March 31, 2017

Michael Richardson, Wildlife Technician Allegan State Game Area 4590 118th Avenue Allegan, Michigan 49010

Re: Addendum to Supplemental Geotechnical Report Permeability Test Results and Discussion

Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs Allegan County, Michigan MSG Project No. MDMB0010

Dear Mr. Richardson:

The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc. (MSG) has issued a Supplemental Geotechnical Report for the subject project dated March 28, 2017. The purpose of this addendum is to present the permeability testing results on soil samples collected from a State-owned borrow site. The permeability tests were not completed at the time the Supplemental Geotechnical Report was issued. This addendum also includes a discussion of the test results.

LABORATORY SOIL PERMEABILITY TESTING

The soil samples used in the permeability testing were collected from a State-owned borrow site that may be potentially utilized for the proposed dike repairs. The approximate location of the subject borrow source is depicted in Figure 1 Site Location Map. A total of five permeability tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D5084. The soil samples utilized were collected from four of the seven boring locations. The boring locations are shown on the attached Figure 2 Boring Location Plan. Offset borings were augered next to borings advanced using the Macro Core® to collect additional sample volume for permeability tests. These offset boring locations were termed SB-XX GRAB on the attached testing results. The offset locations were generally within a 3 feet radius of the original borings.

Samples collected from SB-23 GRAB and SB-24 GRAB primarily consisted of clay and samples collected from SB- 25 GRAB and SB-27 GRAB primarily consisted of sand. Based on the investigation findings presented in the Supplemental Geotechnical Report, MSG estimates that the subject borrow source has about 30 percent silty clay (Soil Unit 1 as described in Supplemental Geotechnical Report dated March 28, 2017) and 70 percent silty clayey sand (Soil Unit 2) by volume in the upper 10 feet below existing ground surface. In order to evaluate different material types that could be collected from the borrow source, a mixed sample with about 30 percent Soil Unit 1 and 70 percent Soil Unit 2 was also tested. All samples were tested at their 95 percent of Modified Proctor maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. A brief summary of the testing results are shown in the table below. The complete results are attached to this addendum.

MDMB0010_Add_XZ_GEO_20170331.Docx

2193 Association Drive, Suite 200, Okemos, Michigan 48864 Tel: 517.316.9232 Fax: 517.316.9233 www.MannikSmithGroup.com

2193 Association Dr, Suite 200 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Tel: (517) 316-9232 Fax: (517) 316-9233 www.MannikSmithGroup.com

Figure 1: Site Location Map Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

Allegan County, Michigan

Notes:

The base map was adopted from Google Earth Image.

Tel: (517) 316-9232 Fax: (517) 316-9233 www.MannikSmithGroup.com

Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

Allegan County, Michigan

Notes:

RP.Mix-Bulk.xls

Project Name: Project No:

Client's Sample No. Date:

Visual Description: Depth:

Permeant: De-aired tap water 0.01 N CaSO4

Sample Preparation:

Sample was removed from a 3" Shelby tube and trimmed to length in a trimming jig. Any pebbles found on outer surface were removed and resulting voids were filled with material trimmed from the sample.

Material was adjusted to required moisture content and remolded at the required density.

Other: 95% of DD=127.9 pcf @ OMC=9.9%

Soil Properties:

Initial Moisture Content (%)

Initial Wet Density (pcf)

Initial Dry Density

(pcf)

Final Moisture Content

Final Wet Density

(pcf)

Final Dry Density

(pcf)

9.95 131.48 119.58 19.63 144.76 121.00

Formula:

K= h(t1)= a= h(t2)= L= Length of sample (cm) = 7.62 A= Cross-sectional area of RT= sample (cm2) = 41.624846 t= Elapsed time (sec) PB= 140.74

Degree of Saturation:

3/27/2017 7:05am 25.0 22.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

Permeability Measurement:

23.90 3.60 22.41 18 1.051

14.20 13.70 0.55 18 1.051

14.20 13.70 0.55 18 1.051

4.70 23.40 -20.64 18 1.051

23.60 1.70 24.17 18 1.051

15.10 10.40 5.19 18 1.051

15.10 10.40 5.19 18 1.051

3.30 22.60 -21.30 18 1.051

7.37E-06 cm/sec

Tested By: FRK Date: 3/29/2017

*The certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of MSG.

3/27/2017

6.81E-06

7.04E-06

7.10E-06

7.15E-06

7.40E-06

7.46E-06

RT

(from table) K (cm/sec)

Kcorrected

(cm/sec)

1,980

1,440

2,340

3/27/2017

Silty Sand with Clay

MDMB0010

3/28/2017

0-8'

1 3/27/2017 1,680 7.10E-06

Bias Pressure (cm) = psi x 70.37 cm/psi

7.46E-06

Correction factor for viscosity of water at various temperatures

TimeDate

Civil Engineering, Surveying and Environmental Consulting

TOLEDO CANTON LANSING DETROIT MONROE CLEVELAND COLUMBUS

Permeability Test Remolded

ASTM D5084

Before Saturation After Saturation

Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs MIX GRAB (30% Clay + 70% Sand)

AVERAGE CORRECTED COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K):

Pore Pressure Increase (psi)

= b

Head Pressure

(psi)

Skempton's Parameter

(B) = (b/a)

Lower Volume Reading

(VL)

h(t1) h(t2)

Confining Pressure Increase (psi) = a

Back Pressure

(psi)

Water Temp.

T (oC)

Reviewed By:MG/KL

Cross-sectional area of burette (cm2) = 0.906 Corrected Coefficient of Permeability (cm/sec)

Cell Pressure

(psi)

Test No. Date t (sec)

Upper Volume Reading

(VU)

3/27/2017 aL PB+h(t1) K= (ln )*RT 2At PB+h(t2)

X

X

VU(t1) - VL(t1) a

VU(t2) - VL(t2) a

RP.SB-23-Bulk.xls

Client's Sample No. Date:

Visual Description: Depth:

Permeant: De-aired tap water 0.01 N CaSO4

Sample Preparation:

Sample was removed from a 3" Shelby tube and trimmed to length in a trimming jig. Any pebbles found on outer surface were removed and resulting voids were filled with material trimmed from the sample.

Material was adjusted to required moisture content and remolded at the required density.

Other: 95% of DD=123.2 pcf @ OMC=12.4%

Soil Properties:

Initial Moisture Content (%)

Initial Wet Density (pcf)

Initial Dry Density

(pcf)

Final Moisture Content

Final Wet Density

(pcf)

Final Dry Density

(pcf)

12.37 132.05 117.51 17.19 138.05 117.79

Formula:

K= h(t1)= a= h(t2)= L= Length of sample (cm) = 7.73 A= Cross-sectional area of RT= sample (cm2) = 41.624846 t= Elapsed time (sec) PB= 140.74

Degree of Saturation:

3/27/2017 7:20 AM 25.0 22.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

Permeability Measurement:

23.90 2.60 23.51 18 1.051

20.60 5.90 16.23 18 1.051

20.60 5.90 16.23 18 1.051

17.60 9.20 9.27 18 1.051

17.60 9.20 9.27 18 1.051

8.90 18.10 -10.15 18 1.051

24.00 1.10 25.28 18 1.051

13.20 12.00 1.32 18 1.051

7.37E-07 cm/sec

Tested By: FRK Date: 3/29/2017

*The certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of MSG.

3/28/2017

6.29E-07

6.64E-07

6.98E-07

6.61E-07

6.97E-07

7.34E-07

RT

(from table) K (cm/sec)

Kcorrected

(cm/sec)

6,060

17,580

18,780

3/27/2017

Lean Clay with Sand

MDMB0010

3/28/2017

0-8'

1 3/27/2017 4,680 8.15E-07

Bias Pressure (cm) = psi x 70.37 cm/psi

8.57E-07

Correction factor for viscosity of water at various temperatures

TimeDate

Civil Engineering, Surveying and Environmental Consulting

TOLEDO CANTON LANSING DETROIT MONROE CLEVELAND COLUMBUS

Permeability Test Remolded

ASTM D5084

Before Saturation After Saturation

Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

SB-23 GRAB

AVERAGE CORRECTED COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K):

Pore Pressure Increase (psi)

= b

Head Pressure

(psi)

Skempton's Parameter

(B) = (b/a)

Lower Volume Reading

(VL)

h(t1) h(t2)

Confining Pressure Increase (psi) = a

Back Pressure

(psi)

Water Temp.

T (oC)

Reviewed By:MG/KL

Cross-sectional area of burette (cm2) = 0.906 Corrected Coefficient of Permeability (cm/sec)

Cell Pressure

(psi)

Test No. Date t (sec)

Upper Volume Reading

(VU)

3/27/2017 aL PB+h(t1) K= (ln )*RT 2At PB+h(t2)

X

X

VU(t1) - VL(t1) a

RP.SB-24-Bulk.xls

Client's Sample No. Date:

Visual Description: Depth:

Permeant: De-aired tap water 0.01 N CaSO4

Sample Preparation:

Sample was removed from a 3" Shelby tube and trimmed to length in a trimming jig. Any pebbles found on outer surface were removed and resulting voids were filled with material trimmed from the sample.

Material was adjusted to required moisture content and remolded at the required density.

Other: 95% of DD=118.3pcf @ OMC=12.2%

Soil Properties:

Initial Moisture Content (%)

Initial Wet Density (pcf)

Initial Dry Density

(pcf)

Final Moisture Content

Final Wet Density

(pcf)

Final Dry Density

(pcf)

12.25 126.20 112.43 23.86 139.43 112.57

Formula:

K= h(t1)= a= h(t2)= L= Length of sample (cm) = 7.61 A= Cross-sectional area of RT= sample (cm2) = 41.624846 t= Elapsed time (sec) PB= 140.74

Degree of Saturation:

3/27/2017 7.25 am 25.0 22.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

Permeability Measurement:

24.50 2.40 24.39 18 1.051

20.60 6.50 15.56 18 1.051

20.60 6.50 15.56 18 1.051

16.10 11.10 5.52 18 1.051

16.10 11.10 5.52 18 1.051

5.00 22.80 -19.65 18 1.051

24.50 0.40 26.60 18 1.051

11.10 13.90 -3.09 18 1.051

9.60E-07 cm/sec

Tested By: FRK Date: 3/29/2017

*The certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of MSG.

Reviewed By:MG/KL

Cross-sectional area of burette (cm2) = 0.906 Corrected Coefficient of Permeability (cm/sec)

Cell Pressure

(psi)

Test No. Date t (sec)

Upper Volume Reading

(VU)

3/27/2017

AVERAGE CORRECTED COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K):

Pore Pressure Increase (psi)

= b

Head Pressure

(psi)

Skempton's Parameter

(B) = (b/a)

Lower Volume Reading

(VL)

h(t1) h(t2)

Confining Pressure Increase (psi) = a

Back Pressure

(psi)

Water Temp.

T (oC)

Correction factor for viscosity of water at various temperatures

TimeDate

Civil Engineering, Surveying and Environmental Consulting

TOLEDO CANTON LANSING DETROIT MONROE CLEVELAND COLUMBUS

Permeability Test Remolded

ASTM D5084

Before Saturation After Saturation

Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

SB-24 GRAB

Lean Clay

MDMB0010

3/28/2017

0-8'

1 3/27/2017 4,620 9.85E-07

Bias Pressure (cm) = psi x 70.37 cm/psi

1.04E-06

RT

(from table) K (cm/sec)

Kcorrected

(cm/sec)

6,060

17,400

18,780

3/27/2017

3/28/2017

9.08E-07

8.99E-07

8.61E-07

9.54E-07

9.45E-07

9.05E-07 aL PB+h(t1) K= (ln )*RT 2At PB+h(t2)

X

X

VU(t1) - VL(t1) a

RP.SB-25-Bulk.xls

Client's Sample No. Date:

Visual Description: Depth:

Permeant: De-aired tap water 0.01 N CaSO4

Sample Preparation:

Sample was removed from a 3" Shelby tube and trimmed to length in a trimming jig. Any pebbles found on outer surface were removed and resulting voids were filled with material trimmed from the sample.

Material was adjusted to required moisture content and remolded at the required density.

Other: 95% of DD=126.3 @ OMC=9.7%

Soil Properties:

Initial Moisture Content (%)

Initial Wet Density (pcf)

Initial Dry Density

(pcf)

Final Moisture Content

Final Wet Density

(pcf)

Final Dry Density

(pcf)

9.84 131.48 119.71 17.28 140.37 119.69

Formula:

K= h(t1)= a= h(t2)= L= Length of sample (cm) = 7.62 A= Cross-sectional area of RT= sample (cm2) = 41.624846 t= Elapsed time (sec) PB= 140.74

Degree of Saturation:

3/27/2017 7:05am 25.0 22.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

Permeability Measurement:

23.40 2.30 23.29 18 1.051

10.10 15.60 -6.07 18 1.051

22.10 1.50 22.74 18 1.051

9.50 14.10 -5.08 18 1.051

9.50 14.10 -5.08 18 1.051

1.10 22.60 -23.73 18 1.051

24.70 1.20 25.94 18 1.051

2.90 23.20 -22.41 18 1.051

5.59E-06 cm/sec

Tested By: FRK Date: 3/28/2017

*The certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of MSG.

3/28/2017

5.99E-06

5.24E-06

4.60E-06

6.30E-06

5.51E-06

4.83E-06

RT

(from table) K (cm/sec)

Kcorrected

(cm/sec)

2,580

2,340

6,180

3/27/2017

Silty ,Clayey Sand

MDMB0010

3/28/2017

0-8'

1 3/27/2017 3,000 5.45E-06

Bias Pressure (cm) = psi x 70.37 cm/psi

5.73E-06

Correction factor for viscosity of water at various temperatures

TimeDate

Civil Engineering, Surveying and Environmental Consulting

TOLEDO CANTON LANSING DETROIT MONROE CLEVELAND COLUMBUS

Permeability Test Remolded

ASTM D5084

Before Saturation After Saturation

Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

SB-25 GRAB

AVERAGE CORRECTED COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K):

Pore Pressure Increase (psi)

= b

Head Pressure

(psi)

Skempton's Parameter

(B) = (b/a)

Lower Volume Reading

(VL)

h(t1) h(t2)

Confining Pressure Increase (psi) = a

Back Pressure

(psi)

Water Temp.

T (oC)

Reviewed By:MG/KL

Cross-sectional area of burette (cm2) = 0.906 Corrected Coefficient of Permeability (cm/sec)

Cell Pressure

(psi)

Test No. Date t (sec)

Upper Volume Reading

(VU)

3/27/2017 aL PB+h(t1) K= (ln )*RT 2At PB+h(t2)

X

X

VU(t1) - VL(t1) a

RP.SB-27-Bulk.xls

Client's Sample No. Date:

Visual Description: Depth:

Permeant: De-aired tap water 0.01 N CaSO4

Sample Preparation:

Sample was removed from a 3" Shelby tube and trimmed to length in a trimming jig. Any pebbles found on outer surface were removed and resulting voids were filled with material trimmed from the sample.

Material was adjusted to required moisture content and remolded at the required density.

Other: 95% of DD=126.7pcf @ OMC=11.5%

Soil Properties:

Initial Moisture Content (%)

Initial Wet Density (pcf)

Initial Dry Density

(pcf)

Final Moisture Content

Final Wet Density

(pcf)

Final Dry Density

(pcf)

11.35 133.96 120.30 12.90 135.80 120.29

Formula:

K= h(t1)= a= h(t2)= L= Length of sample (cm) = 7.62 A= Cross-sectional area of RT= sample (cm2) = 41.624846 t= Elapsed time (sec) PB= 140.74

Degree of Saturation:

3/27/2017 7:05am 25.0 22.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 1.0

Permeability Measurement:

24.20 0.60 26.05 18 1.051

17.30 7.70 10.60 18 1.051

17.30 7.70 10.60 18 1.051

7.30 17.80 -11.59 18 1.051

7.30 17.80 -11.59 18 1.051

1.30 23.70 -24.72 18 1.051

24.00 0.80 25.61 18 1.051

1.30 23.70 -24.72 18 1.051

8.93E-06 cm/sec

Tested By: FRK Date: 3/29/2017

*The certificate shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of MSG.

Reviewed By:MG/KL

Cross-sectional area of burette (cm2) = 0.906 Corrected Coefficient of Permeability (cm/sec)

Cell Pressure

(psi)

Test No. Date t (sec)

Upper Volume Reading

(VU)

3/28/2017

AVERAGE CORRECTED COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K):

Pore Pressure Increase (psi)

= b

Head Pressure

(psi)

Skempton's Parameter

(B) = (b/a)

Lower Volume Reading

(VL)

h(t1) h(t2)

Confining Pressure Increase (psi) = a

Back Pressure

(psi)

Water Temp.

T (oC)

Correction factor for viscosity of water at various temperatures

TimeDate

Civil Engineering, Surveying and Environmental Consulting

TOLEDO CANTON LANSING DETROIT MONROE CLEVELAND COLUMBUS

Permeability Test Remolded

ASTM D5084

Before Saturation After Saturation

Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

SB-27 GRAB

Silty Sand

MDMB0010

3/28/2017

0-8'

1 3/28/2017 960 8.40E-06

Bias Pressure (cm) = psi x 70.37 cm/psi

8.83E-06

RT

(from table) K (cm/sec)

Kcorrected

(cm/sec)

1,560

1,020

3,540

3/28/2017

3/28/2017

8.43E-06

8.72E-06

8.44E-06

8.86E-06

9.16E-06

8.87E-06 aL PB+h(t1) K= (ln )*RT 2At PB+h(t2)

X

X

VU(t1) - VL(t1) a

SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

FENNVILLE FARMS ZONE 7 DIKE REPAIRS

ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN

MARCH 28, 2017

PREPARED FOR:

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT &

BUDGET – DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION DIVISION

P.O. BOX 30026

LANSING, MICHIGAN 48821

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. ES-1

MDMB0010_Rpt_XZ_GEO dc edits xz edits.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc. (MSG) was retained by Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget to conduct a supplemental geotechnical investigation for a State-owned borrow site that may be potentially utilized for the proposed dike repairs in Fennville Farms Zone 7. Previously, MSG prepared a geotechnical investigation report dated June 1, 2015 that presented soil data collected at the subject dike area and at other potential State-owned borrow sources, and provided some recommendations for the proposed dike repairs. Based on our understanding of the desired restoration results of the subject dike and our most recent and previous field and laboratory testing findings, this report presents revised recommendations for the proposed dike repairs. The following is a brief summary of our investigation findings and recommendations. Please refer to subsequent sections within the report for a detailed discussion of these topics.

• For the results of soil data previously collected at the subject dike and other potential borrow sources, please refer to our Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 1, 2015.

• Our most recent field investigation included seven test borings, identified as SB-23 through SB-29. All borings were advanced to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) using the Macro-Core® sampling method.

Some borings were offset and drilled again with hollow stem augering to collect additional samples for laboratory testing.

• At the most recently investigated borrow site, beneath the surficial materials (4 to 11 inches of topsoil), the subsurface soils generally consisted of two soil units. Soil Unit 1 consisted of brown and gray silty clay and was typically encountered directly beneath the surficial materials and extended to a depth ranging from 3 to 9 feet bgs. Soil Unit 1 was not encountered in borings SB-27 and SB-28. An approximate 6 inch sand seam was encountered in borings SB-23 and SB-26 between the topsoil and Soil Unit 1. Soil Unit 2 consisted of brown silty and clayey sand and was typically encountered beneath Soil Unit 1 and extended beyond the investigation depth. Silt seams were observed within Soil Unit 2 in borings SB-24 and SB-27.

• Special precautions should be taken due to the extensive very loose and/or very soft organic soils encountered throughout the subject dike area. Construction equipment may have significant difficulties traversing the site. In order to create a working platform for the proposed construction as well as to help reduce the excessive settlement due to the presence of very loose and/or very soft organics soils, MSG recommends the utilization of a geotextile reinforced aggregate subgrade. A conceptual sketch of the reinforced subgrade is shown in Figure 3 Recommended Typical Dike Cross Section.

• We understand that a mobile pump will be used to control the water levels around the dike. When it is in use, the mobile pump will be towed to the site by a pickup truck and set up at the intersection of the three dike sections (i.e., top, middle and bottom). We recommend the areas where the pump will be parked and used, and the truck turnabout be covered by 8 inches of aggregate base.

• As stated in our previous geotechnical report, without stabilizing the existing subgrade, the immediate settlement under the load of the proposed dike is anticipated to be 1 to 3 inches and a primary consolidation settlement of 2.5 to 4 feet. Depending on the thickness of the organic soils at the location, the primary consolidation is expected to occur over a period of 3 to 15 years. If our recommendations stated in Section

5.1 regarding subgrade preparation are properly implemented, we anticipate the post construction primary consolidation settlement can be reduced to 3 to 5 inches, which will significantly prolong the service life of the dike. However the organic soils (i.e., peat) are susceptible to secondary creep settlement, which is anticipated to settle at a rate of 0.2 to 0.6 inches per year after the end of the primary consolidation. Due to the variation in the thickness of the peat layer, differential settlement is expected to be significant.

This Executive Summary articulates selective findings and recommendations and is provided solely for the purposes of overview and should not be counted upon to provide details in its entirety for the design and construction.

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION: PAGE NO.:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION

3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODS

3.1 Field Investigation

3.2 Laboratory Testing Methods

4.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS

4.1 Subsurface Conditions

4.2 Groundwater

5.0 ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Site Preparation

5.2 Engineered Fill

5.3 Excavation and Slope

5.4 Groundwater

5.5 Dike Restoration Recommendations

6.0 CLOSURE

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2 BORING LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 3 RECOMMENDED TYPICAL DIKE CROSS SECTION

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A BORING LOGS

APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST DATA

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc., (MSG) was retained by Michigan Department of Technology, Management & Budget to conduct a supplemental geotechnical investigation for a borrow site that may be potentially utilized for the proposed dike repairs in Fennville Farms Zone 7. The approximate location of the subject borrow source is depicted in Figure 1 Site Location Map. Previously, MSG prepared a Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 1, 2015 that presented soil data collected at the subject dike and other potential borrow sources, and provided some recommendations for the proposed dike repairs. Based on our understanding of the desired restoration results of the subject dike and our most recent and previous field and laboratory testing findings, this report presents revised recommendations for the proposed dike repairs. The recommendations presented in this report supersede the recommendations in our previous Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 1, 2015 for the subject site. Our work was performed in general accordance with our ISID Discretionary Proposal dated January 27, 2017.

2.0 PROJECT & SITE DESCRIPTION

Based on the drawings prepared by Ducks Unlimited last revised on January 6, 2014, the subject dike is about 4,280 feet long and consists of a top section, a middle section and a bottom section. The current elevations along the center line of the subject dike are approximately 622 feet for the top and middle sections and 621 feet for the bottom section. The proposed repairs will bring the top of dike elevations to 624.5 feet for the top and middle sections and

623.5 feet for the bottom section, which will fulfill the full service water levels of 623 and 622 feet for top/middle and bottom sections, respectively.

As stated in our previous geotechnical report, the subsurface conditions at the subject dike is characterized by very loose and/or very soft organic soils extending to as deep as 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). Special ground improvements will be required to prepare a suitable subgrade to restore the dike and prolong its service life. In addition, it is our opinion that clayey materials with lower permeability will provide a better long term performance to the subject dike. The purpose of our most recent field and laboratory testing was to evaluate a nearby State-owned borrow source to determine if the soils are suitable clayey fills for the proposed repairs.

3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODS

MSG’s investigation consisted of field investigation and laboratory testing methods with are presented below. This section presents the investigation methods used at the potential borrow source for clayey materials. Please refer to our Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 1, 2015 for the investigation methods used at the subject dike and other potential borrow sources.

3.1 Field Investigation

Our most recent field investigation for this project consisted of the installation of seven (7) soil borings performed on February 28, 2017. The borings were identified as SB-23 through SB-29. All borings were advanced using the Macro-Core® sampling method and extended to a depth of 10 feet bgs. The boring locations and elevations were determined in the field by a MSG project engineer using a hand-held GPS device. Therefore, the boring locations and elevations mentioned in this report should be considered approximate. The boring locations are shown on the attached Figure 2 Boring Location Plan.

The site was drilled using a Geoprobe 7822DT drill rig. The test borings were continuously profiled from ground surface to the terminus of the borehole using a 5-foot long, closed-piston Macro-Core® sampling device. A dedicated clear polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liner was placed within the sampler between each sample interval. In order to collect additional samples for laboratory testing, some borings were offset and drilled again by hollow stem augering.

The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon the completion of drilling. Soil samples were sealed in glass jars and buckets and delivered to MSG’s geotechnical laboratory for further examination and the

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 2

assignment of laboratory testing on selected samples. The results of the field investigation have been summarized on the boring logs in Appendix A.

3.2 Laboratory Testing Methods

Each of the soil samples recovered from the borings was examined and visually classified by a geotechnical professional in the laboratory. This examination was performed to verify conditions identified within the field boring logs, perform visual-manual classification of samples not subjected to further laboratory testing and select samples for laboratory testing. Based on the review of the field boring logs and visual examination of the collected samples, MSG completed laboratory testing on selected samples. The laboratory analysis consisted of:

• Six (6) moisture content tests performed in accordance with ASTM D2216;

• Four (3) sieve analysis and hydrometer tests performed in accordance with ASTM D422;

• Four (4) Atterberg limits tests performed in accordance with ASTM D4318;

• Ten (10) organic content tests performed in accordance with ASTM D2974;

• Six (6) soil density determinations performed in accordance with ASTM D7263; and

• Five (5) modified proctor compaction tests performed in accordance with ASTM D1557.

The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B Laboratory Test Data. The offset borings augered to collected additional samples were termed SB-XX GRAB. In order to evaluate different material types that could be collected from the borrow source, a mixed sample with about 30 percent clay (Soil Unit 1) and 70 percent sand (Soil Unit 2) was tested for compaction and permeability parameters.

For additional laboratory test data on soil samples collected at the subject dike and other potential borrow sources, please refer to our Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 1, 2015. Laboratory permeability testing was not completed at the time this report was prepared. The permeability results will be issued as an addendum to this report when the tests are completed.

4.0 INVESTIGATION FINDINGS

The following paragraphs describe the subsurface conditions in terms of major soil strata for the purposes of geotechnical investigation. The soil boundaries indicated are inferred from non-continuous sampling and observations of the drilling operations and/or sampling resistance. The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the boring logs represent an evaluation of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the field and laboratory data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgement and common engineering practice standards. The subsurface conditions described herein may vary beyond the boring locations and at different times of the year.

Please note that this section presents the investigation findings at the potential borrow source for clayey materials.

Please refer to our Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 1, 2015 for the investigation findings at the subject dike and other potential borrow sources.

4.1 Subsurface Conditions

Approximately 4 to 11 inches of topsoil was encountered in all borings across the subject borrow field. A generalized profile of the subsurface conditions encountered beginning below the surficial materials and extending downward is as follows:

Soil Unit 1: Brown and Gray Silty Clay Soil Unit 1 consisted of brown and gray silty clay (USCS Classification: CL) and was encountered beneath topsoil and/or a thin sand seam in all borings except SB-27 and SB-28, extending to a depth ranging from 3

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 3

to 9 feet bgs. It appears that the layer of Soil Unit 1 was thicker at the northern portion of the subject borrow site and became thinner toward the southern portion.

Sol Unit 2: Brown Silty and Clayey Sand Soil Unit 2 consisted of silty and clayey sand (SC-SM) and was encountered beneath Soil Unit 1 or topsoil in all borings, extending below the investigation depth. Silt seams were observed within Soil Unit 2 in borings SB-24 and SB-27.

4.2 Groundwater

As the borings were advanced, the drill crew checked the drilling rods and sampling equipment for indications of groundwater or seepage. The boreholes were checked again for groundwater immediately after completion of drilling. Groundwater was encountered in all borings at a depth ranging from 5 to 8 feet bgs. Water levels reported are accurate only for the time and date that the borings were drilled. Long term monitoring of the boreholes was not included as part of our subsurface investigation. The borings were backfilled and sealed the same day that they were completed.

5.0 ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following evaluations and conclusions are based on interpretations of field and laboratory data obtained during the supplemental geotechnical investigation and MSG’s experience with similar subsurface conditions. Where comments are made with regard to construction or the proposed development, they are provided in order to highlight aspects of construction that could potentially affect the design of the project. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the work should make their own interpretations of the factual results of the investigation as it affects their construction methods, equipment capabilities, costs, schedule, sequencing and the like. This report reflects only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site. Review and evaluation of environmental aspects of subsurface conditions is beyond the scope of this report.

Based on our understanding of the desired restoration results of the subject dike and our most recent and previous field and laboratory testing findings, this report presents revised recommendations for the proposed dike repairs. The recommendations presented in this report supersede the recommendations in our previous Geotechnical Investigation Report dated June 1, 2015 for the subject site.

During construction, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be retained to monitor subsurface conditions, subgrade preparation and dike restoration to verify that suitable materials are in place.

5.1 Site Preparation

Before proceeding with construction, topsoil, vegetation and other deleterious materials should be stripped from the proposed construction areas. Generally, areas exposed by stripping operations on which subgrade preparations are to be performed should be compacted in place as outlined in Section 5.2.

Special precautions should be taken due to the extensive very loose and/or very soft organic soils encountered throughout the dike area. Construction equipment may have significant difficulties traversing the site. In order to create a working platform for the proposed construction as well as to help reduce the excessive settlement due to the presence of very loose and/or very soft organics soils, MSG recommends the utilization of a geotextile reinforced aggregate subgrade. A conceptual sketch of the reinforced subgrade is shown in Figure 3 Recommended Typical Dike Cross Section. The following procedures should be followed to prepare a suitable subgrade to support the subject dike and prolong its service life:

• Undercut the entire dike, where repairs are required, to an approximate elevation of 620 feet for the top and middle sections and 619 feet for the bottom section. The undercutting should extend a minimum of 4 feet outside the base of the proposed dike in both directions.

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 4

• Place a layer of geotextile (Mirafi RS580i or engineer approved equivalent) on the exposed surface.

• The undercutting should then be backfilled using coarse crushed granular material in accordance with Section 5.2 of this report. The top of the prepared subgrade should have an approximate elevation of 622 feet for the top and middle sections and 621 feet for the bottom section.

• Consideration must be provided to place a layer of clay or other impervious material over the granular backfill to prevent loss of impounded water due to flow through the backfill material.

The reinforced subgrade has been designed using the method proposed by Giround and Han (2004), with the following input parameters and assumptions:

Table 5.1.1

DESIGN INPUT FOR REINFORCED SUBGRADE

Wheel Load (lb) 9,000

Tire Contact Pressure (psi) 80

Number of Passes of Axle 50,000

Allowable Rut Depth (in) 3

California Bearing Ratio for Subgrade Soil - Peat 0.5

California Bearing Ratio for Aggregate Backfill 20

It is also recommended that the prepared subgrade be proof rolled to detect any unstable zones. Proof rolling should be accomplished by making a minimum of two complete passes in each of two perpendicular directions, with a fully-loaded tandem-axle dump truck, or other approved pneumatic-tired vehicle with a minimum weight of 20 tons. If proof rolling reveals the presence of unstable material within the subgrade, additional remedial measures may be required to stabilize the subgrade. The actual undercut depths and additional subgrade remediation methods (if required) should be determined by a geotechnical engineer or his/her designated representative.

5.2 Engineered Fill

All soils to be used as engineered fill should be free of organics, debris, frozen soils or any other deleterious materials. All fine-grained soils should be checked for plasticity index and liquid limit before placement. Fine-grained fill materials should have a liquid limit less than 40 percent and plasticity index less than 20 percent (i.e., non-expansive). In general, the on-site soils are highly organic and should not be used as engineered fill. Based on soil conditions encountered in the borings performed along the subject dike, some of the undercut materials that have an organic content less than 3 percent may be suitable for reuse as engineered fill. Additional field observation and laboratory testing by a qualified geotechnical consultant may be required during construction to verify the suitability.

All engineered fill should be compacted to 95 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density and at ±2 percent of optimum moisture content. Fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts and adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade soils and/or adjacent fill. Proper drainage should be maintained during and after fill placement to prevent water from impacting compaction efforts or long-term fill integrity. A qualified geotechnical consultant should be retained to monitor fill placement in order to assure compaction requirements are achieved. Soil density testing should be performed during fill placement activities to assure proper fill compaction. A commonly used testing criterion is one test at least every lift and at least every 200

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 5

feet along the dike. Areas that do not achieve compaction requirements after initial placement should be re-compacted to meet project requirements.

The actual thickness suitable for placement is dependent upon the soil type, compaction equipment, and the compaction specification. In general, fill should be placed in 9-inch loose thickness lifts, assuming appropriately weighted and ballasted compaction equipment is utilized. Sand fills should be compacted using smooth vibratory rollers. Clay fills should be compacted using sheep foot compactor. The geotechnical engineer should be allowed to review the equipment utilized for compaction to confirm suitability relative to the specified loose lift thickness. If necessary, the geotechnical engineer will recommend a revised lift thickness suitable to the equipment performing compaction.

Coarse crushed granular material is recommended as fill for replacement of undercut areas. The coarse crushed granular material may consist of natural or recycled aggregate materials meeting the gradation specification of MDOT Item 21AA, or engineer approved equivalent. Typical lift thickness utilized for this material is 8 inches.

5.3 Excavation and Slope

Familiarity with applicable local state and federal safety regulations, including current Occupational Safety and Hazards Administration (OSHA) excavation and trench safety is vital. Therefore it should be a requisite for both the owner and contractor, with the contractor by and large being responsible for the safety of the site. Slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety (OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926 Subpart P) regulations. Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if not followed, the Owner, contractor, or earthwork or utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties. Maximum allowable slopes for excavations less than 20 feet based on soil type and angle to horizontal are reflected in Table 5.3.1.

Table 5.3.1

OSHA ALLOWABLE SLOPES

Soil Type H:V Slope Angle Stable Rock Vertical 90°

Type A ¾:1 53° Type B 1:1 45° Type C 1½:1 34°

Type A (Short-term)* ½:1 63° *: For a maximum excavation depth of 12 feet.

The overburden soils encountered at the subject dike primarily consisted of very loose and/or very soft organic soils. Based upon the data obtained, it is anticipated that OSHA will classify the on-site soils as Type C. Flatter slopes will be required if seepage conditions occur during construction.

Considering the maximum height of the proposed dike of about 4.5 feet, it is not anticipated that the design of the dike will be controlled by the global stability. Based on our review of the drawings prepared by Ducks Unlimited, it is our opinion that the side slopes of the dike can be graded no steeper than 3(H):1(V).

5.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in all borings advanced at the potential clay borrow site, where the groundwater had a depth ranging from 5 to 8 feet bgs. As stated in our previous geotechnical report, shallow

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 6

groundwater was also observed at most of the boring locations in the dike area. Groundwater is likely to be encountered during construction. However, fluctuations in the water level could occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall. The amount and type of dewatering required during construction will depend on the weather, groundwater levels at the time of construction, and the effectiveness of the contractor’s techniques in preventing surface water runoff from entering open excavations and lowering the groundwater table.

5.5 Dike Restoration Recommendations

We understand that a mobile pump will be used to assist in controlling the water levels around the dike.

When it is in use, the mobile pump will be towed to the site by a pickup truck and set up at the intersection of the three dike sections (i.e., top, middle and bottom). We recommend the areas where the pump will be parked and used, and the truck turnabout be covered by 8 inches of aggregate base. The placement and compaction of the aggregate base should be in accordance with Section 5.2 of this report. We also recommend the aggregate base be evaluated by proof rolling in accordance with Section 5.1 of this report.

This pump working area has been designed as an unpaved road using the method proposed by Giround and Han (2004), with the following input parameters and assumptions:

Table 5.5.1

DESIGN INPUT FOR PUMP WORKING AREA

Wheel Load (lb) 3,500

Tire Contact Pressure (psi) 80

Number of Passes of Axle 10,000

Allowable Rut Depth (in) 3

California Bearing Ratio for Subgrade Soil – Stiff Clay 3

California Bearing Ratio for Aggregate Base 20

In order to improve the long term performance of the dike, we recommend using fine grained materials to construct the entire dike. However, considering both the desired performance and the cost, the dike can be built using fine grained materials at least to the elevation of the full service water level, which is 623 and 622 feet for top/middle and bottom sections, respectively. On-site suitable materials or sand fill can then be used to build the dike to its planned elevations. A recommended typical dike cross section is shown in Figure 3. A detailed discussion about the differences between using clay and sand fills will be provided in an addendum to this report when the laboratory permeability testing is completed.

It will require approximately 3,800 cubic yards of clay (in compacted condition) to construct the dike to the full service water level and additional 3,925 cubic yards of sand and/or clay (in compacted condition) to achieve the finished elevation of the dike. Based on the most recent investigation findings in the upper 10 feet of the clay borrow source and an approximate borrow site area of 400,000 square feet, it is anticipated that there is about 44,000 cubic yards of clay (in bank condition). Therefore, we anticipate there is enough clay material that can be borrowed for the proposed construction.

It is MSG’s opinion that reducing long term settlement is the key to prolong the service life of the subject dike. Based on available previous restoration drawings (prepared by Merritt Engineer last revised on November 4, 1998) for the subject dike, the last restoration of the dike was conducted in 1998 and the restored dike should have a top elevation of about 625 feet. The top elevations of the dike at the time of our investigation were about 621 to 622 feet. Assuming the dike was restored in accordance with the drawings, the dike has been settling on an average rate of 2 to 3 inches per year.

THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP, INC. 7

As stated in our previous geotechnical report, without stabilizing the existing subgrade, the immediate settlement under the load of the proposed dike is anticipated to be 1 to 3 inches and a primary consolidation settlement of 2.5 to 4 feet. Depending on the thickness of the organic soils at the location, the primary consolidation is expected to occur over a period of 3 to 15 years. If our recommendations stated in Section

5.1 regarding subgrade preparation are properly implemented, we anticipate the post construction primary consolidation settlement can be reduced to 3 to 5 inches, which will significantly prolong the service life of the dike. However the organic soils (i.e., peat) are susceptible to secondary creep settlement, which is anticipated to settle at a rate of 0.2 to 0.6 inches per year after the end of the primary consolidation. Due to the variation in the thickness of the peat layer; differential settlement is expected to be significant.

Considering that continuous settlement is anticipated to occur, MSG recommends long term monitoring of the elevation of the top of the dike to decide the time of required maintenance. Additional fill may be needed at various locations along the dike to maintain the required top of dike elevation which will be a significant maintenance cost throughout the service life of the system.

6.0 CLOSURE

The analyses and recommendations in this report are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data obtained during the geotechnical investigation, our understanding of the project and our experience with similar sites and subsurface conditions. Data used during this investigation included:

• Seven (7) exploratory borings performed during this study;

• Twenty (20) exploratory borings performed during our previous study;

• Observations of the project site by MSG staff;

• Results of laboratory testing completed to date; and,

• Published and historic soil and geologic data for the project area.

The subsurface conditions discussed in this report and those shown on the boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. Although individual test borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times.

MSG is not responsible for independent conclusions, opinions, or recommendations made by others based upon information presented in this report.

The project plans and specifications should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that the geotechnical aspects are generally consistent with the recommendations of this report. In addition, site subgrade preparation and engineered fill compaction activities should be monitored by the geotechnical engineer.

FIGURE 1 – SITE LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2 – BORING LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE 3 – RECOMMENDED TYPICAL DIKE CROSS SECTION

Tel: (517) 316-9232 Fax: (517) 316-9233 www.MannikSmithGroup.com

Figure 1: Site Location Map Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

Allegan County, Michigan

Notes:

Tel: (517) 316-9232 Fax: (517) 316-9233 www.MannikSmithGroup.com

Figure 2: Boring Location Plan Fennville Farms Zone 7 Dike Repairs

Allegan County, Michigan

Notes:

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

2193 Association Drive, Suite 200, Okemos, MI 48864 Tel: 517.316.9232 Fax: 517.316.9233 www.MannikSmithGroup.com

EXHIBIT A

GENERAL SOIL SAMPLE NOTES

Unless noted, all terms utilized herein refer to the Standard Definitions presented in ASTM D653.

Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586): A 2.0-inch outside-diameter (O.D.), 1-3/8-inch inside-diameter (I.D.) split barrel sampler is driven into undisturbed soil by means of a 140-pound weight falling freely through a vertical distance of 30 inches. The sampler is normally driven three successive 6-inch increments. The total number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration is the Standard Penetration Resistance (N).

COHESIVE SOILS COHESIONLESS SOILS

Consistency Approximate Range of N

Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf)

Density Classification

Approximate Range of N

Very Soft 0 – 1 Below 500 Very Loose 0 – 4 Soft 2 – 4 500 – 1,000 Loose 5 – 10 Medium Stiff 5 – 8 1,000 – 2,000 Medium Dense 11 – 30 Stiff 9 – 15 2,000 – 4,000 Dense 31 – 50 Very Stiff 16 – 30 4,000 – 8,000 Very Dense Over 50 Hard 31 – 50 8,000 – 16,000 Very Hard Over 50 Over 16,000

CLASSIFICATION PARTICLE SIZES

The major soil constituent is the principal noun, i.e.

sand, silt, gravel. The second major soil constituent and other minor constituents are reported as follows:

Boulders - Greater than 12 inches (305 mm) Cobbles - 3 inches (76.2 mm) to 12 inches (305 mm)

Second Major Constituent Minor Constituents Gravel: Coarse - ¾ inches (19.05 mm) to 3 inches (76.2 mm) (percent by weight) (percent by weight) Fine - No.4 (4.75 mm) to ¾ inches (19.05 mm)

Sand: Coarse - No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 4 (4.75 mm) Trace – 1% to 11% Trace – 1% to 11% Medium - No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm) Fine - No. 200 (0.074 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) Adjective – 12% to 35% Little – 12% to 22% Silt - 0.005 mm to 0.074 mm (clayey, silty, etc.) Clay - Less than 0.005 mm Some – 23% to 33% And – Over 35%

If clay content is sufficient so that clay dominates soil properties, clay becomes the principal noun with the other major soil constituent as modifier: i.e., silty clay. Other minor soil constituents may be included in accordance with the classification breakdown for cohesionless soils: i.e., silty clay, trace sand, little gravel.

If sand particle size is greater than 11% by weight of the total sample weight, the adjective (i.e., fine, medium or coarse) is added to the soil description for the sand portion of the sample, provided sand is the major or second major constituent.

SAMPLE DESIGNATIONS

AS Auger Sample - directly from auger flight ST Shelby Tube Sample - 3-inch diameter unless otherwise noted

BS Miscellaneous Samples - Bottle or Bag PS Piston Sample - 3-inch diameter unless otherwise noted

MC Macro-Core Sample - 2.25-inch O.D., 1.75-inch I.D., 5 feet long polyethylene liner RC Rock Core - NX core unless otherwise noted

LB Large-Bore (Micro-Core) Sample - 1-inch diameter, 2 feet long polyethylene liner CS CME Continuous Sample - 5 feet long, 3-inch diameter unless otherwise noted SS Split Spoon Sample - 1-inch or 2-inch O.D. HA Hand Auger

LS Split Spoon (SS) Sampler with 3 feet long liner insert DP Drive Point

NR No Recovery CM Coring Machine

The Mannik & Smith Group, Inc.

2193 Association Drive, Suite 200, Okemos, MI 48864 ph: (517) 316-9232 fax: (517) 316-9233 www.manniksmithgroup.com

POORLY-GRADED SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT

GRAVEL

TYPICAL NAMES

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY WITH

OR WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR

GRAVEL

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

GRAVELS

MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION

IS LARGER THAN

NO. 4 SIEVE

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

SYMBOLS KEY

SAMPLE TYPES

Shaly Dolomite

Poorly Graded Gravelly Sand

Sandy Silt

Clayey Sand

Poorly Graded Sand with Clay

Topsoil

Shale

MAJOR DIVISIONS

SANDS

MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION

IS FINER THAN NO.

4 SIEVE SIZE

CLEAN GRAVELS

WITH LESS THAN

15% FINES

GRAVELS WITH

15% OR MORE

FINES

CLEAN SANDS

WITH LESS THAN

15% FINES

WELL-GRADED SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT

GRAVEL

INORGANIC SILTS OF HIGH PLASTICITY WITH

OR WITHOUT SAND OR GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT

SAND

Bentonite Pellets

First Encountered Groundwater

Screened Casing

Static Groundwater

BORING / WELL LOG KEY

Blank Casing

Filter Pack

Portland Cement

Well Graded Gravel with Clay

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SILTY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL

WELL SYMBOLS

CLAYEY SANDS WITH OR WITHOUT GRAVEL

INORGANIC SILTS OF LOW TO MEDIUM

PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR

GRAVEL

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM

PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND OR

GRAVEL

ORGANIC SILTS OR CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY WITH OR WITHOUT SAND

OR GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR LESS

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS WITH OR

WITHOUT SAND

SILTY GRAVELS WITH OR WITHOUT SAND

C

O A

R S

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

O

IL

S M

O R

E T

H A

N H

A

LF

IS

C

O A

R S

E R

T H

A N

N O

. 2

S

IE

V E

F

IN

E -G

R A

IN

E

D S

O

IL

S M

O R

E T

H A

N H

A

LF

IS

F

IN

E

R T

H A

N N

O . 2

S

IE

V

E

SANDS WITH 15%

OR MORE FINES

OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS

Grab Sample

Macro-core Sample

Gravelly Silt

Well Graded Gravel with Silt

Well Graded Gravelly Sand

Limestone

B O

R

IN

G

W E

LL

L

O G

U S

C S

K E

Y

/2 4/

:0

W :\P

R O

JE

C

T S

\P R

O

JE

C T

S K

-O \M

D M

B

\A

D M

IN

IS

T R

A T

IO

N

\B O

R R

O W

S O

U R

C E

S

IN

V E

S T

IG

A

T

IO

N \L

A B

\M D

M B

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S .G

P J

TOPSOIL: 11 inches

Brown clayey and silty SAND, moist

(SC-SM)

Brown and gray silty CLAY, some…