B09_Solicitation_Amendment_4_attach_2_Soil_Report_0004.pdf

CONSULTANTS

• GEOTECHNICAL

• MATERIALS

• ENVIRONMENTAL

• FORENSICS

www.amengtest.com

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL

EXPLORATION AND REVIEW

WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

BADLANDS SOUTH VISITOR CENTER

BIA HIGHWAY 27

BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA

AET No. 17-20224

Date:

March 20, 2019

Prepared for:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

703 Main Street, Suite 200 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701

1745 Samco Road | Rapid City, SD 57702 Phone (605) 388-0029 | Toll Free (800) 972-6364 | Fax (605) 388-0064 | www.amengtest.com | AA/EEO

This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc.

March 20, 2019

HDR Engineering, Inc.

703 Main Street, Suite 200 Rapid City, South Dakota 57701

Attn: Mr. Chris Robinson, PE

RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review Wastewater System Improvements Badlands South Visitor Center BIA Highway 27 Badlands National Park, South Dakota AET Project No. 17-20224

Dear Chris, American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for the above referenced project at the Badlands South Visitor Center within the Badlands National Park, South Dakota. These services were performed in general accordance with our proposal dated September 10, 2018 and written authorization to proceed provided on October 12, 2018. We are submitting one (1) electronic copy of the report to you.

Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in the Appendix entitled “Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use”.

Please contact me if you have any questions about the report. I can also be contacted for arranging observation and testing services during construction of the project.

Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc.

Walt Feeger, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Phone: (605) 388-0029 wjfeeger@amengtest.com

Page i

CONSULTANTS

· GEOTECHNICAL

· MATERIALS

· ENVIRONMENTAL

A AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Wastewater System Improvements– Badlands South Visitor Area AMERICAN March 20, 2019 ENGINEERING Report No. 17-20224 TESTING, INC.

Copyright 2019 American Engineering Testing, Inc.

All Rights Reserved

Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project.

Signature Page

Prepared for: Prepared by:

HDR Engineering, Inc. American Engineering Testing, Inc.

703 Main Street, Suite 200 1745 Samco Road Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 Rapid City, South Dakota 57702

(605) 388-0029 Attn: Mr. Chris Robinson, PE

Report Authored By: Peer Review Conducted By:

Walt Feeger, P.E. Robert Temme, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Vice President – Western Region

Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING

4.1 Field Exploration Program

4.2 Laboratory Testing

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Observations

5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology

5.3 Groundwater

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Jacking/Bore Pit Construction

6.2 Jacking Pit and Utility Trench Backfill Considerations

6.3 Lagoon /Embankment Construction

6.4 Lift Station Recommendations

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Runoff Water in Excavation

7.2 Observation and Testing

8.0 LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX A - Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing

Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Site Location Map Boring Location Map Subsurface Boring Logs Gradation Curves Moisture-Density (Proctor) Report Permeability Test Results

APPENDIX B - Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Page ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

We understand improvements to the existing wastewater system have been proposed at the

Badlands South Visitor Center within the Badlands National Park, South Dakota. To assist in planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a geotechnical study, including standard penetration test (SPT) borings at the site, soil laboratory testing, and a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of the above services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

AET's services for this project were performed in general accordance with our revised proposal dated September 10, 2018. The authorized scope consists of the following:

• Two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings to depths of about 10 to 25 feet below grade.

• Soil laboratory testing.

• Geotechnical engineering report based on the gained data and analysis.

These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination.

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

Based on the information provided, we understand the project consists of improvements to the existing wastewater system at the Badlands South (White River) Visitor Area. The improvements will include a 10’ deep lift station, a new lagoon, and a force-main directionally drilled approximately 6’ below grade.

The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING

4.1 Field Exploration Program

The subsurface exploration program conducted for this project consisted of two (2) SPT soil borings drilled to depths of about 10 to 25 feet below existing grades. The borings were drilled on February

26, 2019. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N-value).

The general boring locations were located in the field by AET personnel and are shown on the Boring

Location Map included in Appendix A of this report. The ground surface elevations at the boring locations were provided by HDR Engineering.

4.2 Laboratory Testing

The laboratory testing program included water content, dry density, gradation (sieve) analysis, Atterberg Limits, moisture-density relationship (proctor), and remolded permeability. The water content, dry density, Atterberg Limits, and percent passing the #200 sieve test results are included on the attached boring logs opposite the samples upon which the tests were performed. The gradation analysis and moisture-density relationship (proctor) tests are also included on separate sheets within

Appendix A at the end of this report. The proctor test is summarized as follows:

Boring Soil Classification Optimum Moisture Content, % 1

Maximum Dry Density, pcf 1

B-1/B-2 Silt with Sand 18.9 100.1 1 Based on ASTM D 698 (standard proctor)

Using this same material, the remolded permeability test data indicates these soils have a permeability rate of approximately 2.9x10-5 cm/sec when remolded to approximately 95% of maximum dry density at optimum moisture content.

It should be noted that the bulk soil sample represents a mixture of the soils encountered within the upper 5-foot interval of the boreholes. As such, the soil classification as presented on the Moisture-

Density Relationship data sheet may differ from the classifications of the individual soil layers identified on the respective Subsurface Boring Log.

5.0 SITE CONDITIONS

5.1 Surface Observations

At the time of our field work, the site consisted of the existing Visitor Center as well as a vacant tract of grassland where the proposed lagoon will be constructed. The area between the existing

Visitor Center and the proposed lagoon area is bisected with BIA Highway 27 trending in a north-south direction, and BIA Highway 2 trending in an east-west direction. The area within the borings was relatively flat, with less than 1-foot of elevation difference noted.

5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology

In general, underlying a thin layer of topsoil, the subsurface soils encountered within the borings consisted of about 8 feet of Eolian (windblown) Deposits overlying Terrace Deposits. The Eolian

Deposits are comprised of stiff to very stiff silts, with the Terrace Deposits consisting of medium dense to dense sands and dense clayey gravels. The dense sands extended to the total depths explored within

Boring B-1. Within Boring B-2, the Terrace Deposits are underlain by hard weathered to competent shale bedrock, associated with the White River Group, which extended to the total depth explored.

Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report.

5.3 Groundwater

At the time of our field work, measurable groundwater was encountered in Boring B-2 at a depth of about 13 feet below existing grade. Subsurface water levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and yearly. The time of year that the borings were drilled, and the history of precipitation prior to drilling as well as levels of the creek, should be known when using the water level informa-tion on the soil boring logs to extrapolate water levels at other points in time.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Please note that our original proposal for the geotechnical services included seven (7) soil borings at the site; two (2) borings along the force main alignment, four (4) borings within the proposed new lagoon area, and one (1) boring within the footprint of the new lift station. At the request of the Owner (National Park Service), the proposal was reduced to only a total of two

(2) borings at the site; both within the proposed lagoon.

However, foundation recommendations for the proposed lift station as well as site excavation, utility trench backfilling/compaction requirements, jacking pit recommendations for directional drilling under BIA Highway 27 have been requested along with the feasibility of utilizing the site soils as lagoon liner material.

Please note that the following recommendations are based on the soil conditions observed in the two (2) soil borings drilled within the proposed lagoon area. The soils along the force main and lift station may differ significantly from those encountered at the boring locations. It is critical that AET’s geotechnical engineer be allowed to observe the excavations and provide testing services during construction of the project to verify the soil conditions are similar to those encountered in the borings. If the soils vary from those encountered in the borings, the recommendations contained herein are not considered valid and additional recommendations will be necessary. AET will not be liable for any movement or construction related distress due to varying soil conditions across the site which were not identified due to the decrease in the original scope of services requested by the Owner.

Further, changes in climatic conditions between the time of exploration and the time of construction may also affect soil conditions, particularly ground water levels and the moisture content of the soils.

6.1 Jacking/Bore Pit Construction

We recommend that all utility lines be placed in accordance with the applicable sections as defined in the South Dakota Department of Transportation’s Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, current edition.

Based on the information provided, we understand the jacking/bore pits at the proposed road crossing will be on the order of about 6 feet in depth. At this depth, and based on the borings drilled in the lagoon area, the bottom of the jacking pits will likely be within the silt Eolian

Deposits. Conventional construction equipment such as tracked excavators should be able to make the required excavations at the proposed jacking/bore pit locations.

Groundwater was encountered at the time of our site work; however, it shouldn’t be expected within the near surface excavations required for the jacking pits. However, earthwork contractors should have equipment on-site that will lower and maintain the groundwater levels below the base of the required excavations should it be encountered.

Excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations

(Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” (can be found on www.osha.gov). It is our opinion the site Eolian soils should be classified as Type B with recommended slope laybacks of 1H:1V. This classification should be considered preliminary and should be verified in the field on a daily basis by the contractor and/or geotechnical engineer prior personnel entering the excavations and/or placement of utilities. Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce side slope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance.

If excavation layback slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations are not possible at the proposed jacking/bore pit locations the use of trench boxes will be required during excavation to provide shoring and personnel safety. Additionally, as a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles and soil piles be kept a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to no less than the excavation height. The exposed slope/excavation faces should be protected against the elements.

We also recommend that periodic inspections of the excavations and trench boxes be made. Once the required borings are completed, we recommend the excavations be backfilled as soon as possible.

6.2 Jacking Pit and Utility Trench Backfill Considerations

Based on the range of current moisture contents determined in our laboratory, the excavated soils will likely be at or slightly below the optimum moisture content and will require processing and moisture conditioning to bring the trench spoils close to the optimum moisture content before reuse as backfill.

Prior to re-use, we recommend the moisture content of the site soils be adjusted to within ±2% of optimum prior to re-use. The trench/excavation backfill should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) dry density. Additionally, we recommend the top 1-foot of the backfill zone be compacted to at least 98% of the maximum standard Proctor dry density to reduce the potential of future settlement related issues.

Experience has shown that the site fine grained silt and sand soils are moisture sensitive and extra care must be taken during reworking and compaction of these soils to obtain a uniform moisture content throughout the fill. To obtain the recommended compaction requirements, experience has shown that the in-place moisture content should be within the specified range. Moisture contents outside this range will result in greater difficulty in obtaining specified compaction. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted at the time of construction to discuss what type(s) of compaction equipment should be used.

All backfill should be free of deleterious/frozen material and have a maximum aggregate size of 3-inches. All backfill should be placed in loose lift thicknesses of 8-inches or less. If hand-operated compaction equipment is used, the loose lift thickness should be reduced to 4-inches or less.

Compaction density tests should be performed on alternating lifts to ensure the minimum density is maintained.

Should additional fill be required, the proposed import backfill should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for approval prior to use.

6.3 Lagoon /Embankment Construction

It is our opinion the site silt/sand soils are suitable for construction of the new lagoon berms.

However, the laboratory permeability rate of 2.9x10-5 cm/sec suggests a synthetic liner or bentonite

(fat clay) amended soils will likely be needed within the new lagoon to properly retain water (assuming a permeability rate of 1.0x10-7cm/sec or lower is required). If bentonite (fat clay) amended soils are desired, AET can assist in providing the required mix designs to determine the ratio of required materials to provide a sufficient permeability rate.

Excavation of the site silt/sand soils can be completed to the required design grade. The exposed subgrades should be scarified to a depth of 8-inches, moisture conditioned to within ±2% of optimum and recompacted to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). For embankment construction, the excavated soils should also be moisture conditioned to within ±2% of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor dry density. We recommend the new lagoon berms have maximum slopes of 3H:1V. We also recommend that any utility lines entering or exiting the lagoon/embankments should be leak tested prior to use.

Site data indicates groundwater at a depth of about 13 feet below grade. Therefore, depending on the required lagoon depth, the contractor should take note that temporary dewatering may be necessary if groundwater is encountered in trenches and/or excavations or surface water drainage is allowed to accumulate in the trenches/excavations. Contractors working on the project should have equipment on-site that will lower and maintain the groundwater level below the base of the excavations.

6.4 Lift Station Recommendations

We understand the base of the lift station will be situated approximately 10 feet below grade.

Provided the soils are consistent with those encountered in the borings drilled in the proposed lagoon area, the structure will be founded within the medium dense to dense site sand terrace deposits.

At this depth, a mat foundation system bearing on the undisturbed sand soils can be utilized and designed for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For transient loads such as wind and seismic, the allowable bearing pressure could be increased by about one-third. The net bearing pressure is the load on the foundation, ignoring the weight of the soil above the foundation.

Theoretically, the net allowable bearing pressure could exceed 2,000 psf. However, since the weight of the pump station would be less than the weight of the material it displaces, there would not be a net increase on the soils below the foundation. As a result, settlement should be on the order of 1 inch or less.

The “at-rest” earth pressure condition is appropriate for designing the buried lift station. As such, and assuming the site silt and sand soils will be mixed and re-used as exterior backfill material around the lift station, we recommend a value of 70 pcf be used. The lateral earth pressure value is based on a safety factor of 1.0, so an appropriate safety factor should be incorporated into the structural design of the buried walls.

7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Runoff Water in Excavation

Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the excavations during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can be handled with conventional dewatering techniques.

7.2 Observation and Testing

The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied.

8.0 LIMITATIONS

Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either expressed or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled “Geotechnical Report

Limitations and Guidelines for Use”.

Appendix A

AET Project No. 17-20224

Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing

Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System

Site Vicinity Map Boring Location Map

Subsurface Boring Logs Gradation Curves

Moisture-Density (proctor) Report Permeability Test Results

A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling standard penetration test (SPT) borings.

The locations of the borings appear preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix.

A.2 SAMPLING METHODS

A.2.1 Ring-lined barrel Samples - Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (ring-lined barrel) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D3550. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2.5-inch O.D. thick-walled, split-barrel sampler lined with brass rings into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value.

A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up Samples (SU) Sample types described as “DS” or “SU” on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate.

A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs.

Determining the thickness of “topsoil” layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed.

A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS

Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM: D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM: D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs.

Visual-manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description. A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached.

The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment.

A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under “Water Level Measurements” on the logs:

Date and Time of measurement Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid

The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing.

A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS

A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2216 and

AASHTO: T265.

A.5.2 Atterberg Limits Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-030, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D4318 and

AASHTO: T89, T90.

A.5.3 Sieve Analysis of Soils (thru #200 Sieve) Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-040, which is performed in general conformance with ASTM: D6913, Method A.

A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS

Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied.

A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE

Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488

AMERICAN

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA

Soil Classification Notes ABased on the material passing the 3-in (75-mm) sieve.

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

CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

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

SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

(D30)2

ECu = D60 /D10, Cc = D10 x D60

FIf soil contains >15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

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

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

IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

JIf Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL-ML silty clay.

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

LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.

NPl>4 and plots on or above “A” line.

OPl<4 or plots below “A” line.

PPl plots on or above “A” line.

QPl plots below “A” line.

RFiber Content description shown below.

Group Symbol

Group NameB

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

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

Clean Gravels Less than 5% finesC

Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3E GW Well graded gravelF

Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E GP Poorly graded gravelF

Gravels with Fines more than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF.G.H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF.G.H

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

Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD

Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3E SW Well-graded sandI

Cu<6 and 1>Cc>3E SP Poorly-graded sandI

Sands with Fines more than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG.H.I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG.H.I

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

(see Plasticity Chart below)

Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ

CL Lean clayK.L.M

PI<4 or plots below “A” lineJ

ML SiltK.L.M organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75

Liquid limit – not dried OL Organic clayK.L.M.N

Organic siltK.L.M.O

Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK.L.M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltK.L.M organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75

Liquid limit – not dried OH Organic clayK.L.M.P

Organic siltK.L.M.Q

Highly organic soil

Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic in odor

PT PeatR

3 2 ½ 1 ¾ 4 10 20 40 60 140 200

Sieve NumberScreen Opening (in.)

50 10 5 1.0 0.10.5

PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

SIEVE ANALYSIS

PE

RC

EN

T

P

AS

SI

NG

PE

RC

EN

T

R

ET

AI

NE

D

D60 = 15mm

D30 = 2.5mm

D10 = 0.075mm

Cu = = = 200D60 D10

0.075 Cc = = = 5.6(D30)

D10 x D60 2.5

0.075 x 15 2 2

CL-ML

For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils.

Equation of "A"-line Horizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5.

then PI = 0.73 (LL-20)

Equation of "U"-line Vertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7.

then PI = 0.9 (LL-8)

"A" LI

NE

"U" LI

NE

CL OR O

L

CH OR O

H

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0

PL

AS

TI

CI

TY

IN

DE

X

(P I)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Plasticity Chart

ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION

Grain Size Term Particle Size Boulders Over 12" Cobbles 3" to 12" Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve

Gravel Percentages Term Percent A Little Gravel 3% - 14% With Gravel 15% - 29% Gravelly 30% - 50%

Consistency of Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF Very Soft less than 2 Soft 2 - 4 Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15 Very Stiff 16 - 30 Hard Greater than 30

Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF

Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5 - 10 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50

Very Dense Greater than 50

Moisture/Frost Condition (MC Column)

D (Dry): Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch.

M (Moist): Damp, although free water not visible. Soil may still have a high water content (over “optimum”).

W (Wet/ Free water visible intended to Waterbearing): describe non-plastic soils.

Waterbearing usually relates to sands and sand with silt.

F (Frozen): Soil frozen

Layering Notes Laminations: Layers less than ½" thick of differing material or color.

Lenses: Pockets or layers greater than ½" thick of differing material or color.

Fiber Content of Peat Fiber Content Term (Visual Estimate)

Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% Hemic Peat: 33 – 67% Sapric Peat: Less than 33%

Organic/Roots Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat and is judged to have sufficient organic fines content to influence the soil properties. Slightly organic used for borderline cases.

With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity of roots to influence the soil properties.

Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged to be in sufficient quantity to significantly affect soil properties.

TOPSOIL

SILT, tan, stiff, trace roots present (ML)

SANDY SILT, tan, stiff (ML)

SAND, tan, medium dense, medium to coarse grained (SW)

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, tan, dense

(SM)

Bottom of Boring

TOPSOIL

EOLIAN

DEPOSITS

TERRACE

DEPOSITS

M

M

M

M

MC

MC

MC

MC

BORING

COMPLETED: 2/26/19

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

2/26/19 None

CASING

DEPTH

LG:

11.5

DEPTH:

DRILLING

FLUID LEVELDATE

NA

3.25" HSA

SURFACE ELEVATION:

RC-2

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGES

NA

SAMPLED

DEPTH10.0

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

TIME

DR:

10.0

2628.7

BB

WATER

LEVEL

11:00

Rig:

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

MC

DEN

DEPTH

IN

FEET WC PLLL %-#200

N REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

17-20224

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGY

Wastewater System Improvements - Badlands South Visitor Center;

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:

B- 1 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.

A E

T _C

O R

P

-2

.G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

3/

/1

TOPSOIL

SILT, tan, very stiff, trace roots present (ML)

SANDY SILT, tan, stiff (ML)

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, tan, dense

(SM)

CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND, tan, medium dense (GC)

WEATHERED SHALE, Fat Clay, olive brown to grey, hard (CH)

SHALE, Fat Clay, green to grey, hard (CH)

Bottom of Boring

37 16

TOPSOIL

EOLIAN

DEPOSITS

TERRACE

DEPOSITS

WHITE

RIVER

GROUP

M

M

M

M

W

M

M

M

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

MC

BORING

COMPLETED: 2/26/19

CAVE-IN

DEPTH

2/26/19 12.8

CASING

DEPTH

LG:

26.5

DEPTH:

DRILLING

FLUID LEVELDATE

NA

3.25" HSA

SURFACE ELEVATION:

RC-2

DRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO

THE ATTACHED

SHEETS FOR AN

EXPLANATION OF

TERMINOLOGY ON

THIS LOGES

NA

SAMPLED

DEPTH25.0

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

TIME

DR:

25.0

2629.3

BB

WATER

LEVEL

10:10

Rig:

FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS

MC

DEN

DEPTH

IN

FEET WC PLLL %-#200

N REC

IN.

03/2011 01-DHR-060

17-20224

AMERICAN

ENGINEERING

TESTING, INC.

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG

SAMPLE

TYPE

GEOLOGY

Wastewater System Improvements - Badlands South Visitor Center;

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

AET JOB NO:

PROJECT:

B- 2 (p. 1 of 1)LOG OF BORING NO.

A E

T _C

O R

-2

.G P

J A

E T

C

P T

W

E

LL

.G D

T

3/

/1

0.0010.010.1110100

3/4 30 medium

D10 coarse

4 14081.5 6 200100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

MC% LL PL PI Cc fine

COBBLES

coarse

SILT OR CLAY

GRADATION CURVES

34.8

%Sand %Silt %Clay

56.1 9.1

%Gravel

SAND

fine

D30

D60

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

20161410

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES HYDROMETER

35.60.28

B- 2

7.5'

7.5'

B- 2

1/2

P E R C E N T

F I N E R

B Y

W E I G H T

Silty Sand with Gravel (SM)

3/8

50.00 2.94 0.260 0.0826

Classification Cu

D100

6 70504

GRAVEL

2/26/19 Wastewater System Improvements - Badlands South Visitor Center;

PROJECT AET JOB NO.

DATE

17-20224

AMERICAN

Sample Details Sample ID: 19-01961-S1 Field ID: Bulk B-1 & 2 (Combined) 1-5' Date Sampled: 2/26/0219 Material: Silt with sand, tan (ML) Location: Bulk B-1 & 2 (Combined) 1-5'

Test Results

ASTM D 698

Maximum Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft³): 100.1 Optimum Water Content (%): 18.9 Method: A Preparation Method: Moist Specific Gravity Method: Assumed Retained Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 1 Passing Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%): 99 Tested By: Leif Larson Date Tested: 3/1/2019

Dry Unit Weight - Water Content Relationship

American Engineering Testing, Inc.

Rapid City Sheridan 1745 Samco Road 72 East Ridge Road Unit D Rapid City, SD 57702 Sheridan, WY 82801 Phone: (605) 388-0029 (307) 675-1863 Toll Free: (800) 972-6364 www.amengtest.com

Report No: PTR:19-01961-S1

Project: WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

Client:

3/4/2019Date of Issue:

CC:HDR ENGINEERING, INC

Job No: 17-20224

Proctor Report

Page 1 of 1Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:19-01961-S1 © 2000-2018 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com

Comments

BADLANDS SOUTH VISITOR CENTER

H

YD

R

AU

LI

C

C O

N D

U C

TI

VI

TY

PE

R

M

EA

B

IL

IT

Y

C O

EF

FI

C

IE

N T

(K ) T

ES

T

Fa lli ng H ea d

Pe rm ea bi lit y

Te st a s pe r M et ho d by

J os ep h

E.

B ow le s in h is

L ab or at or y

M an ua l

AE

T

N o:

-2

Pr oj ec t N am e:

W as te w at er

S ys te m

Im pr ov em en ts

Sa m pl e

N o:

B ul k B

-1

Pr oj ec t L oc at io n:

B ad la nd s

S ou th V is ito r C en te r

D ep th o r E le va tio n( Ft

1-

5' Sa m pl e Lo ca tio n:

B ul k

B -1

(C om bi ne d)

-5

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

(I n-

Si tu o r R em ol de d in th e La bo ra to ry

R em ol de d

Te ch ni ci an

M ic ha el

B ro w n

Fl ex ib le

W al l (

AS

TM

: D x

R ig id W al l(A

ST

M

D -5

6)

D at e Te st ed

3/

5/

Pr oc to r N o:

Li ft N o.

o f F ie ld S am pl e:

Sa m pl e

D en si ty

(P cf

.1

Pr oc to r M

D D

(P cf

0.

Sp ec ifi ed

M in

C om pa ct io n

.0

Sa m pl e

M oi st ur e

.8 4%

Pr oc to r O

M C

.9

Sp ec ifi ed M oi st ur e

C on te nt

.9

Pe rc en t (

) o f S pe ci fie d D en si ty (B la ck

A bo ve o r R ed

B el ow

0.

0%

Pe rc en t (

) M oi st ur e

Ab ov e or

B el ow O

M C

(0

.1

St an dp ip e Ar ea

0.

cm

Sp ec im en D ia m et er

(D ) i n cm

.1

Sp ec im en

A re a:

.2 cm

In iti al S pe ci m en

H ei gh t o r L en gt h

(L ) i n cm

.5

D at e an d Ti m e at D at e an d

Ti m e at

E la ps ed

Ti m e h o h f

(c m

W at er

Te m pe ra tu re W at er

In cl ud e in K er m ea bi lit y

P er io d

S ta rt P er io d E nd ⌂t

(S ec on ds

(c m

R ea di ng

D iff er en ce

(h 0-h f

(o C el si us

V is co si ty

A ve ra ge

(y

/n

C oe ffi ci en t

(c m se c)

3/ 5/

1:

3/ 5/

4:

0.

Y 1.

E

-0

3/ 5/

4:

3/ 5/

6:

.3

.7

0.

Y 2.

E

-0

3/ 6/

:4

3/ 6/

2:

.3

.7

0.

Y

6.

E -0

3/

6/

2:

3/

6/

4:

8.

.4

0.

Y 2.

E

-0

3/ 6/

4:

3/ 6/

5:

2.

.7

0.

Y

9.

E -0

3/

7/

:0

3/

7/

:2

3.

.2

0.

Y 2.

E

-0

3/ 7/

:2

3/ 7/

2:

1.

.4

0.

Y 1.

E

-0

3/ 7/

2:

3/ 7/

4:

5.

.5

0.

Y

2.

E -0

3/

7/

4:

3/

7/

6:

8.

.5

0.

Y 5.

E

-0

3/ 8/

:1

3/ 8/

:4

4.

.5

0.

Y

2.

E -0

3/

8/

:4

3/

8/

3:

4.

.7

0.

Y

1.

E -0

3/

8/

3:

3/

8/

6:

5.

.3

0.

Y 2.

E

-0

3/

/1

7:

3/

/1

9:

1.

.3

0.

Y

2.

E -0

3/

/1

9:

3/

/1

:3

3.

.5

0.

Y

3.

E -0

3/

/1

:3

3/

/1

:0

7.

.6

0.

Y 2.

E

-0 k 2 0=

(L a) ln

(h o)

A ve ra ge

P er m ea bi lit y C oe ffi ci en t = 2.

E

-0 cm /s ec

A ⌂t h f

M kt o (S

-8

1/

R ev ie w ed

B y:

D at e:

Ty pe o f T es t:

Appendix B

Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Appendix - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

REFERENCE

This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE1, of which, we are a member firm.

RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. No one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you,

• not prepared for your project,

• not prepared for the specific site explored, or

• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or

• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 : www.asfe.org

Appendix - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.

Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over rely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.

To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need to prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional studies. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.