A06b__20-RF-006_SPECS.pdf

MINNESOTA VALLEY

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

3815 American Blvd. East Bloomington, MN 55425

WILDLIFE INTERPRETATION

AND EDUCATION CENTER

RECONFIGURE AND ADDITION

Infrastructure Management Division

U.S. Fish & Wildlife MN Valley NWR Field Office Addition & Remodel

LHB #200158

TOC - 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 3100 AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 1000 01 3100 01 3300 01 4000 01 4200 01 4533 01 5000 01 5713 01 6000 01 6116 01 7000 01 7419 01 7700

SUMMARY OF THE WORK

PROJECT COORDINATION

SUBMITTALS

QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS

CODE-REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND PROCEDURES

TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT RESTRICTIONS

EXECUTION AND CLOSEOUT REQUIREMENTS

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL PROJECT

CLOSEOUT

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 4100 DEMOLITION

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 0516 UNDERSLAB VAPOR BARRIER

03 1000 CONCRETE FORMING AND ACCESSORIES

03 2000 CONCRETE REINFORCING

03 3000 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

03 3511 CONCRETE FLOOR FINISHES

03 3900 CONCRETE CURING

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 2001 MASONRY VENEER

04 2900 ENGINEERED UNIT MASONRY

04 4200 EXTERIOR STONE CLADDING

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 1200 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING

05 2100 STEEL JOIST FRAMING

05 3100 STEEL DECKING

05 4000 COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING

05 4400 COLD-FORMED METAL TRUSSES

05 5000 METAL FABRICATIONS

05 5100 METAL STAIRS

05 5213 PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 1000 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 2000 FINISH CARPENTRY

06 4100 ARCHITECTURAL WOOD CASEWORK

06 6110 SOLID POLYMER FABRICATIONS

06 6510 QUARTZ SURFACING FABRICATIONS

06 8316 FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PANELING

LHB #200158

TOC - 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 2100 THERMAL INSULATION

07 2119 FOAMED-IN-PLACE INSULATION

07 2500 WEATHER BARRIERS

07 4213 METAL WALL PANELS

07 4646 FIBER-CEMENT SIDING

07 6100 SHEET METAL ROOFING

07 6200 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

07 8400 FIRESTOPPING

07 9200 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 1113 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 1416 FLUSH WOOD DOORS

08 5113 ALUMINUM WINDOWS

08 7100 DOOR HARDWARE

08 8000 GLAZING

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 2116 GYPSUM BOARD ASSEMBLIES

09 3000 TILING

09 5100 ACOUSTICAL CEILINGS

09 6500 RESILIENT FLOORING

09 6700 FLUID-APPLIED FLOORING

09 6813 TILE CARPETING

09 7200 WALL COVERINGS

09 8414 ACOUSTIC STRETCHED-FABRIC WALL SYSTEMS

09 9000 PAINTING AND COATING

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 1100 VISUAL DISPLAY UNITS

10 1400 INTERIOR SIGNAGE

10 2600 WALL AND DOOR PROTECTION

10 2813 TOILET ACCESSORIES

10 4400 FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALTIES

10 5126 PLASTIC LOCKERS

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 2400 WINDOW SHADES

DIVISION 14 - CONVEYING EQUIPMENT

14 4216 VERTICAL PLATFORM LIFTS

DIVISION 21 - FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 0100 FIRE SUPPRESSION GENERAL PROVISIONS

21 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 1300 FIRE SUPPRESSION SPRINKLERS

DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING

22 0100 PLUMBING GENERAL PROVISIONS

22 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR PLUMBING PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

22 0719 PLUMBING PIPING INSULATION

22 1005 PLUMBING PIPING

22 1006 PLUMBING PIPING SPECIALTIES

22 4000 PLUMBING FIXTURES

TOC - 3

DIVISION 23 - HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 0100 HVAC GENERAL PROVISIONS

23 0513 COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT

23 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING, DUCT, AND EQUIPMENT

23 0593 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 0713 DUCT INSULATION

23 0719 HVAC PIPING INSULATION

23 0800 COMMISSIONING OF MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

23 0923 DIRECT-DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR HVAC

23 0993 SEQUENCES OF OPERATIONS

23 2113 HYDRONIC PIPING

23 2114 HYDRONIC SPECIALTIES

23 3100 HVAC DUCTS AND CASINGS

23 3300 AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES

23 3423 POWER VENTILATORS

23 3700 AIR OUTLETS AND INLETS

23 3705 DISPLACEMENT AIR OUTLETS

23 5533 FUEL-FIRED UNIT HEATERS

23 7413 PACKAGED OUTDOOR CENTRAL-STATION AIR-HANDLING UNITS

23 8200 CONVECTION HEATING AND COOLING UNITS

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRICAL

26 0519 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

26 0520 PATHWAYS FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

26 0526 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 0529 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 0533 RACEWAY AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 0553 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 0573 POWER SYSTEMS STUDY

26 0943 NETWORK LIGHTING CONTROLS AND DEVICES

26 2726 WIRING DEVICES

26 2813 FUSES

26 2816 ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS

26 4313 SURGE PROTECTION DEVICES

26 5100 INTERIOR LIGHTING

26 5600 EXTERIOR LIGHTING

DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATIONS

27 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS

27 1500 COMMUNICATIONS HORIZONTAL CABLING

27 5455 AUDIO VISUAL SYSTEMS

DIVISION 28 - ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 0500 COMMON WORK RESULTS FOR ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 0513 CONDUCTORS AND CABLES FOR ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 3111 DIGITAL, ADDRESSABLE FIRE-ALARM SYSTEM

28 3300 SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND DEVICES

TOC - 4

SITE AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBGROUP - DIVISIONS 31 THROUGH 35

30 1000 BASIC CIVIL REQUIREMENTS

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 1000 SITE CLEARING

31 2200 GRADING

31 2316 EXCAVATION

31 2316.13 TRENCHING

31 2323 FILL

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 1123 AGGREGATE BASE COURSES

32 1216 ASPHALT PAVING

32 1313 CONCRETE PAVING

32 3223 SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS

32 9219 SEEDING

32 9300 PLANTS

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 0513 MANHOLES AND STRUCTURES

33 4100 SUBDRAINAGE

33 4211 STORMWATER GRAVITY PIPING

LHB #200158

00 3100 - 1

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

SECTION 00 3100

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

PART 1 GENERAL

1.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS

A. Certain information relating to existing surface and subsurface conditions and structures is available to bidders but will not be part of Contract Documents, as follows:

B. Geotechnical Report: Entitled Geotechnical Engineering Services Report, dated August 19, 2020. Prepared by: Professional Service Industries, Inc.

1. This report identifies properties of below grade conditions and offers recommendations for the design of foundations, prepared primarily for the use of Government.

2. The recommendations described shall not be construed as a requirement of this Contract, unless specifically referenced in Contract Documents.

3. This report, by its nature, cannot reveal all conditions that exist on the site. Should subsurface conditions be found to vary substantially from this report, changes in the design and construction of foundations will be made, with resulting credits or expenditures to the Contract Price accruing to Government.

PART 2 PRODUCTS (NOT USED)

PART 3 EXECUTION (NOT USED)

END OF SECTION

LHB #200158

00 3100 - 2

AVAILABLE PROJECT INFORMATION

Intertek-PSI 2915 Waters Road, Suite 112 Eagan, Minnesota 55121

Tel +1 651 646 8148 Fax +1 651 646 8248 intertek.com/building

August 19, 2020

Mr. Michael Fischer LHB, Inc.

21 West Superior Street, Suite 500 Duluth, MN 55802

Cc: Mr. Nathan Bruno, PE; LHB, Inc.

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Services Report

Minnesota Valley NWR Addition and Remodel LHB Project No. 200158

3815 American Boulevard East Bloomington, Minnesota PSI Report No. 0678454-R1

Dear Mr. Fischer:

Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), an Intertek company, is pleased to transmit our Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the Minnesota Valley NWR Addition and Remodel project in Bloomington, Minnesota. This report includes the results of field and laboratory testing, and recommendations for foundation, slab-on-grade, and general site development.

PSI appreciates the opportunity to perform this geotechnical study and looks forward to continuing our participation during the design and construction phases of this project. If you have questions pertaining to this report or if PSI may be of further service, please contact us at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.

Allison N. Herzog, E.I.T. Kelly E. Rotert, P.E.

Geotechnical Staff Engineer Principal Consultant

Brandon J. Saeger, P.E.

Branch Manager http://www.intertek.com/

GEOTECHNCIAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT

Proposed Minnesota Valley NWR Addition and Remodel 3815 American Boulevard East

Bloomington, Minnesota

Allison N. Herzog, E.I.T.

Geotechnical Staff Engineer

Kelly E. Rotert, P.E.

Principal Consultant

Brandon J. Saeger, P.E.

Branch Manager

Prepared for:

LHB, Inc.

21 West Superior Street, Suite 500

Duluth, MN 55802

Prepared by

Professional Service Industries, Inc.

2915 Waters Road, Suite 112

Eagan, Minnesota 55121

August 19, 2020

PSI Project 0678454-R1

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Print Name: Brandon J. Saeger, P.E.

Signature:

Exp. Date: 6/30/22 License # 50831

The above Professional Engineering Seal and signature is an electronic reproduction of the original seal and signature. An original hard copy was sent to the client listed on this document. This electronic reproduction shall not be construed as an original or certified document.

www.intertek.com/building

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

SITE HISTORY AND CONDITIONS

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

GENERAL AREA GEOLOGY

SITE HISTORY (TIMELINE)

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

LABORATORY TESTING

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION

SITE PREPARATION

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS

BELOW-GRADE WALL RECOMMENDATIONS

SEISMIC SITE CLASS

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

MOISTURE SENSITIVE SOILS/WEATHER RELATED CONCERNS

DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONCERNS

EXCAVATIONS

UTILITIES TRENCHING

GEOTECHNICAL RISK

REPORT LIMITATIONS

LIST OF APPENDICES

SITE VICINITY PLAN

BORING LOCATION PLAN

BORING LOGS

LABORATORY TESTING DATA

USGS SEISMIC DATA

GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES

PSI Project Number: 0678454-R1 Minnesota Valley NWR Addition and Remodel

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

The following Table summarizes, in chronological order, the Project Authorization History for the services performed and represented in this report by Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI).

DOCUMENT AND REFERENCE NUMBER DATE AUTHOR OR AGENT & COMPANY

Request for Proposal-Geotechnical 6/16/2020 Mr. Nathan Bruno, LHB, Inc.

PSI Proposal No.: 0678-314128 6/19/2020 Ms. Allison Herzog, Mr. Brandon Saeger, and Mr. Kelly Rotert; PSI, Inc.

Professional Services Agreement between LHB and PSI 7/22/2020 Mr. Michael Fischer, LHB, Inc.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PSI understands that the project includes construction of a new building addition and a new garage/storage building located at 3815 American Boulevard East in Bloomington, Minnesota. The following table lists the material and information provided for this project:

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL PROVIDER/SOURCE DATE

Request for Proposals Mr. Nathan Bruno, LHB, Inc. 6/16/2020

Site Layout Plan with Proposed Boring Locations Mr. Nathan Bruno, LHB, Inc. 6/16/2020

The proposed building addition is located to the east of the southwest wing of the existing building and will consist of a one to two-story slab-on-grade structure, with no levels below-grade. The proposed building addition footprint is on the order of 1,615 square feet. Construction of the building addition will consist of a metal roof deck on open web steel joists supported on steel wide flange beams with rigid connections. The exterior wall will be constructed of metal panels with rigid insulation and light gauge steel studs anchored to the concrete foundation wall and connected to the steel framing at the perimeter of the addition. Maximum design column loads of 40 kips for gravity loads, 5 kips for uplift forces, and 7 kips for lateral loads, and maximum wall loads of 2 kips per lineal foot (klf) were used in PSI’s analyses. PSI has also based this report on maximum floor slab loads being 100 pounds per square foot (psf) or less. Finished floor elevation for the new building addition will match the finished floor elevation of the adjacent building.

The proposed garage/storage building will consist of a one to two-story slab-on-grade structure, with no levels below-grade. The proposed garage/storage building footprint is on the order of 480 square feet. Construction of the proposed garage/storage building will consist of a standing seam metal deck over wood roof sheathing and pre-engineered wood trusses spaced at two feet on center. The exterior wall will be constructed of wood stud walls with exterior wall sheathing and metal panel siding. The first floor will consist of a 6-inch concrete slab.

Maximum wall loads of 2 kips per lineal foot (klf) were used in PSI’s analyses. PSI has also based this report on maximum floor slab loads being 250 pounds per square foot (psf) or less. Finished floor elevation for the new

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020 building was not provided to PSI at the time of this report. This report is based on the finished floor being at an elevation of 822± feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL).

The following table lists the structural loads and site features that are required for or are the design basis for the conclusions contained in this report:

STRUCTURAL LOAD/PROPERTY REQUIREMENT/DESIGN BASIS

NWR BUILDING ADDITION

Maximum Wall Loads 2 kips per lineal foot (klf) R Maximum Column Loads 40 kips (Gravity); 5 kips (Uplift); 7 kips (Lateral) R Finished First Floor Elevation 826.00 feet MSL R Maximum Floor Loads and Size 100 pounds per square foot (psf)/

Concentrated loads under 2 square feet; 1,615 square feet in size

R

Settlement Tolerances 1-inch total; ¾-inch differential between adjacent columns

B

GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING

Maximum Wall Loads 2 kips per lineal foot (klf) R Finished First Floor Elevation 882 feet MSL B Maximum Floor Loads and Size 250 pounds per square foot (psf)/

Concentrated loads under 2 square feet; 480 square feet in size

R

Settlement Tolerances 1-inch total; ¾-inch differential between adjacent columns

B

GRADING

Planned Grade Variations in Building Pad Areas

1± to 3± feet of cut and fill

B

B = Report has been prepared based on this parameter or loading in the absence of client supplied information at the time of this report.

R = Client supplied information.

The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report are based on the available project information, building location, and the subsurface materials described in this report. If the noted information is incorrect, please inform PSI in writing so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report if appropriate and if desired by the client. PSI will not be responsible for the implementation of its recommendations when it is not notified of changes in the project.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to develop geotechnical design criteria regarding foundations and floor slabs for the proposed project. Subgrade preparation recommendations and construction considerations are also provided. PSI’s scope of services included drilling a total of four (4) soil test borings to depths of 25 feet below existing site grades, select laboratory testing, and preparation of this Geotechnical Report.

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

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. Environmental services, if desired, can be provided under a separate authorization and cover.

SITE HISTORY AND CONDITIONS

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed Minnesota Valley NWR Addition and Remodel site is located at 3815 American Boulevard East in Bloomington, Minnesota. The site is currently developed with the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Bloomington Education and Visitor Center. The site is bounded to the north by American Boulevard East and I- 494; to the east by tree cover; to the south by Long Meadow Lake Trail and Long Meadow Lake; and to the west by American Boulevard East and commercial properties. The site Latitude and Longitude are approximately 44.8597°N and 93.2168°W, respectively.

At the time of drilling, the site was covered with grass, vegetation, and trees. Surface elevation differences between the borings were on the order of approximately 6± feet. Surface drainage appeared to run from the north to the south area of the site. Nearby water features include Long Meadow Lake located half of a mile south of the site and the Minnesota River located three quarters of a mile east of the site. It should be noted that the north area of the proposed building and the area to the east of the proposed building were saturated at the time of drilling and the site contained a stormwater culvert located to the south of the existing building.

The normal water elevations for Long Meadow Lake and the Minnesota River are approximately 695 to 700 feet MSL, approximately 120± to 130± feet below the existing project site grades.

According to published NRCS soils maps of the project site, the subgrade soils appear to consist of the Urban Land-Dorset Complex. The soils are anticipated to consist of mostly sand-sized soils with some clay and silt-sized soils in the upper soil profile transitioning to predominantly sand-sized soils in the lower soil profile. These soils are considered fair for reclamation.

GENERAL AREA GEOLOGY

A review of the United States Geological Survey geologic units of Minnesota indicates that the bedrock in this region is part of the Shakopee Formation and the Oneota Dolomite of the Prairie du Chien Group consisting of dolostone, sandy to silty dolostone, and sandstone. Additionally, the Minnesota Geological Survey shows that the surficial geology in this area is terrace deposits consisting of sand, gravelly sand, and loamy sand overlain by deposits of silt, loam, or organic sediment.

SITE HISTORY (TIMELINE)

The site was previously developed with multiple structures based on a review of historical aerial photographs dating back to 1945.

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

Figure 1: Historical aerial from 1945 from Minnesota Historical

Aerial Photographs from the John R. Borchert Map Library.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions were explored with four (4) soil test borings. The following table depicts the general location and depth of each boring completed for this project:

BORING NO. GENERAL LOCATION SURFACE ELEVATION (FT MSL) DEPTH OF BORING (FT)

B-1 Proposed Building Addition, North Area 827 26

B-2 Proposed Building Addition, South Area 826 26

B-3 East of Building Addition 826 26

B-4 Proposed Garage/Storage Building 821 26

The surface elevations of the borings were surveyed at the end of drilling operations. Two benchmarks were used:

The finished floor elevation of the west facing door located along the west wall of the southeast wing of the existing building was used for Benchmark 1 and has a reported elevation of 826.00 feet MSL. The northwest corner of concrete slab of the existing trash enclosure located in the southwest area of the site was used for Benchmark 2 and has an estimated elevation of 822 feet MSL based off the provided topographic map. These locations are noted as “BM #1” and “BM #2” on the attached Boring Location Plan. Elevations should be considered accurate to the nearest 1± foot.

N

SITE

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

The borings were advanced utilizing hollow stem auger drilling methods and soil samples were routinely obtained during the drilling process. Drilling and sampling techniques were accomplished generally in accordance with ASTM D1586 procedures. Representative soil samples were obtained from the soil borings and were returned to PSI’s laboratory where they were visually classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as a guideline.

Further, PSI conducted limited laboratory testing on select soil samples to aid in identifying and describing the physical characteristics of the soils and to aid in defining the site soil stratigraphy. The results of the field exploration and laboratory tests were used in PSI’s engineering analysis and in the formulation of our engineering recommendations.

The subsurface conditions consisted of surficial organic soils (2± feet thick). The surficial organic soil consisted of sandy silt and was black in color. Underlying the surficial organic soils were deposits of granular soils to the termination depths of the borings. The granular soils consisted of fine to medium-grained sand, sand with silt, and silty sand with some traces of silt seams and gravel and was light brown to brown in color.

Any material with more than 3% material finer than 0.02 mm is considered to be likely frost susceptible and promotes capillary rise. Materials with less than 10% finer than No. 200 sieve are considered to be frost resistant and will likely experience little to no frost heaving. The on-site poorly graded sand soils and sand with silt soils are generally non-frost susceptible and have a high permeability. The silty sand soils are slightly frost susceptible and have a generally high permeability.

The following table briefly summarizes the range of results from the field and laboratory testing programs. Please refer to the attached boring logs and the laboratory testing section of this report for more specific information:

SOIL STRATA TYPE APPROXIMATE LAYER THICKNESSES

(FEET BELOW EXISTING SITE GRADES)

RANGE OF PROPERTY VALUES

SPT N-VALUES

(BLOWS PER FOOT)

MOISTURE CONTENT

Surficial Organic Soil 0± to 2± -- --

Granular Soils 2± to 26± (to termination depths) 2 to 16 4 to 14

The above 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. The samples that were not discarded during classification or altered by laboratory testing will be retained for 60 days from the date of this report and then will be discarded.

LABORATORY TESTING

A series of laboratory tests to determine moisture contents, gradations, sulfate concentrations, pH, and soil resistivity were performed on the collected soil samples. Representative samples were selected to highlight material changes in composition or gradation after the completion of classification activities. Moisture content tests are noted by soil stratum in the Subsurface Conditions section above. Summaries of each test type, including locations and results are detailed in the tables below and results are also in the Appendix section of this report.

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

Gradations Three (3) gradation tests were completed for this project in accordance with ASTM D1140 and ASTM D6913.

Typically, two samples were combined to provide a statistically significant sample size from adjacent depths within the same boring. The soil samples were washed to determine the fines content (passing the #200 sieve), then the washed samples were dried and separated by particles size through a series of progressively finer wire mesh sieves. The sieves used in this investigation included the 3/4”, 3/8”, #4, #10, #40, #100, and #200 sieves.

Due to high fines contents, some of the samples could not be tested on the +#200 gradation. The test locations, depths, and results are noted in the tables below.

TEST NUMBER BORING NUMBER DEPTH RANGE (FT BELOW

EXISTING GRADES) PERCENT FINES (%)

1 B-2 2 to 6 7.3 2 B-3 7 to 11 3.9

3* B-4 2 to 6 46.1 *Insufficient remaining sample to perform +#200 gradation.

TEST

NUMBER

BORING

NUMBER

DEPTH RANGE

(FT BELOW

EXISTING GRADES)

PASS

3/4”

PASS

3/8”

PASS

#4

PASS

#10

PASS

#40

PASS

#100

PASS

#200 CLASSIFICATION

1 B-2 2 to 6 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 18% 7.3% SP-SM

2 B-3 7 to 11 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 23% 3.9% SP

Soil Resistivity One (1) soil resistivity test was completed for this project in accordance with ASTM G57. Soil resistivity measurements were measured using a soil resistivity tester and a Miller Soil Box. Using the tester, the permanently mounted electrodes in the soil box were used to take readings. The test location, depth, and result are noted in the table below.

BORING

NUMBER

DEPTH RANGE

(FT BELOW EXISTING GRADE)

RESISTIVITY

(Ω-CM)

1 B-1 5 to 7 51,895

The native sand soils are deemed slightly corrosive to non-corrosive. Based on the results of the resistivity test, underground piping should not need cathodic protection.

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020 pH One (1) pH test was completed for this project in accordance with ASTM D4972. This test is completed by obtaining two similar test specimens that have been air dried and screened over a #10 sieve. The specimens are mixed with test water and calcium chloride solution and stand for one hour. pH sensitive paper is inserted into the slurry to determine the pH. The test location, depth, and result are noted in the table below.

BORING

NUMBER

DEPTH RANGE

(FT BELOW EXISTING GRADE) PH

1 B-1 5 to 7 7.5

Sulfate Ion Concentration Two (2) sulfate and chloride ion concentration tests were completed for this project in accordance with EPA 9056A. This test is completed by injecting the sample into an ion chromatograph to flush and fill a constant volume sample loop. The sample is then inserted into a stream of carbonate-bicarbonate eluent of the same strength as the sample. The samples are passed through ion exchange columns and sulfate and chloride ions are identified by retention time and quantitated by peak height or area. The test locations, depths, and results are noted in the table below.

TEST NUMBER BORING

DEPTH RANGE

(FT BELOW EXISTING GRADE)

CHLORIDE

(MG/KG)

SULFATE

(MG/KG)

1 B-2 5 to 7 Not Detected Not Detected

2 B-4 2 to 6 13.0 25.7

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION

Groundwater was not observed during drilling or at the completion of drilling operations in the borings. Based on the observed conditions, it is anticipated that the static groundwater level is below the zone of PSI’s exploration. Groundwater seepage issues are not anticipated for this project. Long-term groundwater level monitoring was beyond the scope of this report.

The groundwater observations noted on the boring logs represent the groundwater conditions at the test boring locations. It should be expected that the groundwater levels will fluctuate at least several feet seasonally depending on climatic conditions and precipitation. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuation should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION

There are three (3) primary geotechnical related concerns at this site, which will affect the design, construction and possible performance of the proposed Minnesota Valley NWR Addition and Remodel project. The following summarizes these concerns:

1. Multiple structures previously existed on site. The potential for encountering debris or structural elements during construction should be anticipated.

Multiple structures previously existed on site east of the proposed building addition and north of the proposed garage/storage building. It is not currently known if the previous structures had basements or below-grade levels. Large concrete blocks were observed in the north area of the proposed building addition area and to the east of the proposed building addition area during field operations. It should be noted that undocumented fill or rubble fill was not encountered in the borings but may be present in the proposed building areas. PSI recommends that undocumented fill, foundations, walls, and floor slabs, if encountered, be removed in their entirety from beneath and a minimum of 10 feet beyond the new building footprints. In addition, the old utilities as well as any unsuitable building or utility backfill should also be removed. The excavated foundations, debris, and rubble should also be properly disposed of offsite. The resulting excavations should then be backfilled with compacted engineered fill as outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report. PSI recommends that after removal of these items, the existing soils be observed by a representative of PSI, prior to backfilling to the proposed subgrade elevations.

2. Deposits of surficial organic soils were observed to depths of 2± feet below existing site grades. This organic soil will have lower strength characteristics and higher settlement potential than inorganic soils.

Surficial organic soils were observed to depths of 2± feet below existing site grades in the borings. Prior to the preparation of the subgrade and placement of any new fill needed to establish proposed grades, the existing surficial organic soils should be removed from in their entirety from the building subgrades and disposed of offsite or be stockpiled separately to be reused in landscaping areas. Failure to remove the deleterious organic materials increases the risk of both total and differential settlement of the subgrade and newly placed, overlying engineered fill. The depth and consistency of the surficial organic soils may vary between boring locations.

The exposed surface of the site after the organic soil removal should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report. The adherence to the initial site preparation recommendations is considered critical to verify a suitable subgrade exists, prior to the placement of new fills required to obtain project grades.

During earthwork operations, a representative of the geotechnical engineer should be present on-site to verify the subgrade conditions and to observe the placement and compaction of new fills.

3. The footings for the new building addition that are adjacent to the existing building should be placed at the same elevation as the existing foundations.

The footings for the new building addition that are adjacent to the existing building should be placed at the same elevation as the existing foundations. The foundations of the existing structure should not be undermined during construction. If it is necessary to excavate below existing foundations, the foundations must be properly

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020 underpinned. The underpinning system should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. Additionally, some minor differential settlement between the new and existing construction should be expected. Construction joints should be provided between the existing building and the building additions.

The following geotechnical related recommendations have been developed based on the subsurface conditions encountered and PSI’s understanding of the proposed development. Should changes in the project criteria occur, a review must be made by PSI to determine if modifications to our recommendations will be required.

SITE PREPARATION

Prior to the placement of new fill or preparation of the construction area subgrade, PSI recommends that the existing surficial organic soils, vegetation, trees including root bulbs, rubble fill, undocumented fill, and frozen soils (if present during construction) should be removed from within and a minimum of 10 feet beyond the building areas.

Unsuitable soils, including soft, wet, or loose soils should be selectively undercut and/or stabilized in place.

Unsuitable soils containing organics should be removed to expose the subgrade soils. A representative of a qualified geotechnical engineer should determine the need for and depth of removal or stabilization at the time of construction.

If unsuitable soils are observed within the building areas, they should be stripped from that area until more stable soils are observed or stabilized in-place. A representative of a qualified geotechnical engineer should determine the need for and actual stabilization technique at the time of construction.

Foundations of the existing structure should not be undermined during construction. If it is necessary to excavate below existing foundations, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted to review the proposed excavation procedures, prior to their implementation.

The table below details the estimated depths to the suitable bearing strata in the proposed building addition and garage/storage building areas on site. In general, the estimated cut depths are based on removing the unsuitable surficial organic soils and the estimated fill depths are based on achieving the finished floor elevation of 826 feet MSL for the proposed building addition and 822 feet MSL for the proposed garage/storage building. The subgrades should be moisture conditioned a minimum of 6 inches below the cut depths and recompacted using a vibratory compactor while being observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician after the excavation of unsuitable soils. The need for additional removal and the extent (laterally and vertically) of unsuitable soils should be determined in the field by a representative of a qualified geotechnical engineer at the time of construction. The values noted below should be considered estimated cut and fill depths based on the soils encountered at the boring locations.

BORING NO.

SURFACE ELEVATION

(FT MSL)

ESTIMATED EXCAVATION

DEPTH (FT)

ESTIMATED BOTTOM

ELEVATION (FT MSL)

ESTIMATED FILL DEPTHS

TO FFE (FT)

B-1 827 2± 825 1± B-2 826 2± 824 2± B-3 826 2± 824 2± B-4 821 2± 819 3±

After excavating to the proposed subgrades, the building subgrades should be thoroughly proofrolled. The subgrades should be proofrolled with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck or rubber-tired vehicle of similar size and weight, typically 9 tons/axle. Soils that are observed to rut or deflect excessively under the moving load

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

(typically greater than 1 inch), should be undercut and replaced with properly compacted fill. The proofrolling is important to identify soft or loose zones under buildings and pavements. The proofrolling and undercutting activities should be documented by a representative of a qualified geotechnical engineer and should be performed during a period of dry weather. The subgrade soils should be scarified and compacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) for a depth of at least 6 inches below the surface. Drying or wetting of the subgrade soils, typically to within 3% of the optimum moisture content, may be advised to facilitate compaction.

After subgrade preparation and observation have been completed, placement of new fills needed to obtain proposed grades may begin. The first layer of fill should be placed in a relatively uniform horizontal lift and be adequately keyed (where needed) into the stripped and scarified subgrade soils.

New engineered fill required to raise site grades should be free of organic, frozen, or other deleterious materials, and have a maximum particle less than 3 inches. PSI does not recommend using a silt or clay soil for engineered fill. Rather, PSI recommends using a well graded granular soil. The existing granular soils on-site are suitable for reuse as structural fill for common backfill and backfill for foundations, but some moisture conditioning may be needed to achieve compaction. If the fill is too dry, water should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Engineered fill should be compacted to at least the compaction percentages noted in the table below. The densities and optimum moisture contents noted are relative to the Standard Proctor, ASTM D698. PSI recommends that a qualified geotechnical engineer test and review proposed fill materials prior to placement.

MATERIAL TESTED PROCTOR

TYPE

MIN % DRY

DENSITY

MOISTURE

CONTENT

RANGE

FREQUENCY

OF TESTING

Fill under Foundation Elements and Lateral Oversize Standard 98% -2 to +2%

1 per 200 cy of fill placed or 1 per every 2,500 sf of fill placed or minimum of three tests per lift

Structural Fill (Top 3’ of Pavement Subgrade) Standard 100% -2 to +2%

1 per 200 cy of fill placed or 1 per 5,000 sf of fill placed or minimum of three tests per lift Utility Trench Backfill / Wall Backfill / Slab Subgrade / Pavement Subgrade (Deeper than 3’)

Standard 95% -3 to +3 % 1 per 200 cy of fill placed or

1 per 200 lineal ft of trench placed or minimum one test per lift

Random Fill (non-load bearing) Standard 92% -3 to +3 % 1 per 3,000 cy of fill placed or 1 per 10,000 sf of fill placed or minimum one test per lift

Engineered fill should be placed in maximum lifts of eight (8) inches of loose material and should be compacted to within the moisture content ranges noted above as determined by the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D698). If very moist or wet soils are to be reused as engineered fill, they should be spread thinly on the ground and allowed to dry prior to placement. If water is to be added, it should be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into the soil by disking or scarifying. Each lift of compacted engineered fill should be observed, tested, and documented by a representative of PSI prior to placement of subsequent lifts. Compaction tests should be performed for every 2,500 square feet in the building pad areas. A minimum of three (3) tests per layer is recommended. The lateral extent of the overexcavation of poor soil and subsequent placement and compaction of engineered fill should be equal to or greater than the depth of overexcavation below finished floor elevation.

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the soil boring information, the proposed building addition and garage/storage building can be supported by conventional continuous wall and column foundations once the site has been prepared in accordance with this report. Based on the soils observed so far on site, the effective friction angle of the on-site granular soils is estimated to be 30 degrees at the foundation bearing elevations. Newly placed engineered fill should meet or exceed this parameter. Based on this estimated friction angle and the foundations bearing on suitable native soils or engineered fill placed in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report, PSI recommends that footings be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressures noted in the tables below. This is based on 18-inch wide wall strip footings and five-foot square column footings. Minimum dimensions of 18 inches for continuous footings and 30 inches for column footings should be used in foundation design to minimize the possibility of a local bearing capacity failure, even if the allowable bearing pressure recommended herein is not fully utilized. The coefficient of friction between the native granular soils and concrete is estimated to be 0.30.

Proposed Building Addition

FOUNDATION TYPE DEPTH BELOW ADJACENT

GRADES (INCHES)

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

BEARING PRESSURE (PSF)

Interior Isolated Column Foundations 24 2,500

Exterior Isolated Column Foundations 42 3,000

Continuous Foundations 42 2,500

Proposed Garage/Storage Building

FOUNDATION TYPE DEPTH BELOW ADJACENT

GRADES (INCHES)

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE

BEARING PRESSURE (PSF)

Continuous Foundations 42 2,500

The foundations must be supported by suitable compacted native soils or newly placed compacted engineered fill that has been observed, documented and tested in the field by a representative of a qualified geotechnical engineer.

If during construction any unsuitable bearing soils such as wet or soft soils are encountered in a footing excavation, the excavation should be stabilized in place or deepened to competent bearing soil, and the footing could be lowered or an overexcavation and backfill procedure could be performed. An overexcavation and backfill treatment would require widening the deepened excavation in each direction at least six inches beyond the edge of the footing for each 12 inches of overexcavation depth. Overexcavations should be backfilled with an engineered fill placed and compacted as outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report.

An alternative to an overexcavation at the base of the foundations would be the use of a mud mat for construction traffic. A mud mat consists of a two- to four-inch thick, low-strength, non-structural concrete placed below the foundations to allow for foot traffic during construction. The need for stabilization and the technique used should be evaluated at the time of construction by a representative of the geotechnical engineer.

Due to the potential variations in the strengths of the native soils, it is recommended that soils at bearing elevation in the footing excavations be observed and tested by a geotechnical engineering technician representative prior to concrete placement to evaluate the suitability and uniformity of the native soils for support of the design foundation

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020 loads. A method for evaluating the acceptability of the soils under footings would involve hand auger and dynamic cone penetrometer testing below the footing bearing level for a minimum of one (1) footing width or three (3) feet, whichever is shallower. Each isolated footing should include at least one (1) test probe. Tests should be performed every 20-lineal feet in continuous footings. Based on the design allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 and 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf), suitable bearing native soils should exhibit a dynamic cone penetrometer value consistent with a Standard Penetration Test N-value of at least 8 or 9 blows per foot, respectively.

Exterior footings should be located at a depth of at least 42 inches below the final exterior grade to provide adequate frost protection in accordance with the 2018 International Building Code with the 2020 Minnesota state amendments. If the building is to be constructed during the winter months or if footings will likely be subjected to freezing temperatures after foundation construction, then the footings and concrete should be adequately protected from freezing. Otherwise, interior footings can be located on the native granular soils or newly placed compacted engineered fill at shallower depths below the floor slab, compatible with architectural and structural considerations. Foundations in unheated areas, such as isolated canopy and signage foundations, should be placed a minimum of 60 inches below grade for frost protection.

During excavation of sandy soils, the exposed bearing surface will become highly disturbed. Therefore, after opening, footing excavations should be recompacted using a vibratory compactor while being observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician. After recompaction, the foundation soils should be observed and tested, and concrete placed as quickly as possible to avoid exposure of the footing bottoms to wetting and drying. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond.

Temporary dewatering to remove possible perched water should be completed prior to excavations to the bottom of foundation elevation. The foundation concrete should be placed during the same day the excavation is made. 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 moisture.

Based on the engineering properties of the soils that were encountered at the test borings and the recommendations provided herein, PSI estimates that the total foundation settlement for the foundation system discussed above will be about one inch. Differential settlement will probably be about three quarters of an inch over a 30-foot span.

While settlement of this amount is generally tolerable, the structure must be designed based upon the estimated settlement and must include properly spaced vertical control joints to minimize the effects of differential movement (such as cosmetic "cracking" of sensitive masonry materials).

As an alternative to conventional shallow foundations with footings and foundation walls, PSI understands the client wishes to explore the use of supporting the proposed building on a floating, thickened edge slab with exterior columns pads. To construct this alternative, the foundation system must be designed as a frost-protected shallow foundation (FPSF) in accordance with the 2018 International Building Code and ASCE 32 requirements. This will require both horizontal and vertical insulation at the exterior face of the foundations, including the thickened slab and isolated column foundations.

For the project site, the air freezing index from published contour maps in the FPSF design guide is 2,500°. A copy of this contour map is included below. Using this air freezing index, the required insulation values can be found in the FPSF design guide. The R-value of the chosen insulation must consider the long-term moisture for below ground, freezing conditions. For this designation, the insulation values in the table below are required for the dimensions in the figure below:

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

PARAMETER MAGNITUDE UNIT

Vertical Reinforcing R-Value 6.7 UL

Horizontal Reinforcing R-value along walls 1.7 UL Horizontal Reinforcing R-value at corners 4.9 UL

Minimum Embedment Depth D 18 Inch Horizontal Dimension A 12 Inch Horizontal Dimension B 24 Inch Horizontal Dimension C 40 Inch

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

If this alternative is chosen, PSI recommends that the interior and exterior foundations be designed for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf and bear at a minimum depth of 18 inches below final site grades. The surficial organic soils, undocumented fill, and rubble, if encountered, should be removed in their entirety under the FPSFs and if encountered, should be removed in their entirety under the floating, thickened slab to minimize the risk of total and differential settlement. The thickened portion of the slab should be a minimum of 18 inches wide and should taper down to the design slab thickness at a slope no greater than one horizontal to one vertical. The thickened slab should be reinforced longitudinally and transversely to reduce the risk of slab cracking due to shear stresses. The thickened portion of the slab should be poured monolithically with the main portion of the concrete slab. Selection of the insulation material type and thickness should be completed by the structural engineer in accordance with published design manuals. It should be noted that this foundation alternative poses greater risks of slab cracking due to frost heave and greater risks related to differential settlement between adjacent columns and the lightly loaded exterior thickened slab.

FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS

The building floor slabs could be supported upon the native soils or newly placed engineered fill soils that have been observed and tested, provided the subgrade is prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report. For soils that pass proofrolling operations, PSI recommends that a subgrade modulus (k) of 140 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be used for design considerations based on a 12-inch square plate load test. However, depending on how the slab loads are 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:

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, ks = ( B k

) for cohesive soil and ks = k ( B

B

1+ )2 for cohesionless soil where: ks= coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for loaded area, k= coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction for 144 square inches area B= width of area loaded, in feet

PSI recommends that a minimum 4-inch thick free draining granular mat be placed beneath the floor slab to enhance drainage. The granular fill should have less than 50% of the material passing the #40 sieve by weight and less than 5% passing the #200 sieve. Some of the on-site soils may meet this gradation and should be tested prior to use. The soil surface shall be graded to drain away from the building without low spots that can trap water prior to placing the granular drainage layer. The drainage system would need to be designed with either a gravity drain or a sump pump. Polyethylene sheeting should 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.

LHB Project No. 200158 August 19, 2020

BELOW-GRADE WALL RECOMMENDATIONS

Walls used to retain soils are subject to lateral forces from the soils they retain. For walls that are not allowed to rotate, the lateral forces should be designed for the at-rest condition, Ko. For walls that are allowed to rotate, the lateral pressures can be reduced to the active condition, Ka. For movement into the soil mass, the passive pressure Kp should be used.