A06b__20-RF-001_Specifications.pdf

MINGO NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

24279 State Highway 51

Puxico, MO 63960

MAINTENANCE BUILDING

Infrastructure Management Division

PROJECT MANUAL

TOC - Table of Contents

PROJECT MANUAL FOR

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

New Maintenance Building

Puxico, Stoddard County, Missouri

BRiC No. 2314-01B

Bid Documents

DIVISION SECTION TITLE PAGES

TOC Table of Contents TOC-5

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 01 15 00 01 15-2

00 26 34 00 26 34-36

00 28 00 00 28 00-11

List of Drawings

Geotechnical Engineer Report

Soil Evaluation Report

DIVISION 01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 20 00 01 20 00-3 01 30 00 01 30 00-6

01 31 00 01 33 00-2

01 40 00 01 40 00-3

01 42 00 01 42 00-1 01 45 33 01 45 33-9

01 57 13 01 57 13-5

01 57 15 01 57 15-3

01 57 19 01 57 16-2

01 60 00 01 60 00-4

01 77 00 01 77 00-6 01 79 00

Summary Price and Payment Procedures

Administration Requirements

Project Coordination

Quality Requirements

Definitions and Standards

Code-Required Special Instructions

Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control

Dewatering

Temporary Environmental Controls

Product Requirements

Project Closeout

Demonstration and Training 01 79 00-3

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 00 Demolition 02 41 00-3

01 00 00 01 20 00-3

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

03 05 16 Underslab Vapor Barrier 03 05 16-2

03-15-00 Cast-In Place Anchors 03 15 00-1

03 30 00 Cast-in Place Concrete 03 30 00-17

03 35 11 Concreter Floor Finishes 03 35 11-2

DIVISION 05 – STEEL

05 12 00 Structural Steel Framing 05 12 00-8

05 21 00 Steel Joist Framing 05 21 00-4

05 31 33 Steel Form Deck 05 31 33-4

05 50 00 Metal Fabrications 05 50 00-2

05 51 00 Metal Stairs 05 51 00-4

05 52 13 Pipe and Tube Railings 05 52 13-2

DIVISION 06 – WOOD AND PLASTIC

06 41 00 Architectural Wood Casework 06 41 00-4

06 83 16 Fiberglass Reinforced Paneling 06 83 16-2

DIVISION 07 – THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 21 00 Thermal Insulation 07 21 00-4

07 21 30 Pre-Engineered Building Insulation 07 21 30-4

07 72 53 Snow Guards 07 72 53-2

07 72 53.10 Snow Guard for Vent 07 72 53.10-2

07 92 00 Joint Sealants 07 92 00-6

DIVISION 08 – OPENINGS

08 11 13 Hollow Metal Doors 08 11 13-5

08 36 13 Sectional Doors 08 36 13-5

08 43 13 Aluminum-Framed Storefronts 08 43 13-5

08 51 13 Aluminum Windows 08 51 13-5

08 71 00 Door Hardware 08 71 00-6

08 80 00 Glazing 08 80 00-6

DIVISION 09 – FINISHES

09 21 16 Gypsum Board assemblies 09 21 16-5

09 30 13 Ceramic Tiling 09 30 13-7

09 51 00 Acoustic Ceilings 09 51 00-5

09 65 00 Resilient Flooring 06 65 00-2

09 91 13 Exterior Paint 09 91 13-5

09 91 23 Interior Paint 09 91 23-6

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 14 00 Signage 10 14 00-3

10 28 00 Toilet, Bath and Laundry Accessories 10 28 00-3

10 44 00 Fire Protection Specialties 10 44 00-2

DIVISION 11 – EQUIPMENT

11 95 00 Chain Hoist 11 95 00-1

DIVISION 13 – SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

13 34 19 Metal Building Systems 13 34 19-15

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 05 00 Basic Materials and Methods 22 05 00-12

22 05 17 Sleeves and Seals for Plumbing Piping 22 05 17-6

22 05 18 Escutcheons for Plumbing Piping 22 05 18-3

22 05 19 Meters and Gauges for Plumbing Piping 22 05 19-4

22 05 23 General Duty Valves for Plumbing Piping 22 05 23-8

22 05 29 Hangers and Supports for Plumbing Piping 22 05 29-13

22 05 53 Identification for Plumbing Piping and Equipment 22 05 53-5

22 07 00 Plumbing Insulation 22 07 00-14

22 11 16 Domestic Water Piping 22 11 16-13

22 11 19 Domestic Water piping Specialties 22 11 19-8

22 13 16 Sanitary Waste and Vent Piping 22 13 16-10

22 13 19 Sanitary Waste piping Specialties 22 13 19-8

22 13 63 Facility Gray-Water Storage Tank 22 13 63-3

22 31 00 Domestic Water Softeners 22 31 00-9

22 34 00 Fuel-Fired, Domestic Water Heaters 22 34 00-6

22 42 13.13 Commercial Water Closets 22 42 13.13-5

22 42 13.16 Commercial Urinals 22 42 13.16-5

22 42 16.13 Commercial Lavatories 22 42 16.13-5

22 42 16.16 Commercial Sinks 22 42 16.16-7

22 42 23 Commercial Showers, Receptors and Basins 22 42 23-5

22 45 00 Emergency Plumbing Fixtures 22 45 00-5

DIVISION 23 - MECHANICAL

23 05 00 Common Work Results for HVAC 23 05 00-13

23 05 13 Common Motor Requirements for HVAC Equipment 23 05 13-3

23 05 17 Sleeves and Sleeve Seas for HVAC piping 23 05 17-5

23 05 29 Hangers and Supports for HVAC Piping and Equipment 23 05 29-13

23 05 48 Vibration and Seismic Controls for HVAC 23 05 48-12

23 05 53 Identification for HVAC Piping and Equipment 23 05 53-5

23 05 93 Testing, Adjusting and Balancing for HVAC 23 05 93-13

23 07 13 Duct Insulation 23 07 13-1-15

23 11 23 Facility – LP- Gas Piping 23 11 23-14

23 23 00 Refrigerant Piping 23 23 00-10

23 31 13 Metal Ducts 23 31 13-13

23 33 00 Air Duct Accessories 23 33 00-16

23 34 23 HVAC Power Ventilators 23 34 23-6

23 37 13 Diffusers, Registers and Grilles 23 37 13-4

23 54 00 Furnaces 23 54 00-11

23 55 23 Gas Fired Radiant Heaters 23 55 23-5

23 63 13 Air-Cooled Refrigerant Condensers 23 63 13-6

23 72 00 Air to Air Energy Recovery Equipment 23 72 00-8

23 74 23.16 Packaged, Indirect-Fired Heating-Only Make Up-Air Units 23 74 23.16-12

23 82 39.19 Electric Unit Heaters 23 82 39.19-4

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

26 05 00 Common Work Results For Electrical 26 05 00-3

26 05 19 Low Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 26 05 19-5

26 05 23 Control Voltage Electrical power Cables 26 05 23-8

26 05 26 Grounding and Bonding For Electrical Systems 26 05 26-5

26 05 29 Hangers and Supports For Electrical Systems 26 05 29-6

26 05 33 Raceway and Boxes For Electrical Systems 26 05 33-12

26 05 53 Electrical Identification For Electrical Systems 26 05 53-11

26 05 73.15 Arch Flash Study 26 05 73.15-6

26 09 23 Lighting Controls 26 09 23-10

26 24 16 Panelboards 26 24 16-5

26 27 26 Wiring Devices 26 27 26-9

26 27 27 Equipment Wiring Systems 26 27 27-2

26 28 16 Enclosed Switches 26 28 16-3

26 51 19 LED Interior Light Fixtures 26 51 19-8

26 56 19 LED Exterior Light Fixtures 26 56 19-10

26 61 00 Testing 26 61 00-3

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS

27 11 00 Communication Raceway System 27 11 00-3

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC AND SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 31 11 Fire Alarm and Smoke Detection System 28 31 11-12

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

31 10 00 Site Clearing 31 10 00-5

31 23 00 Excavation and Fill 31 23 00-10

31 25 00 SWPP 31 25 00-14

31 31 16 Termite Control 31 31 16-2

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 11 23 Aggregate Base Courses 32 11 23-4

32 13 13 Concrete Paving 32 13 13-13

DIVISION 33 – UTILITIES

33 31 00 Sanitary Utility Sewerage 33 31 00-6

END OF TOC

LIST OF DRAWINGS 00 01 15 - 1

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

Section 00 01 15 – List of Drawings

1. GENERAL

1.1 LIST OF DRAWINGS

A. Drawings: Drawings consist of the Contract Drawings and other drawings listed on the Table of Contents page of the separately bound drawing set titled Mingo National Wildlife Refuge New Maintenance Building dated 04/21 as modified by subsequent Addenda and Contract modifications.

B. List of Drawings: Drawings consist of the following Contract Drawings and other drawings of type indicated:

C. INDEX OF DRAWINGS:

G1 COVER SHEET, VICINITY/LOCATION MAPS AND DRAWING INDEX

G2 CODE DATA

C1 EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY

C2 DEMOLITION PLAN

C3 SITE PLAN

C4 GRADING PLAN

C5 UTILITY PLAN

C6 SWPP

C7 CIVIL DETAILS

C8 CIVIL DETAILS

C9 SEPTIC SYSTEM DETAILS

UD1 SITE UTILITY PLAN – DEMOLITION

U1 SITE UTILITY PLAN – NEW WORK

A1.1 FLOOR PLAN

A1.2 UPPER FLOOR PLAN AREA, ROOF PLAN

A2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

A2.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

A2.3 BUILDING SECTION

A3.1 WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS

A3.2 MEZZANINE STAIR & DETAILS

LIST OF DRAWINGS 00 01 15 - 2

A3.3 WALL TYPES

A4.1 ROOM AND FINISH SCHEDULE

A5.1 ENLARGED TOILET PLAN AND CASEWORK ELEVATIONS

S001 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES & DESIGN DATA.

S011 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

S101 FOUNDATION & SLAB PLAN

S111 MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN

S501 FOUNDATION DETAILS

S502 FOUNDATION DETAILS

S511 MEZZANINE FRAMING DETAILS

S5012 MEZZANINE FRAMING DETAILS

S513 STAIR & HOIST BEAM DETAILS

P0 PLUMBING SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

P1 WASTE AND VENT PIPING FLOOR PLAN - NEW WORK

P2 HW & CW PIPING FLOOR PLAN - NEW WORK

P3 LP GAS AND COMPRESSED AIR PIPING FLOOR PLAN - NEW WORK

P4 PIPING RISER DIAGRAMS

P5 PLUMBING SCHEDULES

P6 PLUMBING SCHEDULES & DETAILS

M MECHANICAL SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATION

M1 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN – NEW WORK

M2 MECHANICAL MEZZANINE - NEW WORK

M3 MECHANICAL DETAILS

M4 MECHANICAL SCHEDULES

M5 MECHANICAL SCHEDULES

M6 MECHANICAL SCHEDULES

M7 MECHANICAL SCHEDULES

LIST OF DRAWINGS 00 01 15 - 3

E0 ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS

E1 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING FLOOR PLAN – NEW WORK

E2 ELECTRICAL POWER & SYSTEMS FLOOR PLAN – NEW WORK

E3 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING/POWER MEZZANINE PLAN - NEW WORK

E4 ENLARGED POWER & SYSTEMS FLOOR PLAN – NEW WORK

E5 ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES

E6 ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES

END OF SECTION 000115

Geotechnical Engineering Report

PSI Report Number: 0026345-1 January 23, 2020

Proposed Maintenance Building

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

24279 MO-51

Puxico, Missouri 63960

480 North Street Springfield, Illinois 62704 phone: (217) 544-6663 fax: (217) 544-6148 intertek.com/building psiusa.com

January 23, 2020

BriC Partnership, LLC 100 East Washington Street, Suite 220 Belleville, Illinois 62220

Attn: Mr. Frank M. Maras, LEED AP fmaras@BricPartnership.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed Maintenance Building Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

24279 MO-51

Puxico, MO 63960 PSI Report No.: 0026345-1

Dear Mr. Maras:

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek Company, is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed maintenance building at the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge facility in Puxico, Missouri. Included in this report are the results of the subsurface exploration and recommendations concerning the design and construction of the proposed maintenance building.

PSI appreciates the opportunity to have provided BriC Partnership, LLC and their design team with PSI’s geotechnical engineering services and looks forward to participation in the construction phase of this project. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further service in any manner, please contact our office.

Respectfully submitted, Professional Service Industries, Inc.

James A. Gerloff Eram Iqbal, P.E.

Project Manager Department Manager mailto:afirsel@coreacq.com

PSI REPORT NO. 0026345-1

PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING - PUXICO, MO

JANUARY 23, 2020

www.intertek.com/building

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PURPOSE/SCOPE OF SERVICES

2 DRILLING, FIELD AND LAB TESTING PROCEDURES

DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

GENERAL AREA GEOLOGY

3.2.1 Coal Mining

3.2.2 Sink Holes

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

4 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION

SITE PREPARATION

FILL/BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

EARTHQUAKE AND SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS

UTILITIES TRENCHING

SILTATION CONTROL

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

WEATHER RELATED CONCERNS

DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS

FEDERAL EXCAVATION REGULATIONS

6 GEOTECHNICAL RISK & REPORT LIMITATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL RISK

REPORT LIMITATIONS

FIGURES

APPENDICES

1 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical subsurface exploration and evaluation conducted for the proposed maintenance building to be constructed at the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge facility in Puxico, Missouri. The following table 1.1 summarizes, in chronological order, the project authorization history for the services performed and represented in this report by Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI).

TABLE 1.1: PROJECT AUTHORIZATION HISTORY

PROJECT TITLE: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE BUILDING - PUXICO, MISSOURI

Document No. Date Requested/Provided By Request for Proposal 9/17/2019 Mr. Frank Maras with BRiC Partnership, LLC PSI Proposal 0026-290342 9/19/2019 Professional Service Industries, Inc.

Signed Contract 12/11/2019 BRiC Partnership, LLC and PSI

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Mr. Frank Maras with BRiC Partnership, LLC provided the project information to PSI through multiple emails from September 17 to December 23, 2019 and subsequent telephone conversation. Attached to the emails, PSI received the following documents:

• Unnamed, undated aerial plan showing the existing building and developed areas;

• Preliminary Site Plan (C-1; dated October 22, 2019), showing the existing and proposed development areas; and

• Undated, existing Mingo Septic system sketch.

Based on the recent site visit, the site is currently developed with a single-story, slab-on-grade maintenance building, encompassing an area of approximately 5,625 square feet. PSI understands the existing structure will be demolished to accommodate the proposed single story, prefabricated steel building, encompassing an area of approximately 3,680 square feet. The proposed structure will overlap the existing building footprint. The following table 1.2 lists the structural loads and site features that are required for, or are the design basis for, the conclusions contained in this report:

TABLE 1.2: STRUCTURAL LOADS AND PROJECT DETAILS

STRUCTURAL LOAD/PROPERTY REQUIREMENT/DESIGN BASIS

BUILDING

Maximum Column Loads 50 kips B Maximum Wall Loads 3 kips per linear foot (plf) B Maximum Floor Loads 100 pounds per square foot (psf) B Settlement Tolerances 1-inch total ; ¾-inch differential B Finished Floor Elevation +2 feet of existing grades B

The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on the available project information, the proposed location and orientation of the maintenance building on the site and the subsurface materials described in this report. If any of the information we have been given or assumed is incorrect, please contact us so that we may amend the recommendations presented accordingly. PSI will not be responsible for the implementation of its recommendations when it is not notified of changes in the project.

PURPOSE/SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this exploration was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to provide soil parameters to be used for design of the foundation system for the proposed maintenance building. PSI’s proposed scope of services included drilling a total of 4 SPT soil borings around the existing building perimeter to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing surface grades, in general accordance with ASTM standards, select laboratory testing and preparation of this report.

This report briefly outlines the testing procedures, presents available project information, describes the site and subsurface conditions, and presents recommendations regarding the following:

• A discussion of subsurface conditions encountered including soil properties;

• An evaluation of the data as it relates to the proposed maintenance building;

• Recommendations for the site preparation, including placement and compaction of fill;

• Recommendations for shallow foundations and applicable bearing capacities based on the completed soil borings around the perimeter of the existing building, and considering similar soil conditions exist within the proposed building;

• Recommendations for grade supported slab and subgrade preparation;

• Estimate of settlement based on the proposed loading conditions for the structure;

• Recommendations for seismic Site classification based on estimated weighted average SPT blow counts per IBC 2012 (No liquefaction analysis); and

• Comments and recommendations relating to other observed geotechnical conditions.

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater or air, on, or below or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational purposes.

Furthermore, PSI was not requested to provide any service to investigate or detect the presence of moisture, mold or other biological contaminants in or around any structure, or any service that was designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence of the amplification of the same. Mold is ubiquitous to the environment with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. As such, PSI cannot be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold amplification.

2 DRILLING, FIELD AND LAB TESTING PROCEDURES

DRILLING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES

The soil borings were performed with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a rotary head. Conventional 3¼-inch inside diameter hollow-stem augers were used to advance the holes. Representative samples were obtained employing split-spoon and thin-wall sampling procedures in accordance with ASTM procedures.

FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

PENETRATION TESTS - During the sampling procedure, standard penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to obtain the standard penetration value of the soil. The standard penetration value (N) is defined as the number of blows of a 140-pound hammer falling thirty (30) inches, required to advance the split-spoon sampler one (1) foot into the soil. The sampler is lowered to the bottom of the drill hole and the number of blows recorded for each of three (3) successive increments of six (6) inches penetration. The "N" value is obtained by adding the second and third incremental numbers. The results of the standard penetration test indicate the relative density and comparative consistency of the soils, and thereby provide a basis for estimating the relative strength and compressibility of the soil profile components.

THIN-WALLED TUBE SAMPLING - This practice is utilized as to obtain a relatively undisturbed specimen suitable for laboratory tests of structural properties or other tests that might be influenced by soil properties. A relatively undisturbed sample is obtained by pressing a thin-walled metal tube (typically 3 inches in diameter) into the in-situ soil, removing the soil-filled tube, and sealing the ends to prevent the soil disturbance or moisture loss. These samples may be utilized in the laboratory to obtain the following information or perform the following tests: Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu), Laboratory Determination of Water Content, Wet and Dry Density, Void Ratio, Porosity, Percent Saturation, and Atterberg Limits.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS - Water level observations were made during drilling and upon completion of the boring operations, and are noted on the boring logs presented herewith. In relatively impervious soils, the accurate determination of the groundwater elevation may not be possible even after several days of observation. Seasonal variations, temperature and recent rainfall conditions may influence the levels of the groundwater table and volumes of water will depend on the permeability of the soils.

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS - Site specific, topographical information was not made available to PSI at the time of this report. However, PSI estimated surface elevations at the soil borings from Google Earth and are included on the boring logs. It must be noted that the Google Earth elevations are intended to provide only rough estimate for use in preliminary design planning, recognizing that topographical changes can occur relatively often on sites. However, if required by others, the exact test boring elevations and locations should be determined in the field by a professional surveyor.

LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM

In addition to the field investigation, a supplemental laboratory-testing program was conducted to determine additional pertinent engineering characteristics of the foundation materials necessary in analyzing the behavior of the proposed structure.

LABORATORY DETERMINATION OF WATER (MOISTURE) CONTENT OF SOIL BY MASS - For many materials, the water content is one of the most significant index properties used in establishing a correlation between soil behavior and its index properties. The water content is used in expressing the phase relationship of air, water, and solids in a given volume of material. In fine grained cohesive soils, the consistency of a given soil type depends on its water content. The water content of a soil, along with its liquid and plastic limits as determined by Atterberg Limit testing, is used to express its relative consistency or liquid index.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS (QU) - The primary purpose of the unconfined compressive strength test is to obtain the compressive strength of soils that possess significant cohesion to permit testing in the unconfined state. Unconfined compressive strength (Qu) is the compressive stress at which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in a simple compression test. In this test method, unconfined compressive strength is taken as the maximum load obtained per unit area or the load per unit area at 15% axial strain, whichever is secured first during a performance of a test. For the unconfined compressive strength test, the shear strength (Su) is calculated to be half of the compressive stress at failure.

The values of the unconfined compressive strength using hand penetrometer (Qp), as determined on samples of soil from the split-spoon sample, must be considered recognizing the manner in which they were obtained because the split-spoon sampling techniques provide a representative, but somewhat disturbed, soil sample.

Because thin-walled tube samples are relatively undisturbed and are larger in size, these samples produce more accurate unconfined compressive strength results.

ATTERBERG LIMITS - The Atterberg Limits are defined by the liquid limit (LL) and plastic limit (PL) states of a given soil. These limits are used to determine the moisture content limits where the soil characteristics changes from behaving more like a fluid on the liquid limit end to where the soil behaves more like individual soil particles on the plastic limit end. The liquid limit is often used to indicate if a soil is a low or high plasticity soil. The plasticity index (PI) is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit. The plasticity index is used in conjunction with the liquid limit to assess if the material will behave like a silt or clay. The material can also be classified as an organic material by comparing the liquid limit of the natural material to the liquid limit of the sample after being oven-dried.

The phases of the laboratory testing program were conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. The results of these tests are to be found on the accompanying boring logs located in the Appendix.

3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed maintenance building will be located at the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge facility at 24279 MO-51 in Puxico, Missouri. Specifically, the proposed building will overlap the existing building, but with a smaller footprint. The proposed site has approximate latitude and longitude of 36.9707°N and 90.1432°W, respectively.

Based on the recent site visit, the site is currently developed with an existing maintenance building and associated bituminous pavement to the north and northeast sides of the existing building. The remaining areas are covered with grass and a few trees. Based on the visual site observations and Google Earth spot elevations, the site is relatively flat with an elevation difference of less than approximately 2 feet. Surface drainage appeared fair to good based on visual site observations.

LOOKING TOWARD NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING

LOOKING TOWARD NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING (B-4)

GENERAL AREA GEOLOGY

A review of the United States Geological Survey geologic units of Missouri indicates that the bedrock in this region is part of the Roubidoux formation and consists of variable amounts of dolomite, sandstone and chert.

It is characteristically deeply weathered and eroded. Its is not completely exposed and there is a paucity of continuous outcrops due to the abundant residual materials and gently sloping terrain. Most of the outcrops are located along the steep bluffs adjacent to the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. Additionally, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources GEOSTRAT map layers shows that the surficial geology in this area is residuum composed of silt, clay, sand and gravel.

3.2.1 Coal Mining

A cursory review of the Directory of Coal Mine Maps in Missouri by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources indicates that surface and underground mining operations are not reported at this site.

3.2.2 Sink Holes

Much of the state is underlain by carbonate bedrock that has the potential for karst development. Water moving through tiny cracks in limestone and dolomite slowly dissolves the rock and carries it away in solution.

Through this process, large caves and caverns can develop in the subsurface. As rock is removed, the soil above washes into the void space and with time, sinkholes form on the surface. The Missouri Geological Survey Program has identified approximately 16,000 sinkholes in Missouri, although, many more exist that have not been reported or documented. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources GEOSTRAT map layer shows that the site is not located within the sink hole area. The closest sink hole location is approximately 7 miles northwest of the project site.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

PSI completed a total of 4 soil borings to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing grades around the existing building perimeter. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan presented in the Figures of this report. The number of soil borings were determined mutually by PSI and BRiC Partnership, LLC, and located in the field by representatives of PSI.

Drilling, sampling, and laboratory testing were accomplished in general accordance with ASTM procedures.

The types of subsurface materials encountered in the soil borings have been visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487 and ASTM D2488. The results of the visual classifications, Standard Penetration tests, moisture contents and water level observations are presented on the boring logs in the Appendix of this report. Representative samples of the soils were placed in sample jars and are now stored in the laboratory for further analysis, if requested. Unless notified to the contrary, all samples will be disposed of after 60 days following the date of this report.

Surface Strata-I The surface of the site at soil borings B-1, B-3 and B-4 consisted of an organic layer, measuring approximately 4 to 5 inches in thickness. The surface of the site at soil boring B-2 consisted of a layer of bituminous concrete measuring approximately 7 inches in thickness and underlain by a layer of crushed aggregate measuring approximately 4 inches in thickness. Thickness of the surface materials should be expected to be variable throughout the project areas.

Strata-II Below the surficial organic and crushed aggregate base, undisturbed layers of firm to stiff lean clays, silty clays, silt and sandy silts were encountered in each soil boring, and extended to the termination depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing grades.

Based on the borings performed, a generalized soil profile and soil properties was identified and is summarized in Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1: GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE AND PROPERTIES

PROPERTY

DESCRIPTION

SOIL STRATA TYPE

Ap pr ox im at e

De pt h (ft

RANGE OF PROPERTY VALUES

St an da rd

Pe ne tr at io n, N

M oi st ur e Co nt en t, Dr y

Un it

W ei gh t, pc f

Un co nf in ed C om pr es siv e St re ng th , Q r ( ts f)/ ɸ

Liq ui d Lim it/ Pl as tic

Li m it, Organic Soil Layer (B-1, B-3, B-4) 4” to 5” - - - - -

Bituminous Concrete/Base (B-2) 11” - - - - -

Firm to Stiff, Lean Clay, Silty Clay 0.5 to 18 4 to 15 23 to 33 101 to 102 0.6 to 1.3 LL=29 to 32 PL=20 to 22

Firm to Stiff, Silt, Sandy Silt 13 to 20 6 to 14 27 to 38 - 0.8 to 1.5 -

The subsurface description is of a generalized nature to highlight the major subsurface stratification features and material characteristics. The boring logs included in the appendix should be reviewed for specific information at individual boring locations. These records include soil descriptions, stratifications, penetration resistances, locations of the samples and laboratory test data. The stratifications shown on the boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the actual transition may be gradual. Water level information obtained during field operations is also shown on these boring logs.

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Free water was observed at depths of approximately 10 to 14 feet below the existing grades during drilling and upon completion of the drilling operations. Also, due to capillary action in these fine-grained soils, the soils are likely saturated at depths several feet above the observed groundwater levels. The water level observations provide an approximate indication of the groundwater conditions at the time the borings were drilled. However, long term observations in cased holes or piezometers would be necessary for a more accurate evaluation of the groundwater conditions at the site.

Fluctuations in the groundwater level should be anticipated throughout the year depending on variations in climatological conditions and other factors not apparent at the time the borings were performed.

Additionally, discontinuous zones of perched water may exist within the soils. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuation should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. PSI recommends that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the site at the time of the construction activities.

4 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION

The following geotechnical related recommendations have been developed based on the subsurface conditions encountered and PSI’s understanding of the proposed maintenance building. Should changes in the project criteria occur, a review must be made by PSI to determine if modifications to our recommendations will be required. There are three (3) primary geotechnical related concerns or discussion topics related to this site, which will affect the performance of the proposed structures. The following summarizes those concerns:

1. Existing Structure and Possible Fill

2. Site Compaction

3. Shear Strength of Soil

1. EXISTING STRUCTURE AND POSSIBLE FILL

PSI understands that the existing structure at this site is scheduled to be demolished to accommodate the proposed building. PSI recommends that any material encountered as a result of this work (old foundations, slabs, utilities, etc.) be removed within the proposed building footprint as to limit any pockets of soft uncontrolled fill. Once the material has been removed, a controlled structural fill should be used to establish grade on the site.

Miscellaneous fill soils were not encountered in any of the soil borings. However, there is a possibility that miscellaneous fill soils may be encountered within the existing building footprint and areas not explored with the soil borings. Therefore, if miscellaneous fill soils are encountered, those should be removed in their entirety within the building pad and replaced with a compacted structural fill.

2. SITE COMPACTION

Since the upper site soils predominantly consist of fine-grained soils, it may become difficult to properly compact the soils because of high moisture contents. The soils may need to be scarified and dried to a moisture content that will facilitate compaction in accordance with the structural fill requirements of this report. Moisture contents indicated the natural moisture content of the upper several feet generally were in the range of approximately 23% to 33%. PSI estimated the optimum moisture content of these soils be approximately 15 to 17 percent as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor Test). Thus, some drying of these soils would be required to achieve proper compaction or may need stabilization using crushed aggregate after removal and replacement of the soft in-situ soils.

Depending on weather and soil conditions at the time of construction, methods for accomplishing grading may include the use of wide-track, low-contact-pressure type equipment to perform the recommended site grading. The determination of the proper equipment for use in excavation would be dependent on the condition of the soils at the time of construction and the prevailing weather conditions. Narrow track equipment and rubber-tired vehicles may experience difficulty moving about the site and may deteriorate otherwise suitable soils.

3. SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL

The primary geotechnical property controlling the bearing capacity and compressibility of the soils bearing the applied loads is the shear strength of the soil. Based on a shallow foundation bearing at a depth of approximately 3 feet below the existing grades, the applied foundation load on a shallow foundation up to 6 feet wide will be distributed through 9 to 12 feet of soil generally beneath the footing. PSI believes the shear strength of the soils in this zone ranges from 600 to 1,300 psf. This shear strength is considered “undrained” or a “total stress” parameter and will be used in conjunction with other physical and geometric parameters to calculate an allowable bearing capacity.

SITE PREPARATION

Precautions should be exercised during the removal of the existing building structure. Existing foundations, walls, utilities, floor slabs, pavements etc., should be completely removed from the proposed building area.

Additionally, if fill soils are encountered during site preparation/footing excavations, PSI recommends that fill soil should be completely removed within the building footprint and at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeter and replaced with the compacted structural fill.

PSI recommends that the organic soils, existing underground utilities and soft soils in the construction areas be stripped/removed from the site and either wasted or stockpiled for later use. Based on the test boring logs and field observations, a stripping depth of approximately 4 to 6 inches is anticipated; however, note that the required depths could vary.

After stripping and removing organic soils, pavement materials and undocumented fill (if any) and excavating to the proposed subgrade level, as required, the subgrade should be thoroughly proof-rolled. Proof-rolling should be performed with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck or similar rubber-tired vehicle, with a minimum gross weight of 9 tons per single axle. Soils that are observed to rut or deflect excessively under the moving load should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted structural fill. The proof-rolling and undercutting activities should be witnessed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer and should be accomplished during a period of dry weather. Soft, loose or unstable areas revealed by the proof-rolling should be stabilized by additional compaction or undercut and replaced with structural fill or crushed aggregate.

Since the near-surface soils consist primarily of fine-grained soils, it may become difficult to achieve the required soil compaction and subgrade stability due to high soil moisture contents and relatively shallow groundwater. A stable base for compaction of structural fill is extremely important. Where soft subgrade soils are encountered, it is recommended that these materials be removed to underlying higher strength soils. If instability extends for significant depths, for example greater than 1 to 2 feet, incorporating larger-graded aggregate “bridging” materials, geotextiles and/or geogrids may be considered. Lime or lime by-product treatment of the subgrade soils could be used to provide a stable subgrade, or the upper 12-inches could be replaced with the compacted crushed aggregate. Typically, the most appropriate means of stabilizing unstable subgrades are addressed at the time these conditions are encountered. Other factors that may affect the most appropriate and/or cost-effective methods of stabilization include construction schedule, weather conditions, and material availability.

Please note that the degree of soil-drying or chemical modification required will depend to a large extent on the weather conditions, seasonal precipitation, construction schedule, and the methods and techniques employed by the contractor. The most appropriate soil stabilization methodologies should be determined at the time of construction. During site preparation, burn pits, trash pits or other isolated disposal areas may be encountered. Such materials encountered during site work or construction should be completely excavated and removed from the site.

FILL/BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS

Structural fill materials should consist of non-expansive materials. Pyritic and/or potentially expansive materials, such as mine tailings, slag, shale fragments and soil mixed with more than 5 percent of shale fragments, waste construction debris, or other deleterious or organic materials, should not be used as structural fill material.

Fill and/or backfill material for the project should be a well-graded granular or non-expansive {Liquid Limit (LL)<45 and Plasticity Index (PI)<25} cohesive material free of organic matter, waste construction debris, shale fragments, mine tailings, and other deleterious materials. The first layer of fill material should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and adequately keyed into the subgrade soils. The new fill materials should have a Proctor maximum dry density greater than 100 pcf and have a maximum particle size of 2 inches. Soils classified as CL, CL-ML, SM, SC-SM, SW, GW, GP and SP will generally be suitable for use as structural fill. Soils classified as OL, OH, MH, CH and PT should be considered unsuitable. Silt (ML) soils with PI<4, are considered very unstable at or above saturation limits, therefore extra attention should be paid during site grading operations of these silt (ML) soils.

Fills and backfills should be placed in maximum lifts of 8 inches of loose material. Suitable cohesive fills should be compacted to a minimum dry density of 98% of the maximum, as determined by ASTM D698 (Standard Proctor test). The material should be compacted within the range of -2 to +3 percentage points of the optimum moisture content value as determined by the standard Proctor test. If a fine-grained soil is used for fill, close moisture content control will be essential to achieve the recommended degree of compaction. If water must be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacted-structural fill should be tested by a representative of PSI prior to placement of subsequent lifts. The following Table 4.1 summaries the recommended compactive effort for various types of fills.

TABLE 4.1: FILL/BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS

RECOMMENDED COMPACTIVE EFFORT

(FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF STRUCTURAL FILL/BACKFILL)

MATERIAL TESTED PROCTOR

TYPE

MIN % DRY

DENSITY

MOISTURE

CONTENT

RANGE

RECOMMENDED FREQUENCY

OF TESTING

Structural Fill (building areas) Standard 98% -2 to +3% 1 per 2,000 sf of fill placed

Base Under Slab Standard 98% -2 to +3% 1 per 2,000 sf of fill placed

Landscape Fill (non-load bearing) Standard 90% -2 to +3% 1 per 5,000 sf of fill placed

Utility Trench Standard 98% -2 to +3% 1 per 100 lf of backfill placed *Minimum of 1 test per lift

Tested fill materials that do not achieve either the required dry density or moisture content range shall be recorded, the location noted, and reported to the Contractor and Owner. A re-test of that area should be performed after the Contractor performs remedial measures.

If over-excavation of the foundations is required to remove soft or unsuitable soils, the excavation should extend outward horizontally from the edge of the footing for a distance equal to ½ the depth of the fill. A representative of PSI or competent engineering firm should be present on site to verify proper excavation depths. Backfilling and compaction procedures, as described above, could then be implemented to the bottom of footing elevation. In lieu of soil backfill, a controlled low strength flowable fill material with a minimum 28-day specified compressive strength of 100 psi could also be used as backfill.

Based on the boring information and laboratory tests, the underlying natural cohesive soils appear suitable for use as structural fill. However, based on the in-situ moisture contents of these materials, significant drying of the cohesive on-site soils should be anticipated to facilitate compaction. Off-site soils used as fill should be evaluated by adequate laboratory testing prior to their use as fill.

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the subsurface conditions and the proposed construction, the proposed maintenance building can be founded on conventional shallow bearing isolated and/or continuous wall footing foundations. Spread footings for building columns and continuous footings for bearing walls, bearing on the undisturbed soils or compacted structural fill at a depth of approximately 3 feet below the final grades can be designed for maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,200 psf and 2,000 psf, respectively, based on dead load plus design live load. The net pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. The bearing capacity can be increased by 33% for the dead load plus transient load (such as earthquake and wind loads).

Foundations supporting individual columns should have a minimum dimension of 24 inches, and continuous wall foundations should have a minimum width of 18 inches to reduce possibility of local bearing capacity failure. Perimeter footings must be placed at a minimum depth of 36 inches below the finished grade in order to protect against frost action. Interior foundations, in heated areas, may be placed at depths of approximately 12 to 18 inches below the floor slab, provided they will be bearing on acceptable soils.

Based on the stated structural loads and footing size no larger than 6 feet, designed as discussed above, should experience a total settlement of less than 1-inch. If a cluster of closely spaced footings (i.e., if the center to center spacing of the footings is less than two (2) times the width of the footing) are planned, PSI should be contacted to calculate the amount of settlement. However, actual settlements will be dependent upon the depth of the foundations, column spacing, structural loads and other related factors. The structural and architectural design should include provisions for liberally spaced, vertical control joints to minimize the effects of potential settlement.

The uplift resistance of a shallow foundation formed in an open excavation will be limited to the weight of the foundation concrete and the soil above it. For design purposes, the ultimate uplift resistance can be based on effective unit weights of 120 and 150 pcf for soil and concrete, respectively, above the water table. PSI recommends that buoyant unit weights of 60 pcf and 90 pcf, respectively, be utilized in the case of submergence. These values should be reduced by an appropriate factor of safety.

Footing bearing surfaces evaluations should be performed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.

The foundation areas should be critically inspected and tested to verify consistency and compatibility with subsurface exploration data, and to assure that the recommended bearing capacity is being achieved. Any unsuitable, excessively soft/loose or wet soils encountered during foundation excavation and construction should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill, or the foundations can be extended to bear on the underlying higher strength soils. A representative of PSI should be present at the site during foundation excavation and construction in order to determine the extent of remedial measures that may become necessary should unsuitable soils be encountered. After opening, footings should be evaluated and concrete placed immediately to avoid exposure of the footing bottoms to wetting and drying. If it is required that footing excavations be left open for more than one day, they should be protected to reduce evaporation or entry of soil moisture.

EARTHQUAKE AND SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The 2012 International Building Code requires a Site Class for the calculation of the earthquake design forces in general accordance with ASCE-7-10. The effect of soil amplification on earthquake ground motions is taken into account by adjusting the earthquake spectral response accelerations for the soil and rock conditions at the site. The code group’s soil or rock conditions into six sites as defined in Table 20.3-1 (ASCE-7-10), with site coefficients of Fa and Fv increasing from Site Class A through F. The site class is based on a weighted average of known or estimated soil properties for the uppermost 100 feet of subsurface profile.

The soil borings at the project site extended to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on regional geological mapping and PSI experience with the area, PSI anticipates that the subsurface conditions below the explored depths may generally consist of stronger soils than those encountered during drilling operations. Based on our review of the available data, and knowledge of regional geology, PSI evaluated the Site Class using the weighted average of known and estimated Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values and soil shear strengths estimated from the field and laboratory tests and regional geological information. Based upon this, the subsurface conditions within the site are consistent with the characteristics of Site Class “D” as defined in Table 20.3-1 (ASCE-7-10). The USGS-NEHRP probabilistic ground motion values for latitude 36.9707°N and longitude 90.1432°W obtained from the USGS geohazards web page are detailed in the table 4.2 below:

TABLE 4.2: PROBABILISTIC GROUND MOTION VALUES

Period (seconds)

2% Probability of Event in 50 years

(%g)

Site Coefficients

Max. Spectral Acceleration Parameters

Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters

PGA 5.73 --- --- --

0.2 (Ss) 110.5 Fa = 1.058 Sms = 1.169 SDs= 0.779 T0=0.108

1.0 (S1) 39.0 Fv = 1.62 Sm1 = 0.632 SD1=0.421 Ts= 0.540

The Site Coefficients, Fa and Fv were interpolated for IBC 2012 Tables 1613.3.3(1) and 1613.3.3(2) as a function of the site classifications and the mapped spectral response acceleration at the short (Ss) and 1 second (S1) periods.

A detailed study of slope instabilities, liquefaction and surface rupture due to faulting or lateral spreading was beyond PSI’s contracted scope of services. However, the Table 4.3 below presents a qualitative assessment of these issues considering the site class, the subsurface soil properties, the groundwater elevation, and probabilistic ground motions:

TABLE 4.3: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT ISSUES

FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE RECOMMENDATIONS

Preparation of floor slab subgrades should be in accordance with recommendations outlined in the ‘Site Preparation’ and ‘Structural fill’ sections of the report. If the materials at the finished subgrade elevations exhibit excessive moisture contents and unstable subgrade conditions, then undercutting and replacement of the unsuitable soils should be performed to achieve firm subgrade support. Alternatively, the unstable soils can be stabilized by choking the exposed bearing surface with crushed limestone or similar coarse aggregate.

It is recommended that the floor slab be grade supported on crushed limestone or sand/gravel mix of MODOT Type 5 or similar. Where additional drainage capabilities are desired, a more open-graded material may be used. Crushed limestone of MODOT Type 5 containing 6% fines or less would be suitable for this use. If the floor slab is to be supported on MODOT Type 5 crushed limestone or other open-graded material, PSI recommends utilizing a geo-textile fabric between the subgrade soils and this base material to prevent the migration of the subgrade soil into the voids of the open graded “clean” crushed limestone.

A base thickness of six (6) inches is recommended, but in no case less than four (4) inches. PSI recommends that the soil surface be graded to drain away from the building without low spots during and after construction, and before the placement of the granular base material. Polyethylene sheeting can be placed to act as a vapor retarder where the floor will be in contact with moisture sensitive equipment or product such as tile, wood, carpet, etc., as directed by the design engineer. The decision to locate the vapor retarder in direct contact with the slab or beneath the layer of granular fill should be made by the design engineer after considering the moisture sensitivity of subsequent floor finishes, anticipated project conditions and the potential effects of slab curling and cracking. The floor slabs should have an adequate number of joints to reduce cracking resulting from differential movement and shrinkage.

For subgrade prepared as recommended and properly compacted fill, a modulus of subgrade reaction, k value, of 120 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used in the grade slab design based on a 1 ft. x 1 ft. plate load test. However, depending on how the slab load is applied, the value will have to be geometrically modified. The value should be adjusted for larger areas using the following expression for cohesive and cohesionless soil:

Hazard Relative Risk Comments

Liquefaction Low The soil within the upper 20 feet of the subsurface profile consists primarily of firm to hard cohesive soils

Slope Stability Low The site is relatively flat and does not/will not incorporate significant cut or fill slopes.

Surface Rupture

Low The site is not underlain by a mapped Holocene-aged fault.

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, ks = ( B k ) for cohesive soil and ks = k ( B

1B + )2 for cohesionless soil where: ks= coefficient of vertical…