Geotech_Report_Final.pdf

GGEEOOTTEECCHHNNIICCAALL IINNVVEESSTTIIGGAATTIIOONN

BBAADDGGEERR’’SS DDEENN CCAAMMPPGGRROOUUNNDD

CCAAMMPP RRIICCHHAARRDDSSOONN RREESSOORRTT

SSOOUUTTHH LLAAKKEE TTAAHHOOEE,, CCAALLIIFFOORRNNIIAA

PREPARED FOR:

UU.. SS.. FFOORREESSTT SSEERRVVIICCEE

MARCH 2015

FILE: 1710

6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 90 Reno, NV 89511

Office 775-851-8205 fax 775-851-8593 www.cme-corp.com

March 9, 2014 Project No: 1710

Mr. Michael Alexander P.E.

35 College Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

RE: Geotechnical Investigation Badger's Den Campground Camp Richardson Resort Campground South Lake Tahoe, California

Dear Mr. Alexander:

Construction Materials Engineers Inc. (CME) is pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation report for the Badger's Den Campground at the Camp Richardson Resort Campground in South lake Tahoe, California.

The following report includes the results of our field and laboratory investigations and presents our recommendations for the design and construction of the project. We wish to thank you for the opportunity to provide our services and look forward to working on future endeavors together.

Please feel free to call us should you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERS, INC.

Randal A. Reynolds, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer rreynolds@cme-corp.com Direct: 775-737-7576 Cell: 775-527-3264 RAR:rar:jwl V:\Active\1710\Badgers Den\geo Inv\c'vr ltr. 3-9-15.doc mailto:rreynolds@cme-corp.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

V:\Active\1710\Badgers Den\geo Inv\Geo Inv Rpt 3-9-15.docx i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.1 Exploratory Test Pits

4.2 Material Classification

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

5.1 Index Testing

5.2 R-value Testing

6.0 GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS

6.1 Soil Moisture and Groundwater Conditions

7.0 SUBGRADE SOIL STRENGTH (RESILIENT MODULUS)

8.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 General Information

8.2 Traffic analysis and ESAL Count Determination

8.3 Structural Section Design

8.4 Subgrade Soil Frost Heave Potential

9.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Subgrade Soil/Site Preparation

9.2 Stabilization Construction Method

9.3 Grading and Filling

9.3.1 Stabilizing Fill

9.3.2 Untreated Aggregate Base Material

9.3.3 Structural Fill

9.3.4 Densification and Moisture Conditioning Recommendations

9.4 Asphaltic Pavement Construction

9.4.1 Asphalt Design Life

9.5 Anticipated Construction Problems

10.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES

11.0 STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE

REFERENCES

TABLES

Table 1- Subgrade Soil Strengths Table 2 - Design MR Values Table 3 - Design ESAL Counts (20 years) Table 4 - Recommended Structural Sections Table 2 - Stabilizing Fill Geotextile Table 6 - Stabilizing Fill Gradation Specifications Table 7 - Structural Fill Gradation Specifications

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

APPENDICES

Appendix A Plate A-1 –Test Pit Location Map Plate A-2 – Test Pit Logs Plate A-3 – Soil Classification Chart

Appendix B Plate B-1 – Grain Size Analysis and Hydrometer Results TP-1 Plate B-2 – Grain Size Analysis and Hydrometer Results TP-4 Plate B-3 – Grain Size Analysis and Hydrometer Results TP-7 Plate B-4 – R-value

Appendix C Plate C-1 – Pavement Design Entrance Roads Plate C-2 – Pavement Design Connector Road Plate C-3 – Pavement Design Campground Loop Roads

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Badger's Den Campground

Camp Richardson Resort Campground South Lake Tahoe, California

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Presented herein are the results of Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.’s (CME) geotechnical exploration, laboratory testing, and associated geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed Badger's Den Campground at the Camp Richardson Resort Campground in South Lake Tahoe, California.

These recommendations are based on subsurface conditions encountered at the field exploration locations, and on details of the proposed project as described in this report. The objectives of this study were to:

Determine subgrade soils pertaining to design and construction of the proposed improvements;

Provide recommendations for the design and construction of the project.

The area covered by this report is shown on Plate A-1 (Field Exploration Location Map) in Appendix A. Our study included field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses to identify the physical and mechanical properties of the various on-site materials. Results of our field exploration and testing programs are included in this report and form the basis for all conclusions and recommendations.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

It is understood that a network of paved roads will be constructed in the Badger's Den Campground including a paved entrance road from Highway 89. The paved roads will provide access to individual campgrounds.

The paved roadway network consists of three separate roadway segments: entrance road, east to west connector road, and four separate campground loops radiating from the connector road. The east to west connector road is located immediately north of the entrance road. The looped campground roads will have a width of about 13 feet, while the east to west connector and entrance roads will have widths of about 25 feet. Cuts and fills are anticipated to be minor at less than 1 foot.

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

Badger's Den campground is located immediately south of Highway 89 between Pope Beach Road and Jameson Beach Road. The campground extends approximately 750 feet north of Highway 89 and encompasses approximately 20 acres.

Existing improvements consist of developed campgrounds with fire pits, food storage bins, and tables. The campground has several restrooms consisting of wooden structures. Existing driving trails have a gravel surface.

Vegetation consists of scattered pine trees and small bushes. The overall terrain is relatively flat sloping gently to the north toward Lake Tahoe.

Existing utilities consist of overhead power and telephones lines and underground water lines. A STPUD sewer force main is located trending in an east to west direction near the northern boundary of the campground.

4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

4.1 Exploratory Test Pits

Subsurface field exploration, completed in January 2015, consisted of excavating seven test pits to maximum depths of 4 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs).

Test pits were excavated using a Case 580L rubber-tired backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. Test pits were located in the field by visual sighting and/or measuring from existing features at the site. Approximate test pit locations are presented on Plate A-1 in Appendix A.

Soils encountered within the test pit excavations were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2488 (Description and Identification of Soils). Bulk samples of representative soil strata were collected, placed in sealed plastic bags, and returned to our laboratory.

Exploratory test pit logs are included as Plate A-2 in Appendix A.. The elevations shown on the test pit logs were obtained by interpolation between contour lines shown on the Test Pit Exploration Location Map (Plate A-1). The elevations and locations included in this report should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used.

4.2 Material Classification

CME personnel visually classified all soils in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. After the completion of laboratory testing, as described in Section

5.0 Laboratory Testing, the test pit logs were reviewed and corrected in accordance with ASTM 2487 (Unified Soil Classification System). A description of the USCS is presented on Plate A-3.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING

All soils testing performed in CME’s soils laboratory was conducted in general accordance with the standards and methodologies described in Volume 4.08 of the ASTM Standards. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

5.1 Index Testing

Samples of significant soil types were analyzed to determine their in-situ moisture content (ASTM D 2216), grain size distribution including hydrometer testing (ASTM D 422), and plasticity index (ASTM D 4318). Results of these tests are presented on Plates B-1 to B-3.

Results of these tests were used to classify the soils according to ASTM D 2487 and to check the field logs, which were then updated as appropriate. Index testing allows for correlation between subgrade support soil classifications and R-value testing.

5.2 R-value Testing

R-value tests (ASTM D 2844) were performed on representative samples of subgrade soil. R-value testing is a measure of subgrade strength and expansion potential and is used in design of flexible pavements. Results of the R-value tests are presented on Plate B-4.

6.0 GEOLOGIC AND GENERAL SOIL CONDITIONS

Based on a review of the Lake Tahoe Basin California and Nevada Geologic Map (Saucedo, 2005), the campground is located in alluvium (Holocene and Pleistocene). Alluvium is defined as unconsolidated, moderately to poorly sorted sand, silt and gravel. Locally includes alluvial fan deposits, glacial outwash, and lacustrine deposits.

Soil types encountered consisted of an uppermost silty sand with gravel (SM) grading into several different soil strata with these classifications: silty gravel with sand, cobbles, and boulders (GM), poorly graded gravel with silt and sand and cobbles (GP-GM), or poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM). The uppermost soil stratum was encountered to a depth ranging from about ½ to 1 foot bgs and contained considerable organics. The bulk of the tree roots were observed in about the uppermost 1½ to 2 feet of the soil profile.

The predominant lowermost soil horizon classified as silty gravel with sand, cobbles, and boulders (GM) and contained mostly gravels with little cobbles and few boulders to 3 feet in diameter, although most boulders encountered had nominal diameters of 16 to 24 inches. A poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) horizon was encountered in Test Pit TP-7 and contained few gravels and cobbles up to about 6 inches in diameter.

6.1 Soil Moisture and Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater was not encountered during our exploration and is anticipated to lie at a depth that will not affect construction. Subsurface soils were encountered in a slightly moist to moist condition. Mottled soils were encountered in Test Pit TP-4 at about 3 feet bgs. The mottled soil horizon may represent a historic ground water level.

7.0 SUBGRADE SOIL STRENGTH (RESILIENT MODULUS)

Subgrade soil resilient modulus (MR) was determined by R-value testing. Resilient modulus is utilized by AASHTO as a measure of subgrade soil strength for structural section design. Resilient modulus was determined based on this equation: MR (psi) = A + B (R-value), where A = 772 and B = 369. A summary of the subgrade soil R-value test results and corresponding resilient modulus are presented on Table 1 (Subgrade Soil Strengths).

Table 1- Subgrade Soil Strengths

Exploration Location

Subgrade Soil Percent Passing

#200 Sieve R-value

Resilient Modulus (MR-psi)

TP-1

Silty gravel with sand, cobbles, and boulders

(GM)

12.6 74 28,000

TP-4

Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand and cobbles

(GP-GM)

10.0 75 28,500

TP-7

Poorly graded sand with silt and gravels (SP-SM)

7.2 74 28,000

In accordance with AASHTO methodology, the design MR value can be based on averaging MR values obtained for the subgrade soils. Design MR values are summarized in Table 2 (Design MR Values).

Table 2 - Design MR Values

Roadway Segment Design MR Value (PSI)

Entrance Road 28,000

East to West Connector Road 28,000

Campground Loops 28,000

The anticipated subgrade soils have a high resilient modulus with uniform results across the project site.

8.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Site soils encountered consist of coarse-grained, non-plastic granular soils that will provide good support for the proposed roadways. A thick organic layer generally consisting of a concentrated root mass was predominantly encountered in the uppermost 1½ to 2 feet of the soil profile. This organic layer weakens the subgrade soils and roots may cause uplifting of the pavement layer. Construction mitigation measures for this organic layer are discussed in the report.

8.1 General Information

The recommendations provided herein, particularly under Subgrade Soil/Site Preparation, Grading and Filling, and Construction Observation and Testing Services are intended to reduce the risks of structural distress related to consolidation or expansion of native soils and/or structural fills. These recommendations, along with proper design and construction of the roadways and associated improvements, work together as a system to improve overall performance. If any part of this system is ignored or poorly implemented, the performance and quality of the project will be reduced. Sufficient construction observation and testing should be performed to document that the recommendations presented in this report are followed.

Structural areas referred to in this report include all areas of concrete slabs and asphalt pavements. Unless otherwise stated in this report, all related construction should be in accordance with the Standard Specifications (Caltrans, dated 2010).

All compaction requirements presented in this report are relative to ASTM D 15571.

Any evaluation of the site for the presence of surface or subsurface hazardous substances is beyond the scope of this study. When suspected hazardous substances are encountered during routine geotechnical investigations, they are noted in the exploration logs and reported to the client. No such substances were identified during our exploration.

8.2 Traffic analysis and ESAL Count Determination

The USFS provided traffic information. Assumptions for traffic volumes are presented below:

Campgrounds are open from the end of May (Memorial Day) to mid-October with full campgrounds from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Half full campgrounds were assumed from Labor Day to mid-October.

Total vehicle trips per day for a full campground are 158 (campground loops) and 475 (entrance road and east to west connector). Assume half these amounts for half-full campground conditions.

Based on these assumptions, total vehicles per year are as follows:

Entrance Road: 60,000.

East to West Connector Road: 45,000 (Assuming that the maximum traffic volume on any segment of this roadway is ¾ of the entrance road traffic).

Campground Loops: 20,000.

Automobile traffic is typically ignored for ESAL count determination because they are lightly loaded vehicles. ESAL count determination is based on truck traffic and RVs.

Assumptions for ESAL count determination is presented below:

Half of the anticipated roadway vehicles are classified as a Class A

Motorhome, while the remaining vehicles are classified as passenger vehicles. It is assumed that the Class A Motorhome has 2 single axles with a GAWR (Gross Axle Weight Rating) ranging from 10 to 18 kips (rear axle) and

6.5 to 8 kips (front axle).

Garbage truck is assumed at once per week.

1 Relative compaction refers to the ratio of the in-place density of a soil divided by the same soil’s maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D 1557. Optimum moisture content is the corresponding moisture content measured at the soils maximum dry density.

The truck factor calculated for the Class A Motorhome is 0.4 assuming an average GAWR (14 kips rear axle).

Utilizing the ADT counts and assumed truck volumes, ESAL counts were determined over a 20 year design period. The growth rate is assumed to be zero. ESAL counts are presented in Table 3 (Design ESAL Counts) and are separated by roadway segment.

Table 3 - Design ESAL Counts (20 years)

Roadway Segment Design ESAL Counts

Entrance Road 240,000

East to West Connector Road 180,000

Campground Loops 80,000

8.3 Structural Section Design

Based on measured subgrade soil strengths and ESAL counts, structural section design alternatives were determined using the AASHTO Guide of Pavement Structures (1993). Structural section design alternatives are based on a 20-year design life. Structural section design recommendations are provided for the three different roadway segments including the entrance road, connector road, and campground loop roads and are presented in Table 4 (Recommended Structural Sections). Calculations are included in Appendix C.

Table 4 - Recommended Structural Sections

Roadway Segment Structural Section

Pavement (inches)

Aggregate Base (inches)

Entrance Road 4 4

East to West Connector Road 3 4

Campground Loops 3 4

Based on the ESAL counts and constructability, the structural sections presented in Table 4 represent the minimum structural section thicknesses recommended for these roadways.

The calculations in Appendix C indicate that the base thickness could be reduced.

However, a minimum base thickness of 4 inches is recommended for constructability purposes and to provide a platform for pavement placement. Also, the base course will provide some frost protection for the pavement. Additionally, it is difficult to achieve a reliable density test result on a base course with a thickness less than 4 inches. Generally, verification of density for base course thicknesses less than 4 inches is obtaining by proof-rolling.

8.4 Subgrade Soil Frost Heave Potential

Frost heave below pavements is caused by the accumulation of ice forming ice lenses, layers, or veins in the subgrade soils, which is also known as ice segregation. Ice segregation forms in soils that are frost susceptible. The degree of frost susceptibility in a soil is a function of the percentage of fine particles (silt and clay sized particles) in the soil. The U.S. Corps of Engineers have reported that inorganic soils containing 3 percent (by dry weight) or more grains finer than 0.02 mm in diameter are considered frost susceptible for pavement design purposes (AASHTO, 1993). Based on the hydrometer test results and this definition for frost susceptible soils, the bulk of the subgrade soils are frost susceptible. However, with the exception of anticipated subgrade soils encountered in Test Pit TP-7, which classified as a non-frost susceptible soil, the other test results indicate 5 to 6 percent by dry weight finer than 0.02 mm. Consequently, existing site soils are close to being considered non-frost susceptible.

A water source is required for the development of ice segregation. Sources of water typically include either a shallow groundwater table or a perched water table in poorly drained soils. Water moisture is wicked up from the groundwater table through capillary forces to form ice lenses. The water table was not encountered; however, there is evidence of a historic shallow water table.

Frost action can cause both frost heave and thaw weakening. However, thaw weakening in granular drained soils, as encountered at the site, is not as detrimental as in poorly-drained fine-grained soils (AASHTO, 1993).

To decrease the effects of frost heave, a non-frost susceptible soil thick enough to insulate the roadbed from frost penetration or an effective drainage system could be constructed. Generally, the required thickness of non-frost susceptible soil is based on the frost depth used for building foundations. In the Lake Tahoe area, the building code for frost depth is 18 inches.

The required structural section is less than 18 inches and since the bulk of anticipated subgrade soils classify as frost susceptible soils they would require removal and replacement with non-frost susceptible soils. To import non-frost susceptible soils would be costly. However, anticipated subgrade soils consist of non-plastic, granular soils and would be considered relatively free draining.

Consequently, the thaw weakening strength loss would be reduced. The readily available base aggregate also likely does not meet the definition of a frost free soil;

however, the percent by weight finer than 0.02 mm would likely be close to the required maximum 3 percent. It is recommended that the base material is non-plastic, so it's relatively free draining.

9.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Subgrade Soil/Site Preparation

All near surface vegetation, organics, and topsoil should be stripped and grubbed from structural areas and removed from structural areas. A minimum stripping and grubbing depth of 4 inches is recommended. Deeper areas of localized grubbing to remove organic zones may be required and will be determined during construction.

Topsoil may be used in non-structural areas.

The entire root bulb should be removed as part of any tree removal. Large roots (greater than 2 inches in diameter) radiating from the tree bulb area, located within one foot of the final subgrade should be completely removed. Resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill.

It is recommended that subgrade soils are removed to a depth of 12 inches below the stripped and grubbed surface for the campground loops and connector roads. An 18 inch removal depth is recommended for the entrance road. The removal area shall extend to at least one foot beyond the edge of the pavement. These soils can be screened to remove roots and other organics and replaced in the removal areas.

Placement and densification construction procedures shall be in accordance with Section 9.3.

All areas to receive structural fill or structural loading should be densified to at least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D 1557 for a minimum depth of 8 inches. It is recommended that soils have moisture contents of plus or minus 3 percent of optimum moisture (ASTM D1557) prior to densification. Moisture contents above 3 percent of optimum moisture will be acceptable if the soil horizon maintains its stability when subjected to construction equipment loads and density can be achieved in subsequent structural fill lifts. Scarification and moisture conditioning may be required to achieve the required soil moisture content recommendations. It is recommended that prior to densification, the moisture content of the soils be determined, to evaluate the need for moisture conditioning.

After the densification process, a firm, stable surface should be produced. Unstable soils, where encountered, should be removed and replaced with either structural fill or stabilizing fill. To determine potential unstable soil areas, subgrade should be proof-rolled with heavy rubber-tired construction equipment such as a fully loaded water truck. Unstable areas, where encountered, should be marked for removal and replacement.

It is anticipated that in most areas, stable soils will be encountered at a relatively shallow depth (less than 18 inches). Consequently, unstable soil areas can be replaced with structural fill (Refer to Section 9.3 - Grading and Filling). However, if a firmer soil surface is not encountered with depth, then the recommendations given in Section 9.2 - Stabilization Construction Method should be followed.

Where less than 70 percent passes the ¾ - inch sieve, soils are too coarse for standard density testing techniques. As a result, density is established by a proof rolling program consisting of at least five single passes with a minimum 10-ton roller in mass grading is recommended. The final surface should be smooth, firm and exhibit no signs of deflection.

9.2 Stabilization Construction Method

This method consists of removing unstable or "pumping" soils and replacing them with a stabilizing fill overlying a geotextile. Stabilizing fill is material placed within unstable soil areas below the untreated aggregate base course.

The actual depth of removal shall be determined during construction. However, unless a firmer surface is encountered at a shallower depth, the recommended minimum depth of removal is 18-inches. It is advised that shallow utilities are present and these utility locations shall be identified prior to excavation.

A geotextile/stabilizing gravel system shall be used for stabilization. A high performance geotextile (HPG) combines strength and permeability and is recommended for this project. The geotextile shall be placed directly below the stabilizing fill to provide separation and stabilization. The geotextile should be woven and meet or exceed the minimum properties presented in Table 5 (Stabilizing Fill Geotextile).

Table 5 - Stabilizing Fill Geotextile

Mechanical Properties

Minimum Average Roll Value

(MARV)

MD (#/ft) CD (#/ft)

Tensile Strength at ultimate (ASTM D 4595) 3600 3200

Tensile Strength at 5% strain (ASTM D 4595) 1400 1400

Minimum permittivity (ASTM D 4491) 0.5 sec -1

Apparent Opening Size (AOS) 0.60 mm maximum

Products such as a Mirafi HP370, Terra Tex HPG-37, or approved equal can be utilized for this project. Stabilizing fill (refer to Table 6) with a minimum densified thickness of 18 inches shall be placed over the geotextile. Additional thicknesses may be required to ensure stabilization.

Prior to placement of the geotextile, the ground surface should be smooth without sharp particles or abrupt edges. The geotextile should be laid in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation with a minimum joint overlap of 18 inches.

Construction equipment is prohibited from traveling directly over the geotextile. It is recommended that the initial lift of stabilizing fill be placed from outside the excavation or should be pushed ahead of the construction equipment during placement over the geotextile. Construction equipment should be light weight such as a tired backhoe.

The initial lift of stabilizing fill shall have a minimum loose lift thickness of 15 inches.

Subsequent lifts should be placed in maximum 12-inch lifts. It is recommended that prior to densification, the stabilizing fill be uniformly moisture conditioned to plus or minus 3 percent of optimum moisture. Higher moisture contents are acceptable if the soil lift is stable and required relative compaction can be attained in the soil lift and succeeding soil lifts. Stabilizing fill material should meet the requirements of Table 6 in Section 9.3.1.

A test section is recommended to determine the required thickness of stabilizing fill.

Stabilization is always a trial and error procedure with requirements and effectiveness varying within the same project. Additionally, the contractor should avoid excessive compactive efforts or construction equipment travel on subgrade soils that could cause instability in otherwise stable subgrade, and thus it will be the contractor’s responsibility to not damage otherwise firm site soils.

9.3 Grading and Filling

Fill material should be free of vegetation, organic matter, debris, and other deleterious material. Fill material required for this project is divided into three different fill types: stabilizing fill, untreated aggregate base, and structural fill.

9.3.1 Stabilizing Fill

Stabilizing fill shall meet the specifications presented in Table 6 (Stabilizing Fill Gradation Specifications).

Table 6 - Stabilizing Fill Gradation Specifications

Sieve Size Percent by Dry Weight Passing 4 Inch 100 ¾ Inch 70 - 100 No. 4 20 - 70

No. 200 0 - 8

Maximum Liquid Limit Maximum Plastic Index 35 5

R-value: 70 minimum

9.3.2 Untreated Aggregate Base Material

Base material shall conform to a Class 2 Aggregate Base with a ¾-inch maximum aggregate size (Caltrans, 2010). It is further recommended that the aggregate base is non-plastic.

9.3.3 Structural Fill

Structural fill shall meet the specifications presented in Table 7 (Structural Fill Gradation Specifications).

Table 7 - Structural Fill Gradation Specifications

Sieve Size Percent by Dry Weight Passing 4 Inch 100 ¾ Inch 70 - 100 No. 40 25 - 60

No. 200 5 - 20

Maximum Liquid Limit Maximum Plastic Index 35 10

R-value: 50 minimum

9.3.4 Densification and Moisture Conditioning Recommendations

Aggregate base material should be densified to at least 95 percent relative compaction. All other structural fill including stabilizing fill shall be densified to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Structural fill shall be placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts prior to densification.

Prior to densification, these materials shall be uniformly moisture conditioned to plus or minus 3 percent of optimum moisture. Higher moisture contents are acceptable if the soil lift is stable and required relative compaction can be attained in the soil lift and succeeding soil lifts.

9.4 Asphaltic Pavement Construction

Plantmix Aggregate is recommended to be ¾-inch HMA Types A & B in accordance with Section 39 (Hot Mix asphalt) of Caltrans Standard Specifications, 2010. Asphalt pavement construction requirements should be in accordance with Section 39 (Hot Mix asphalt) of Caltrans Standard Specifications, 2010. A pavement mix design should be submitted to the owner by the Contractor at least five working days prior to construction for approval. It is recommended that when pavement is placed adjacent to concrete flatwork, the finish compacted grade of the pavement be at least ¼ to ½ of an inch higher than the edge of adjacent concrete surface. This is to allow adequate compaction of the pavement without damaging the concrete.

9.4.1 Asphalt Design Life

Asphalt pavement sections are calculated for a theoretical 20 year design life and assume that the roadway will be totally reconstructed in approximately 20 years. Prior to reconstruction, the roadway will be in a deteriorated condition, likely showing substantial structural distress including but not limited to:

alligator cracking; potholes; possible rutting and depressions; transverse and longitudinal cracking; and surface raveling. Based on pavement design theory, significant roadway structural distress (alligator cracking and rutting) generally begins in about 15 years. Due to the quality of aggregate available and extreme climate conditions in the South Lake Tahoe area, premature deterioration of the pavement, in some cases, can occur prior to 15 years.

However, it has been shown that a proper maintenance program will reduce pavement deterioration and could extend the life of the pavement.

Maintenance is mandatory to long-term pavement performance. Maintenance refers to any activity performed on the pavement that is intended to preserve its original service life or load-carrying capacity. Examples of maintenance activities include patching, crack or joint sealing, and seal coats. If these maintenance activities are ignored or deferred, premature failure of the pavement will occur.

The cost associated with proper maintenance is generally much less than the cost for reconstruction due to premature failure of the pavement. Therefore, since pavement quality is an integral consideration in the formulation of our design recommendations, we strongly recommend the owner/project manager implement a pavement management program.

9.5 Anticipated Construction Problems

Due to the presence of boulders and large cobbles in the subsurface soils, excavation difficulties may occur.

10.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING SERVICES

The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that the owner/project manager provides sufficient field testing and construction review during all phases of construction. Prior to construction, the owner/project manager should schedule a pre-job conference to include, but not be limited to: owner/project manager, project engineer, general contractor, earthwork and materials subcontractors, and geotechnical engineer. It is the owner's/project manager’s responsibility to set-up this meeting and contact all responsible parties. The conference will allow parties to review the project plans, specifications, and recommendations presented in this report, and discuss applicable material quality and mix design requirements. All quality control reports should be submitted to the owner/project manager for review and distributed to the appropriate parties.

11.0 STANDARD LIMITATION CLAUSE

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted local geotechnical practices. The analyses and recommendations submitted are based upon field exploration performed at the locations shown on Plates A-1 (Test Pit Location Map) of this report. This report does not reflect soils variations that may become evident during the construction period, at which time re-evaluation of the recommendations may be necessary. Sufficient construction observation should be completed in all phases of the project related to geotechnical factors to document compliance with our recommendations.

This report has been prepared to provide information allowing the engineer to design the project. The owner/project manager is responsible for distribution of this report to all designers and contractors whose work is affected by geotechnical recommendations. In the event of changes in the design, location, or ownership of the project after presentation of this report, our recommendations should be reviewed and possibly modified by the geotechnical engineer. If the geotechnical engineer is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation or misapplication of his recommendations or their validity in the event changes have been made in the original design concept without his prior review. The engineer makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement and included in this report.

This report was prepared by CME for the account of the United States Forest Service. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information available to us at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based upon it, are the responsibility of such third parties. CME accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

REFERENCES

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2011 Soil and Rock; Dimension

Stone; Geosynthetics, Volume 4.08.

AASHTO, 1993, Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.

Standard Specifications, 2010, Caltrans

Saucedo G.J et al, 2005, Geologic Map of the Lake Tahoe Basin California and

Nevada, California Geologic Survey Department of Conservation, Map No. 4.

APPENDIX A

SM

GM

B 1A

SL. MOIST

SL. MOIST

0-0.75': TOPSOIL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL ,

mostly fine to medium sand, little subangular gravel, non-plastic, dark brown

Note: Concentrated tree root matrix to about 2 feet bgs

0.75'-3': SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, COBBLES

AND BOULDERS, mostly fine to coarse subangular gravel, little cobbles and boulders up to 16-inches nominal diameter, some fine to coarse sand, non-plastic, yellowish brown

Note: Coarse gravels greater than 3-inches nominal diameter were not collected for the bulk sampling.

Sample R-value=74

TERMINATED AT 3 FEET, NO FREE WATER

ENCOUNTERED

12.6 NP NV 4.3 A, G

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-1

PROJECT BADGERS DEN-STRUCTURAL SECTION ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT TYPE CASE 580L WITH 24" BUCKET

CLIENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE

LOCATION S. END OF CAMP GROUND N. OF HIGHWAY 89

PROJECT NO. 1710 DATE 01/16/15 LOGGED BY: SAM SURFACE ELEVATION (ft) 6,240' (PLATE A-1)

GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS PLATE NO.: A-2a B - Bulk Sample

DEPTH HOUR DATE A - Atterberg Limits G - Grain Size

N.E.

C - Consolidation MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear

D ep th in Fe et

U ni fie d

So il

C la ss ifi ca tio n

G ra ph ic

L og

Sa m pl e

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

Sa m pl e

N o.

C on si st en cy

D en si ty

M oi st ur e Visual Description %-200

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

Po ck et P en ts f)

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

La bo ra to ry Te st s

SM

GM

B 2A

MOIST

MOIST

0-1': TOPSOIL- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

mostly fine to medium sand, little fine subangular gravel, non-plastic, dark brown

Note: Concentrated root zone matrix encountered to a depth of 2.3 feet

1'-4': SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND AND

COBBLES, mostly fine to coarse gravel and cobbles up to 6-inches nominal diameter, some fine to coarse sand, yellow brown

Note: Coarse gravels greater than 3-inches nominal diameter were not collected for the bulk sampling.

TERMINATED AT 4 FEET, NO FREE WATER

ENCOUNTERED.

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-2

PROJECT BADGERS DEN-STRUCTURAL SECTION ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT TYPE CASE 580L WITH 24" BUCKET

CLIENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE

LOCATION S. END OF CAMP GROUND N. OF HIGHWAY 89, W. SIDE OF CAMP

PROJECT NO. 1710 DATE 01/16/15 LOGGED BY: SAM SURFACE ELEVATION (ft) 6,237.5 (PLATE A-1)

GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS PLATE NO.: A-2b B - Bulk Sample

DEPTH HOUR DATE A - Atterberg Limits G - Grain Size

N.E.

C - Consolidation MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear

D ep th in Fe et

U ni fie d

So il

C la ss ifi ca tio n

G ra ph ic

L og

Sa m pl e

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

Sa m pl e

N o.

C on si st en cy

D en si ty

M oi st ur e Visual Description %-200

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

Po ck et P en ts f)

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

La bo ra to ry Te

SM

GM

B 3A

MOIST

MOIST

0-½': TOPSOIL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

mostly fine to medium sand, little subangular gravel, dark brown

Note: Concentrated root zone matrix encountered to a depth of about

1.6 feet

½-3½': SILTY GRAVEL WITH COBBLES,

BOULDERS, AND SAND, mostly fine to coarse gravel, little cobbles and boulders up to 18 inches nominal diameter, some fine to medium sand, yellow brown

Note: Coarse gravels greater than 3-inches nominal diameter were not collected for the bulk sampling.

TERMINATED AT 3 FEET, NO FREE WATER

ENCOUNTERED

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-3

PROJECT BADGERS DEN-STRUCTURAL SECTION ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT TYPE CASE 580L WITH 24" BUCKET

CLIENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE

LOCATION N. OF HIGHWAY 89, NW. SIDE OF CAMP

PROJECT NO. 1710 DATE 01/16/15 LOGGED BY: SAM SURFACE ELEVATION (ft) 6,234.5 (PLATE A-1)

GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS PLATE NO.: A-2c B - Bulk Sample

DEPTH HOUR DATE A - Atterberg Limits G - Grain Size

N.E.

C - Consolidation MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear

D ep th in Fe et

U ni fie d

So il

C la ss ifi ca tio n

G ra ph ic

L og

Sa m pl e

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

Sa m pl e

N o.

C on si st en cy

D en si ty

M oi st ur e Visual Description %-200

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

Po ck et P en ts f)

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

La bo ra to ry Te

SM

GP-GM

B 4A

MOIST

MOIST

0-½': TOPSOIL-SILTY SAND, mostly fine to medium sand, dark brown

Note: Concentrated root zone matrix encountered to a depth of 1.6 feet

½'-3½':POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT,

SAND, AND COBBLES , mostly fine to coarse subangular gravel, little subangular cobbles, few boulders up to 24-inches nominal diameter, some fine to coarse sand, non-plastic, yellow brown

Note: Redox staining at a depth of 3 feet

Coarse gravels greater than 3-inches nominal diameter were not collected for the bulk sampling.

Sample R-value=75

TERMINATED AT 3½ FEET, NO FREE WATER

ENCOUNTERED

10.0 NP NV 7.7 A. G

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-4

PROJECT BADGERS DEN-STRUCTURAL SECTION ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT TYPE CASE 580L WITH 24" BUCKET

CLIENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE

LOCATION N. OF HIGHWAY 89, N. SIDE OF CAMP

PROJECT NO. 1710 DATE 01/16/15 LOGGED BY: SAM SURFACE ELEVATION (ft) 6,231.5 (PLATE A-1)

GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS PLATE NO.: A-2d B - Bulk Sample

DEPTH HOUR DATE A - Atterberg Limits G - Grain Size

N.E.

C - Consolidation MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear

D ep th in Fe et

U ni fie d

So il

C la ss ifi ca tio n

G ra ph ic

L og

Sa m pl e

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

Sa m pl e

N o.

C on si st en cy

D en si ty

M oi st ur e Visual Description %-200

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

Po ck et P en ts f)

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

La bo ra to ry Te

SM

GM

B 5A

MOIST

MOIST

0-0.6': TOPSOIL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

mostly fine to medium sand, little fine subangular gravel, dark brown

Note: Concentrated root matrix encountered to a depth of 2 feet

0.6'-3½': SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, COBBLES

AND BOULDERS, mostly fine to coarse angular to subrounded gravel, little cobbles, few boulders up to 36- inches nominal diameter, little fine to coarse sand, non-plastic

Note: Coarse gravels greater than 3-inches nominal diameter were not collected for the bulk sampling.

TERMINATED AT 3½ FEET, NO FREE WATER

ENCOUNTERED

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-5

PROJECT BADGERS DEN-STRUCTURAL SECTION ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT TYPE CASE 580L WITH 24" BUCKET

CLIENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE

LOCATION N. OF HIGHWAY 89, NEAR CENTER OF CAMP

PROJECT NO. 1710 DATE 01/16/15 LOGGED BY: SAM SURFACE ELEVATION (ft) 6,233.8 (PLATE A-1)

GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS PLATE NO.: A-2e B - Bulk Sample

DEPTH HOUR DATE A - Atterberg Limits G - Grain Size

N.E.

C - Consolidation MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear

D ep th in Fe et

U ni fie d

So il

C la ss ifi ca tio n

G ra ph ic

L og

Sa m pl e

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

Sa m pl e

N o.

C on si st en cy

D en si ty

M oi st ur e Visual Description %-200

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

Po ck et P en ts f)

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

La bo ra to ry Te

SM

GM

B 6A

MOIST

0-0.33': TOPSOIL-SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,

mostly fine to medium sand, some fine angular gravel, dark brown

Note: Concentrated root zone matrix encountered to a depth of 2 feet

0.33'-4': SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, COBBLES

AND BOULDERS, mostly fine to coarse subangular gravel, little cobbles, few boulders up to 16-inches nominal diameter, some fine to coarse sand, olive yellow brown

Note: Coarse gravels greater than 3-inches nominal diameter were not collected for the bulk sampling.

TERMINATED AT 4 FEET, NO FREE WATER

ENCOUNTERED

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-6

PROJECT BADGERS DEN-STRUCTURAL SECTION ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT TYPE CASE 580L WITH 24" BUCKET

CLIENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE

LOCATION N. OF HIGHWAY 89, NE. SIDE OF CAMP

PROJECT NO. 1710 DATE 01/16/15 LOGGED BY: SAM SURFACE ELEVATION (ft) 6,229.5 (PLATE A-1)

GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS PLATE NO.: A-2f B - Bulk Sample

DEPTH HOUR DATE A - Atterberg Limits G - Grain Size

N.E.

C - Consolidation MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear

D ep th in Fe et

U ni fie d

So il

C la ss ifi ca tio n

G ra ph ic

L og

Sa m pl e

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

Sa m pl e

N o.

C on si st en cy

D en si ty

M oi st ur e Visual Description %-200

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

Po ck et P en ts f)

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

La bo ra to ry Te

SM

SP-SM

B 7A

SL. MOIST

SL. MOIST

0-0.33': TOPSOIL-SILTY SAND, mostly fine to medium sand, non-plastic, dark brown

Note: Concentrated root zone matrix encountered to a depth of 18 inches

0.33'-4': POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

AND GRAVELS, mostly fine to medium sand, few fine to coarse gravels and cobbles up to 6 inches nominal diameter,non-plastic, grey brown

Note: Sample R-value=74

TERMINATED AT 4 FEET, NO FREE WATER

ENCOUNTERED

7.2 NP NV 4.4 A, G

LOG OF TEST PIT NO. TP-7

PROJECT BADGERS DEN-STRUCTURAL SECTION ANALYSIS EQUIPMENT TYPE CASE 580L WITH 24" BUCKET

CLIENT U.S. FOREST SERVICE

LOCATION N. OF HIGHWAY 89, SE. SIDE OF CAMP

PROJECT NO. 1710 DATE 01/16/15 LOGGED BY: SAM SURFACE ELEVATION (ft) 6,238 (PLATE A-1)

GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE LABORATORY TESTS PLATE NO.: A-2g B - Bulk Sample

DEPTH HOUR DATE A - Atterberg Limits G - Grain Size

N.E.

C - Consolidation MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear

D ep th in Fe et

U ni fie d

So il

C la ss ifi ca tio n

G ra ph ic

L og

Sa m pl e

Sa m pl e

Ty pe

Sa m pl e

N o.

C on si st en cy

D en si ty

M oi st ur e Visual Description %-200

Li qu id L im it

Pl as tic ity

In de x

Po ck et P en ts f)

D ry

D en si ty

(p cf

M oi st ur e

C on te nt

La bo ra to ry Te

APPENDIX B

Tested By: T. HAM Checked By: S. VINEIS

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: TEST PIT 1 Depth: 22"-3.0' Sample Number: 1A

PLATE

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST DATE USCS NM

NV NP 23.1491 1.8417 0.9566 0.2913 0.0927 0.0554 0.83 33.27

silty sand with gravel (SM) SM

1710 U.S. FOREST SERVICE

B-1a

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 17.8 13.6 7.5 25.5 23.1 10.3 2.2 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report

BADGERS DEN RECEIVED 1/16/2015

Construction Materials Engineers, Inc.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 2/2/2015

Client: U.S. FOREST SERVICE Project: BADGERS DEN Project Number: 1710 Location: TEST PIT 1 Depth: 22"-3.0' Sample Number: 1A Material Description: silty sand with gravel (SM) Liquid Limit: NV Plastic Limit: NP USCS Classification: SM AASHTO Classification: A-1-b Testing Remarks: RECEIVED 1/16/2015 Tested by: T. HAM Checked by: S. VINEIS

Sieve Test Data

Dry Sample and Tare (grams)

Tare (grams)

Cumulative Pan

Tare Weight (grams)

Sieve Opening

Size

Cumulative Weight

Retained (grams)

Percent Finer

7216.80 0.00 0.00 2" 0.00 100.0 1 1/2" 442.60 93.9

1" 982.70 86.4 3/4" 1282.40 82.2 1/2" 1693.00 76.5 3/8" 1853.90 74.3

#4 2268.80 68.6

662.10 0.00 0.00 #8 50.20 63.4

#10 71.80 61.1 #16 143.70 53.7 #30 264.10 41.2 #40 318.70 35.6 #50 368.60 30.4

#100 459.70 21.0 #200 541.00 12.5

Hydrometer Test Data Hydrometer test uses material passing #10 Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 61.1 Weight of hydrometer sample =116.84 Hygroscopic moisture correction:

Moist weight and tare = 64.33 Dry weight and tare = 63.93 Tare weight = 19.76 Hygroscopic moisture = 0.9% Automatic temperature correction Composite correction (fluid density and meniscus height) at 20 deg. C = -3.0 Meniscus correction only = -1.0 Specific gravity of solids = 2.537 Hydrometer type = 152H Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm smontalvo Typewritten Text PLATE: B-1b

Hydrometer Test Data (continued)

Elapsed Time (min.)

Temp.

(deg. C.)

Actual Reading

Corrected Reading K Rm

Eff.

Depth

Diameter (mm.)

Percent Finer

0.50 20.2 27.0 24.0 0.0141 26.0 12.0 0.0692 13.0

1.00 20.2 20.0 17.0 0.0141 19.0 13.2 0.0512 9.2

2.00 20.2 17.0 14.0 0.0141 16.0 13.7 0.0369 7.6

3.00 20.2 15.0 12.0 0.0141 14.0 14.0 0.0305 6.5

5.00 20.2 14.0 11.0 0.0141 13.0 14.2 0.0237 6.0

10.00 20.2 12.0 9.0 0.0141 11.0 14.5 0.0170 4.9

15.00 20.2 11.0 8.0 0.0141 10.0 14.7 0.0139 4.3

30.00 20.2 9.0 6.0 0.0141 8.0 15.0 0.0100 3.3

60.00 20.2 8.0 5.0 0.0141 7.0 15.1 0.0071 2.7

120.00 20.2 7.0 4.0 0.0141 6.0 15.3 0.0050 2.2

250.00 20.2 6.0 3.0 0.0141 5.0 15.5 0.0035 1.6

480.00 20.2 6.0 3.0 0.0141 5.0 15.5 0.0025 1.6

1400.00 20.2 6.0 3.0 0.0141 5.0 15.5 0.0015 1.6

Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel Coarse

17.8

Fine

13.6

Total

31.4

Sand Coarse

7.5

Medium

25.5

Fine

23.1

Total

56.1

Fines Silt

10.3

Clay

2.2

Total

12.5

D10

0.0554

D15

0.0927

D20

0.1392

D30

0.2913

D50

0.9566

D60

1.8417

D80

16.4405

D85

23.1491

D90

31.3269

D95

40.2316

Fineness Modulus

3.71

Cu

33.27

Cc

0.83 smontalvo

PLATE: B-1c

Project:

Source of Sample: TEST PIT 4 Depth: 1.5'-3.5' Sample Number: 4A

PLATE

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST DATE USCS NM

NV NP 29.7706 8.0728 3.0479 0.6736 0.1571 0.0763 0.74 105.84

poorly graded gravel with silt and sand GP-GM

1710 U.S. FOREST SERVICE

B-2a

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 27.6 18.2 9.7 20.4 14.1 7.6 2.4 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 2/2/2015

Client: U.S. FOREST SERVICE Project: BADGERS DEN Project Number: 1710 Location: TEST PIT 4 Depth: 1.5'-3.5' Sample Number: 4A Material Description: poorly graded gravel with silt and sand

(GP-GM)

Liquid Limit: NV Plastic Limit: NP USCS Classification: GP-GM AASHTO Classification: A-1-a Testing Remarks: RECEIVED 1/16/2015 Tested by: T. HAM Checked by: S. VINEIS

Sieve Test Data

Dry Sample and Tare (grams)

Tare (grams)

Cumulative Pan

Tare Weight (grams)

Sieve Opening

Size

Cumulative Weight

Retained (grams)

Percent Finer

2445.50 0.00 0.00 2" 0.00 100.0 1 1/2" 133.50 94.5

1" 516.60 78.9 3/4" 674.30 72.4 1/2" 815.00 66.7 3/8" 922.00 62.3

#4 1121.00 54.2

685.40 0.00 0.00 #8 91.60 46.9

#10 122.00 44.5 #16 204.20 38.0 #30 326.30 28.4 #40 380.70 24.1 #50 427.70 20.4

#100 500.40 14.6 #200 559.30 10.0

Hydrometer Test Data Hydrometer test uses material passing #10 Percent passing #10 based upon complete sample = 44.5 Weight of hydrometer sample =116.57 Hygroscopic moisture correction:

Moist weight and tare = 67.89 Dry weight and tare = 67.28 Tare weight = 19.67 Hygroscopic moisture = 1.3% Automatic temperature correction Composite correction (fluid density and meniscus height) at 20 deg. C = -3.0 Meniscus correction only = -1.0 Specific gravity of solids = 2.580 Hydrometer type = 152H Hydrometer effective depth equation: L = 16.294964 - 0.164 x Rm smontalvo

PLATE: B-2b

Elapsed Time (min.)

Temp.

(deg. C.)

Actual Reading

Corrected Reading K Rm

Eff.

Depth

Diameter (mm.)

Percent Finer

0.50 20.2 28.0 25.0 0.0139 27.0 11.9 0.0678 9.8

1.00 20.2 26.0 23.0 0.0139 25.0 12.2 0.0486 9.0

2.00 20.2 23.0 20.0 0.0139 22.0 12.7 0.0350 7.9

3.00 20.2 21.0 18.0 0.0139 20.0 13.0 0.0290 7.1

5.00 20.2 19.0 16.0 0.0139 18.0 13.3 0.0227 6.3

10.00 20.2 17.0 14.0 0.0139 16.0 13.7 0.0163 5.5

15.00 20.2 15.0 12.0 0.0139 14.0 14.0 0.0134 4.7

30.00 20.2 13.0 10.0 0.0139 12.0 14.3 0.0096 3.9

60.00 20.2 11.0 8.0 0.0139 10.0 14.7 0.0069 3.1

120.00 20.2 9.0 6.0 0.0139 8.0 15.0 0.0049 2.4

250.00 20.2 8.0 5.0 0.0139 7.0 15.1 0.0034 2.0

480.00 20.2 7.0 4.0 0.0139 6.0 15.3 0.0025 1.6

1380.00 20.2 6.0 3.0 0.0139 5.0 15.5 0.0015 1.2

Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel Coarse

27.6

Fine

18.2

Total

45.8

Sand Coarse

9.7

Medium

20.4

Fine

14.1

Total

44.2

Fines Silt

7.6

Clay

2.4

Total

10.0

D10

0.0763

D15

0.1571

D20

0.2886

D30

0.6736

D50

3.0479

D60

8.0728

D80

26.2439

D85

29.7706

D90

33.5577

D95

38.7068

Fineness Modulus

4.68

Cu

105.84

Cc

0.74 smontalvo

PLATE: B-2c

Project:

Source of Sample: TEST PIT 7 Depth: 1.0'-3.0' Sample Number: 7A

Plate

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST DATE USCS NM

NV NP 22.5141 1.5811 0.9981 0.5804 0.3055 0.1108 1.92 14.28

well-graded sand with silt and gravel SW-SM

1710 U.S. FOREST SERVICE

B-3a

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 15.5 9.1 11.7 44.1 12.4 7.2 0.0 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 3/9/2015

Client: U.S. FOREST SERVICE Project: BADGERS DEN Project Number: 1710 Location: TEST PIT 7 Depth: 1.0'-3.0' Sample Number: 7A Material Description: well-graded sand with silt and gravel

(SW-SM)

Liquid Limit: NV Plastic Limit: NP USCS Classification: SW-SM AASHTO Classification: A-1-b Testing Remarks: RECEIVED 1/16/2015 Tested by: T. HAM Checked by: S. VINEIS

Sieve Test Data

Dry Sample and Tare (grams)

Tare (grams)

Cumulative Pan

Tare Weight (grams)

Sieve Opening

Size

Cumulative Weight

Retained (grams)

Percent Finer

869.00 0.00 0.00 1-1/2" 0.00 100.0

1" 119.00 86.3

3/4" 135.00 84.5

1/2" 157.10 81.9

3/8" 175.10 79.9

#4 213.70 75.