenges related to the geological conditions and geotechnical issues identified based on our field investigations and testing.

Our professional services were performed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices; no other warranty, express or implied, is made.

8-1 _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

z .....-•'(;If---

<.D

0 I- 0 w '<t w l.L z w _J

0 <(

0 0 0 (f) N

Q.

1--0:::

UJW

o:::l-o:::Z

UJW

L&...U oz wo ..... _ 01--o< L&...> 10:::

:::.:::w

~z

CDO

w u > 0::: w Vl w u..

::::i Cl _J i Cl z :::c Vl L:

II!

Ul

0..

0::<( 0::~ uw

_J oz o::<C u...O::::

Q_<( ~a w a:

(!J

LL

N

_.J

0:::

a..

c.o z I-w ....., 0:::

a..

C.)

rn cd ;j rn u -~ C)

00/P /=/ :JMO'd'Tf'l ),.1/N/:JI/i I 91/00\S.i:J3t0tld\NIB\ 'd

&l a

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

APPROXIMATE HAND AUGERED LOCATION

PROPOSED BUILDING OR STRUCTURE LOCATIONS

NOTES:

1. TOPOGRAPHY AND BUILDING LOCATIONS FROM SELLARD & GRIGG, INC.

0 150 300 600 - SCALE IN FEET

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET

CONSERVATION CENTER

-+-HA3 -+-HA4

BORING LOCATION PLAN

~ ! ¢GEl Consultants, Inc. 1---P-R_O_J_E_C_T_N_O-. _0_0_1_1_6--+--A-P-R-IL_2_0_0_1_,-F-IG_U_R_E ___ 2--I

L-------------------------------------------------------------------_.==~~~~~~~~~~------------------~--------~------~

2. BORINGS LOCATED BY PACING FROM FLAG STAKES.

Cl Cl::

\j

~ ;;s ti.:

a:

I( 40 >o ;t:

:0:

,; 30

II.

0 10

I v I

I

/ • • • v •• / • • .. ... / •• • • /

•• v

I

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Liquid Limit, LL I

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE

SERVICE BLACK-FOOTED FERRET PLASTICITY CHART

CONSERVATION CENTER

<]) GEl Consultants, Inc. PROJECT NO. 00116 APRIL 2001 IFIGURE 3

-.1!.

Q

Yi "' 0:::

[:;j

C5 ci:

1 rn -c Ill

:5!

Ill c (J

-5

-10

Vertical Load in ksf

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SWELL CONSOLIDATION

SERVICE BLACK-FOOTED FERRET VERSUS CONSERVATION CENTER

•CI:.:> GEl Consultants, Inc.

APPLIED STRESS

PROJECT NO. 00116 APRIL 2001 I FIGURE 4

APPENDIX A

Boring Logs

Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Report .wpd _ GEl Consultants, Inc.

<P B-101

GEl Consultants, Inc. LOG OF DRILL HOLE PAGE: 1 OF 1

DATE: 4-10-00 I 4-10-00

PROJECT NAME : Ferret Facility

LEGEND

PROJECT NUMBER : 00116 1) BLOWS PER 6 IN.-140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. TO DRIVE A

BORING LOCATION : Pavement #1 2.0 IN. OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

2) PEN- PENETRATION LENGTH OF SAMPLER OR CORE BARREL

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) ·5712 3) REC- RECOVERY LENGTH OF SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION: _-_ DATE - S - SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2.0 in. dia UF- FIXED PISTON CS- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2 1/2 in. dia. ST - SHELBY TUBE

DRILLED BY : Dakota Drilling GROUNDWATER I ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER sz

LOGGED BY: ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT) : 10.5

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55 Boring backfilled with cuttings

4-inch solid stem augers - SAMPLE u

DEPTH TYPE 1- BLOWS - 2- - 3- REMARKS

:E <.9 [l_o SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS

FT. and PER PEN REC [2 --'

NO. 61N. IN. IN.

(9

J S-1 4,8,9 18 18 ~ S-1: 0.0- 1.5 ft: SANDY LEAN CLAY: About 65% fines, medium plastic; ..

about 35% sand, narrowly graded, fine grained; very calcareous; rooted;

-~ S-2 8,10,7 18 18 very stiff; slightly moist; brown. (CL) rut S-2: 2.0 - 3.5 ft: SANDY LEAN CLAY: Similar to S-1 (0.0- 1.5 ft) Except

] S-3 7,9,11 18 18 decrease in roots. -llit S-3: 4.0- 5.5 ft: SANDY LEAN CLAY: Similar to S-1 (0.0- 1.5 ft) Except no-..

roots. .

- ~ S-4 10,7,8 18 18

S-4: 9.0-10.5 ft: CLAYEY SAND: About 40%-60% sand, narrowly graded, .·.· fine grained; about 40%- 60% fines, low plastic; slightly moist; medium :: :: -dense. light brown. (SC)

15 -

20 -

25 -cp B-102

DATE: 4-10-00 I 4-10-00

PROJECT NAME : Ferret Facility

LEGEND

PROJECT NUMBER : 00116 1) BLOWS PER 61N.-140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. TO DRIVE A

BORING LOCATION : Pavement#2 2.0 IN. OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

2) PEN- PENETRATION LENGTH OF SAMPLER OR CORE BARREL

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) -5725 3) REC- RECOVERY LENGTH OF SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION: _-_ DATE - S- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2.0 in. dia UF - FIXED PISTON CS- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2 1/2 in. dia. ST- SHELBY TUBE

DRILLED BY: Dakota Drilling GROUNDWATER :!I!: ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER :sz

LOGGED BY: ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 10.5

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55 Boring backfilled with cuttings

4-inch solid stem augers - SAMPLE t)

DEPTH TYPE 1- BLOWS - 2- - 3- REMARKS 1i:c.; SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS FT. and PER PEN REC ~g

NO. 61N. IN. IN. l9

I S-1 4,8,15 18 18 V// S-1: 0.0- 1.5 ft: LEAN CLAY: Mostly fines, medium plastic; very calcareous;_ V// m rooted; very stiff; slightly moist; brown. (CL)

] S-2 12,15,17 18 18 S-2: 2.0-3.5 ft: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: About 70% fines, medium plastic;

about 30% sand, narrowly graded, fine grained; calcareous; trace roots;

hard; moist; brown.(CL)

] S-3 20,25,32 18 18 ~ S-3: 4.0- 5.5 ft: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Similar to S-2 (0.0- 1.5 ft) Except no roots; hard. -

] S-4 ~ 10,15,15 18 18

S-4: 9.0 - 10.5 ft: LEAN CLAY WITH SAND: Similar to S-2 (0.0 - 1.5 ft)

. Except no roots; hard. -10

15 -

20 -

25 -

<D B-103

DATE: 4-10-00 I 4-10-00

PROJECT NAME : Ferret Facility

LEGEND

PROJECT NUMBER: 00116 1) BLOWS PER 6 IN.-140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. TO DRIVE A

BORING LOCATION : Administration Bldg.

2.0 IN. OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

2) PEN- PENETRATION LENGTH OF SAMPLER OR CORE BARREL

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) .5742 3) REC- RECOVERY LENGTH OF SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION: _-_ DATE - S -SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2.0 in. dia UF - FIXED PISTON CS- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2 1/2 in. dia. ST- SHELBY TUBE

DRILLED BY: Dakota Drilling GROUNDWATER ::!!!: ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER sz

LOGGED BY: ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 19.6

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55 Boring backfilled with cuttings

4-inch solid stem augers - SAMPLE t)

DEPTH

TYPE 1- BLOWS - 2- - 3- REMARKS

:CCJ

D.. a SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS

FT. and PER PEN REC ~...J

NO. 61N. IN. IN.

LEAN CLAY

I///, I///, J v'//, CA- 10,18 12 12 v //, CA-1: 2.0 - 3.0 ft: FAT CLAY: Mostly fines, high plastic; calcareous deposits;

1 ~ roots; stiff; slightly moist; brown. (CH)

1:..:.:

J CA- 20/6, 30/5 11 11 I;;:. CA-2 4.0 - 4.9 ft: SANDY CLAYSTONE: About 60% - 80% fines, low plastic;

2 ~~ about 20%- 40% sand, narrowly graded, fine grained; calcareous depusits, I:~~ medium hard; dark brown.

1;:~ ,_

- ~A- 30/6, 20/4 10 10 CA-3: 9.0- 9.8 ft: SANDSTONE: Mostly sand, narrowly graded, fine grained;

non plastic fines; friable; hard; slightly moist; white/tan. -10

I ~A- ~ 28/6, 22/4 10 10 I CA-4 14.0- 14.8 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines, medium plastic; high carbon content; lignite pieces; hard; slightly moist; dark brown. -15

• CA- 50/7 7 7 CA-5: 19.0- 19.6 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines, medium plastic; high carbon- 5 content; lignite pieces; hard; slightly moist; dark brown .. -20 cp GEl Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NAME : Ferret Facility

PROJECT NUMBER : 00116

BORING LOCATION : Visitor Center

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) .5738

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION: _-_ DATE -

DRILLED BY: Dakota Drilling

LOGGED BY: ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT) : 19.7

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55

4-inch solid stem augers

SAMPLE

DEPTH TYPE 1- BLOWS - 2- - 3- REMARKS

FT. and PER PEN REC

NO. 61N. IN. IN.

LEAN CLAY

CA- 12, 20

12 12

CA- 20, 22

12 12

CA- 50/7 7 7

10 3

CA- 50/7 7 7

15 4

CA- 50/8 8 8

20 5

B-104

LOG OF DRILL HOLE PAGE: 1 OF 1

DATE: 4-10-00 I 4-10-00

LEGEND

1) BLOWS PER 6 IN.-140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. TO DRIVE A

2.0 IN . OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

2) PEN- PENETRATION LENGTH OF SAMPLER OR CORE BARREL

3) REC- RECOVERY LENGTH OF SAMPLE

S- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2.0 in. dia UF- FIXED PISTON CS- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2 1/2 in. dia. ST - SHELBY TUBE

GROUNDWATER :!I!: ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER :sz

Boring backfilled with cuttings u

ICJ

0..0 SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS

c?.-' Cl

CA-1 : 2.0-3.0 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines, medium plastic; lignite pieces;

gypsum crystals; medium hard; slightly moist; dark brown.

CA-2: 4.0 - 5.0 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines, medium plastic; lignite pieces;

medium hard; slightly moist; dark brown .

CA-3: 9.0 - 10.0 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-2 (4.0 - 5.0 ft) Except hard.

CA-4: 14.0 - 15.0 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-3 (9.0- 10.0 ft)

CA-5: 19.0- 19.7 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-3 (9.0- 10.0 ft) ci> GEl Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NAME : Ferret Facility

PROJECT NUMBER : 00116

BORING LOCATION : Leach Field

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) -5740

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:_-_ DATE -

DRILLED BY : Dakota Drilling

LOGGED BY: ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT) : 29.5

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55

4-inch solid stem augers

SAMPLE

DEPTH TYPE 1- BLOWS - 2- - 3- REMARKS

FT. and PER PEN REC

NO. 61N. IN. IN .

LEAN CLAY

S-1 4,4,5 18 18

S·2 4,4,3 18 18

S-3 20,25,27 18 18

CA· 30/6, 20/3 9 9

CA· 50/7 7 7

20 5

CA· 50/7 7 7

25 6

CA· 50/6 6 6

30 7

B-105

LOG OF DRILL HOLE PAGE: 1 OF 1

DATE: 4-10-00 I 4-10-00

LEGEND

1) BLOWS PER 61N.-140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. TO DRIVE A

2.0 IN. OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

2) PEN- PENETRATION LENGTH OF SAMPLER OR CORE BARREL

3) REC - RECOVERY LENGTH OF SAMPLE

S- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2.0 in . dia UF- FIXED PISTON CS- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2 1/2 in. dia. ST - SHELBY TUBE

GROUNDWATER :!I!: ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER 2

u J:t!J c.. a ~.J (9

Boring backfilled with cuttings

SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS

S-1: 2.0- 3.5 ft: CLAYEY SAND: About 55% sand, narrowly graded, fine grained; about 45% fines, medium plastic; calcareous deposits ; roots; stiff;

slightly moist; brown. (SC)

S-2: 4.0- 5.5 ft: SANDY LEAN CLAY: About 55% fines, medium plastic;

About 45% sand, narrowly graded, fine grained; calcareous; stiff; slightly moist; brown. (CL)

S-3: 9.0- 10.5 ft: SANDSTONE: Mostly sand, narrowly graded, fine grained· non to low plastic fines; iron oxide staining; hard; slightly moist; tan.

CA-4: 14.0-14.8 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines , low to medium plastic; lignite pieces; hard; slightly moist; dark brown.

CA-5: 19.0- 19.6 ft: SILTY SANDSTONE: Mostly sand, narrowly graded, fine grained; non to low plastic fines; friable; hard; slightly moist; wnlt<>mm

CA-6: 24.0 - 24.6 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines , medium plastic; lignite pieces; hard; dark brown.

CA-7: 29.0-29.5 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-6 24.0-25.0 ft.

<P GEl Consultants, Inc.

PROJECT NUMBER: 00116

BORING LOCATION : Res/Maint. Bldg

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) -5756

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION : _-_ DATE -

DRILLED BY : Dakota Drilling

LOGGED BY: ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 19.5

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55

4-inch solid stem augers

SAMPLE

DEPTH

TYPE 1- BLOWS -2- - 3- REMARKS

FT. and PER PEN REC

NO. 61N. IN. IN.

LEAN CLAY

CA- 18,10

12 12

CA- 18,32 12 12

2 5

CA- 50/10 1 0 10

10 3

CA- 28/6, 22/3 9 9

CA- 50/6 6 6

20 5

B-106

LOG OF DRILL HOLE PAGE: 1 OF 1

DATE: 4-10-00 I 4-10-00

LEGEND

1) BLOWS PER 6 IN.-140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. TO DRIVE A

2.0 IN. OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

2) PEN- PENETRATION LENGTH OF SAMPLER OR CORE BARREL

3) REC - RECOVERY LENGTH OF SAMPLE

S - SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2.0 in. dia UF - FIXED PISTON CS- SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2 1/2 in . dia. ST- SHELBY TUBE

GROUNDWATER :!I!: ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER sz

Boring backfilled with cuttings

(J

I't!l a..o SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS C2-'

CA-1 : 2.0-3.0 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines, medium plastic; firm; slightly moist; dark grey;

CA-2: 4.0- 5.0 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-1 (2.0- 3.0 ft): Except Iron stained; lignite pieces; medium hard; dark brown.

CA-3: 9.0- 9.8 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-2 (4.0- 5.0 ft): Except gyps crystals present; hard.

CA-4: 14.0- 14.8 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-2 (2.0- 3.0 ft):

CA-5: 19.0- 19.5 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-4 (14.0- 15.0 ft):

-- GEl Consultants~ Inc.

PROJECT NAME : Ferret Facility

PROJECT NUMBER: 00116

BORING LOCATION : Tank

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) ·5765

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION:_-_ DATE -

DRILLED BY: Dakota Drilling

LOGGED BY : ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 19.6

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55

4-inch solid stem augers

SAMPLE

DEPTH TYPE 1- BLOWS - 2- - 3- REMARKS

FT. and PER PEN REC

NO. 61N. IN. IN.

LEAN CLAY

CA- 15,28

12 0

CA- 18,18

12 12

CA- 50/7 7 7

10 3

CA- 50/6 6 6

15 4

CA- 50/7 7 7

20 5

B-107

LOG OF DRILL HOLE PAGE: 1 OF 1

DATE: 4-11-00 I 4-11-00

LEGEND

1) BLOWS PER 61N.-140 LB. HAMMER FALLING 30 IN. TO DRIVE A

2.0 IN. OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

2) PEN- PENETRATION LENGTH OF SAMPLER OR CORE BARREL

3) REC- RECOVERY LENGTH OF SAMPLE

S -SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2.0 in. dia UF - FIXED PISTON CS -SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 2 1/2 in. dia. ST - SHELBY TUBE

GROUNDWATER ~ ESTIMATED GROUNDWATER :s;z u :E<.!J [Lo i?_...J

Boring backfilled with cuttings

SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS

CA-1 : 2.0-3.0 ft: NO SAMPLE RECOVERED

CA-2: 4.0- 5.0 ft: CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines, medium plastic; high carbon content; gypsum crystals; calcareous deposits; firm; slightly moist; Dark brown/black.

CA-3: 9.0- 9.6 ft: SILTY CLAYSTONE: Mostly fines, low to medium plastic;

gypsum; hard; slightly moist; tan/white.

CA-4: 14.0- 14.5 ft: CLAYEY SANDSTONE: Mostly sand, narrowly graded, fine grained; low plastic fines; hard; slightly moist; tan.

CA-5: 19.0- 19.6 ft: CLAYSTONE: Similar to CA-2 (4.0 - 5.0 fl):

PROJECT NAME : Ferret Facility

PROJECT NUMBER: 00116

BORING LOCATION : Quarantine Bldg.

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (NGVD- FT) -5763

GROUNDWATER ELEVATION: _-_ DATE -

DRILLED BY: Dakota Drilling

LOGGED BY: ppp TOTAL DEPTH (FT): 19.5

NOTES: Drilled with a CME 55