Appendix_3v6-2016-12-20_3_Int._GEO-TECH_-_SIGNED_-_2.PDF

Technical Memorandum

To: Robert Mitchell

From: Scott Doehla

Date: 7/21/2016

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Memorandum

Roadway and Intersection Improvements

Fort Drum, New York

CHA Project No.: 31387.1001.32000

This memorandum summarizes the results of a geotechnical exploration program performed by

CHA for BES Incorporated for the proposed Intersection Improvements at Fort Drum in Jefferson

County, New York. The project site is shown on Figure 1- Site Location Map, included in

Appendix A. The primary objectives of this program were to explore the subsurface conditions at the project site and provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements.

Site and Project Description

The project site is located at Fort Drum in Jefferson County, New York. The project site consists of parking areas, open field spaces, as well as various administrative offices, and training classrooms. Several subsurface utilities including sewer, water, gas, and communication lines are located within the project site. Overhead electric lines are also located at the project site. The project consists of improvements to four intersections, identified as GA for the Gas Alley

Intersection, MCI for the Munns Corner Intersection, MCP for the Munns Corner Parking Lot, and

NB for the Nash Boulevard Intersection. Photographs of the site taken during the subsurface exploration are provided in the Photograph Log included in Appendix B of this memorandum.

GA is located at the intersection of Tigris River Valley Road and Ontario Avenue, in an area known as Gas Alley. The intersection is bordered by a wooded area to the north, a fenced-in parking lot to the west, a fueling station to the east, and Restore Hope Avenue to the south.

Proposed improvements at GA will include the widening of Tigris River Valley Road and redesign of Ontario Avenue at the intersection. The ground surface within GA ranges in elevation from El.

+636 feet to El. +643 feet. The surrounding areas are also generally level.

2 Roadway and Intersection Improvements

MCI is located at the intersection of Munns Corner Road and Hanger Access Drive. The Wheeler-

Sack Air Field borders the site on the west and east, with a densely wooded area and shooting range directly southeast of the intersection. The Black River extends from south of the shooting range to the eastern side of the site. Roadway realignment and intersection improvements are proposed in this area. The ground surface within MCI ranges in elevation from El. +692 to El.

+698 feet. The ground surface slopes down gradually in the southeast direction.

MCP is located along Munns Corner Road, approximately 550 feet east of MCI. The Wheeler-

Sack Air Field borders the site on the west and east, with a densely wooded area and shooting range directly southeast of the site. The Black River extends from south of the shooting range to the eastern side of the site. The ground surface within MCP is generally level, sloping down gradually in the southeast direction. The ground surface within MCP ranges in elevation from El.

+694 to El. +698 feet.

NB is located at the intersection of Nash Boulevard and Tigris River Valley Road. NB is bordered by Lewis Avenue to the north, 4th Street West to the west, 5th Street East to the east and Officers

Loop the south. Proposed improvements will include the construction of sidewalks and a roundabout that will connect Officers Loop, Tigris River Valley Road, and Nash Boulevard. The ground surface within NB is relatively level, ranging in elevation from El. +654 to El. +656 feet.

The southern side of Nash Boulevard slopes gradually downward in the direction of Officers Loop and the surrounding wooded area.

Subsurface Exploration

Work permits were filed with the engineering department of Fort Drum to seek utility clearance from all disciplines. Final permit approval was granted after CHA met on-site with members of the Plumbing, Electrical, and NEC Planning departments. Subsequent to permit approval, CHA conducted a subsurface exploration at the project site consisting of four (4) borings, and four (4) infiltration tests. One boring and one infiltration test was performed at each of the four site locations. The borings were numbered GA B-1, MCI B-1, MCP B-1, and NB B-1. Infiltration tests were numbered GA IT-1, MCI IT-1, MCP IT-1, and NB IT-1. A member of the Fort Drum Cultural

Resources Department was present during the advancement of borings MCI B-1 and MCP B-1.

The exploration began on April 4, 2016 and was completed on April 7, 2016. The approximate boring locations were pre-marked in the field by a CHA surveyor. These locations were surveyed on site by a CHA surveyor; however, some locations were subsequently changed to remain clear of any utilities. As-drilled locations were measured from staked locations, as well as from existing site features. Boring elevations were either determined by a CHA surveyor or interpolated based contours shown on the site survey drawing. The locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to determine them. The boring locations are shown on Figures 2 through 5, Boring Location Plan, included within Appendix A.

CHA retained QCQA Laboratories Inc. of Schuylerville New York to advance the borings and infiltration tests. The field exploration was performed under the observation of a CHA geotechnical engineer who confirmed proper drilling and sampling methods were utilized for the

3 Roadway and Intersection Improvements exploration, observed and described soil and rock samples, and prepared field logs documenting the subsurface conditions. Typed copies of the boring logs are included in Appendix C.

Borings were advanced with a truck mounted CME 45C drill rig, and advanced with 3.25 inch I.D.

hollow stem augers. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 11.8 to 12 feet below grade, and were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. Split spoon samples were generally obtained continuously from the ground surface to boring refusal depths. Standard Penetration

Testing (SPT) was utilized during split-spoon sampling within the borings in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) Standard D-1586 “Standard Test Method for Standard

Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils.” The split spoon samples were advanced using a 140 () pound safety hammer falling 30 () inches on a cathead system. “Blow counts” are recorded on the boring logs, and indicate the penetration resistance for a 6 inch advancement of the split soon. Initially, the spoon is driven 6 inches to seat the sampler in undisturbed material. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the next 12 inches is taken as the standard penetration test resistance or “N” value. This value is indicative of the soil’s in-place density or consistency. The final 6 inch increment that the spoon is driven is not included in the determination of the “N” value. Sample refusal is defined as a resistance greater than 50 blows per six inches of penetration.

Infiltration testing was conducted at four (4) locations as shown on Figures 2 through 5 by drilling a solid steel casing to depths between 3.8 and 5.2 feet below grade and flushing the casing of cuttings using a roller bit. The casing was filled with water such that a minimum depth of 24 inches of water was present within the casing for presoaking. Following the overnight presoaking period, the infiltration was evaluated by re-filling the casing with 24 inches of water then measuring the water surface drop within each casing after 60 minutes, then repeating the process for a period of three hours. The infiltration testing procedure generally conformed to the requirements of Appendix D of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual.

Upon completion of testing, the casings were withdrawn and the holes were backfilled with soil cuttings.

Subsurface Conditions

Regional Geology

According to the Surficial Geologic Map of New York – Adirondack Sheet (Caldwell, D.H., 1991), the surficial soils at the site are mapped as lacustrine delta.

According to the Geologic Map of New York– Adirondack Sheet (Fisher, D.W., 1970), the bedrock at the site is mapped as limestone.

4 Roadway and Intersection Improvements

Subsurface Stratigraphy

Subsurface conditions encountered in individual borings are detailed and described on the boring logs included in Appendix C of this memo. Subsurface conditions are described as follows, in order of increasing depth:

Topsoil– Topsoil was encountered at the ground surface in borings MCI B-1, MCP B-1, and NB

B-1. The topsoil extended from the ground surface to depths ranging from 0.4 to 0.8 feet below grade.

Fill– Fill was encountered at the ground surface within boring GA B-1 and extended from the ground surface to a depth of 1.0 foot below grade. The fill consisted of fine to coarse sand, with little silt and little fine gravel. The fill was described as moist and gray in color. SPT “N” values indicate that the density of the fill is compact.

Sand– Sand was encountered below the fill or topsoil layers within all borings. The sand extended to boring termination depths ranging from 11.8 to 12 feet below grade. The sand generally consisted of fine to medium sand, and varying amounts of silt. The sand was generally brown in color and the moisture content was visually described as moist to wet. SPT “N” values ranged from 7 to 90 blows per foot (bpf), indicating very loose to very compact conditions.

Groundwater Observations

Groundwater observations were made during drilling operations through observation of soil sample moisture content and by measurement of water within the borings. Groundwater was measured at a depth of 6.5 feet within boring GA B-1 during drilling. Groundwater was not encountered in the other borings during drilling. It is important to note that groundwater levels at the site at any given time may differ from those shown on the subsurface logs due to seasonal factors, which include but not limited to temperature and precipitation.

Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was performed on samples recovered during the subsurface exploration by

QCQA Laboratories, Inc. of Schuylerville, New York. Testing included four particle-size analysis tests, performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D422. The results of the laboratory tests are provided in Appendix D of this memorandum.

Infiltration Test Results

Infiltration testing was performed at locations GA IT-1, MCI IT-1, MCP IT-1, and NB IT-1 in general accordance with the procedure detailed in Appendix D of the New York State Stormwater

Design Manual. The results of the testing are summarized in Table 1 below:

5 Roadway and Intersection Improvements

Table 1: Infiltration Test Results

Test No.

Elevation

Performed

(ft)

Observed Drop in Water Level (inches)

Infiltration Test Run No.

1 2 3 4

GA IT-1 +633.3 0.96 0.36 0.60 0.84

MCI IT-1 +690.3 21.12 16.44 9.84 11.28

MCP IT-1 +695.1 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0

NB IT-1 +654.9 0.60 1.53 1.20 1.56

The time duration of each run was 1 hour; therefore, the values presented above represent the rate of infiltration in inches per hour of each test run. The engineer designing any infiltration systems should consider these results and apply the appropriate safety factors to these results in design.

For detailed descriptions of the in-situ materials, refer to the boring logs included in Appendix C.

Geotechnical Recommendations

The following sections present the geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site improvements.

Roadway Pavement

We understand that site improvements will include new roadway pavements and a new parking lot. These improvements may include both concrete and asphalt pavements. Based on observations made during drilling, the subgrade below the improvements generally consists of loose to medium compact, slightly silty sand. This material will provide adequate subgrade support for the proposed pavements. For concrete pavements, a subgrade modulus of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be used for design, and for asphalt pavements, a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 10 should be used for design.

For pavements placed on natural soil, the areas within the proposed site improvements shall be prepared in accordance with the section: Site Preparation. The subbase material shall consist of

NYSDOT Type 2 (Item 304.12) or Type 4 (Item 304.14) subbase, and be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557). The subbase course shall be underlain by a geotextile separation/stabilization fabric. The geotextile separation/stabilization fabric will reduce the potential for future fouling of the subbase material.

A properly chosen woven geotextile fabric can provide additional strength to the proposed full depth pavement sections. The fabric shall be a woven geotextile with an apparent opening size

(AOS) equal to or smaller than the U.S. Standard sieve size of 50 (such as Mirafi 500X or equal).

6 Roadway and Intersection Improvements

For full depth pavement sections, all subgrade surfaces shall be crowned and sloped to promote drainage of the subbase course. Failure to provide drainage for the subbase course will degrade future pavement performance and may result in premature pavement failure due to softening from excessive moisture or frost action.

Site Preparation

The areas within the proposed site improvements shall be stripped of asphalt pavement, topsoil, underground utilities, and any existing fill materials to subgrade elevation. Existing utilities within the project limits should be re-routed, excavated, and the resulting excavations backfilled with structural fill. In areas where over-excavation is not required, subsequent to removing the concrete, asphalt and topsoil and excavating to proposed grades, the exposed subgrade should be proof rolled with a smooth drum roller with a minimum static weight of 10 tons operating in its vibratory mode.

The roller should complete at least six passes over the subgrade at a speed not exceeding 3 feet per second. If the vibratory roller tends to “bring up” moisture, the subgrade should be proof rolled with the roller operating in static mode. In locations where accessibility of a smooth drum roller is not possible, these areas should be proof rolled using an alternative roller or pneumatic tamper that can achieve a similar result. Areas which pump or weave during proof rolling or tamping shall be undercut by a minimum of 12 inches and stabilized with structural fill.

Structural Fill

Structural fill shall be used for backfilling of excavations and undercuts and when raising grades beneath pavements.

Structural fill shall be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8.0 inches in thickness and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D 1557). Actual lift thickness shall be based on the type of compaction equipment used during construction. The on-site soils may be suitable as structural fill provided the soil can be compacted to the required degree. The suitability of on-site soils planned for use as fill shall be verified by laboratory testing during construction. On-site soils that are not tested or that do not meet the requirements for structural fill may be used as fill at the site in landscaped areas where it will not affect the stability of the proposed construction, as determined by the engineer. Structural fill shall conform to the following gradation:

7 Roadway and Intersection Improvements

Table 2: Gradation Requirements for Structural Fill

Sieve Size Percent Passing by Weight

2-1/2 inch 100

No. 4 40 to 85

No. 10 20 to 80

No. 40 10 to 60

No. 200 5 to 25

Excavations

All excavations should be performed in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) standards and applicable state and local codes. In areas where sufficient sloping of excavation cuts is not possible, the excavation should be shored, sheeted and braced.

The excavation support system chosen by the contractor should be designed by a Professional engineer licensed in the State of New York.

Control of Water

Groundwater control procedures will not be required during construction. Project specifications shall require that the contractor maintain groundwater at a minimum depth of 2 feet below the excavation bottom at all times to maintain stable conditions. It should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain dry conditions so that construction may be completed in the dry. A cofferdam or sheet piles may be required for control of groundwater and support of excavation.

Observation During Construction

A qualified geotechnical engineer should carefully inspect the final excavation surfaces to ascertain that the subgrade has been properly prepared. The inspection of subgrade should include probing at select locations, specifically to verify the bearing capacity of the supporting soils and where load bearing soils may have been disturbed.

Materials used as structural fill, including those used under pavements should be tested by a qualified soils laboratory to verify they meet the specified gradations and to determine their maximum dry density for compaction. In-place density tests should be performed to verify that compaction methods and equipment achieve the required densities.

8 Roadway and Intersection Improvements

Closure

The geotechnical recommendations presented in this memorandum are based, in part, on project and subsurface information available at the time this memorandum was prepared and in accordance with generally accepted soil engineering practices. Some variation of subsurface conditions may occur at locations not explored that may not become evident until construction. Depending on the nature and extent of the variations, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this memorandum.

Attachments:

Appendix A: Figures

Appendix B: Photo Log

Appendix C: Log Legend & Boring Logs

Appendix D: Laboratory Test Results

V:\Projects\ANY\K4\31387\Reports\Geo\31387_Geotech_Memo.docx

Roadway and Intersection Improvements

Appendix A

Figures

ONEIDA AVE

ONTARIO

AVE

TIGRIS

RIVER

VALLEY

ROAD

FOB SHANK ROAD

MUNNS CORNERS ROAD

MUNNS

CORNERS

ROAD

MSR

TAMPA

FOB SHANK ROAD

TH

COMBAT AVIATIO

N

BRIG

ADE HEA

DQUARTE

RS

00451

00452

M460B

M460A

M461B

02190

TIGRIS RIVER

VALLEY ROAD

OFFICERS

LOOP DR

5TH

STREETW

Appendix B

Photograph Log

CME 45C Truck Mounted Drill Rig

Boring GA B-1 and Infiltration Test GA IT-1 at Ontario Avenue/Tigris River Valley Road Intersection

Fort Drum Intersection and Roadway Improvements

CHA Project No.: 31387.1001.32000 May 2016

Boring MCI B-1 and Infiltration Test MCI IT-1 locations at Munns Corner Road Intersection

Boring MCP B-1 and Infiltration Test MCP IT-1 locations at Proposed Munns Corner Road Parking Lot

CHA Project No.: 31387.1001.32000 May 2016

Advancing Casing at NB IT-1 Infiltration Test

Infiltration Test NB IT-1 at Nash Boulevard/Tigris River Valley Road Intersection

CHA Project No.: 31387.1001.32000 May 2016

Appendix C

Boring Logs

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

1.5

1.1

1.3

1.8

1.8

27-23-15-15

7-10-11-14

17-14-19-29

14-26-34-39

4-24-30-37

53-37-53-50/3"

Groundwater observations made during drilling may not represent static conditions.

Hammer bouncing 0-1'

Sample S-4 Laboratory Results:

Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 96.3% Fines = 3.7% f.m.c. SAND, little silt, little f. gravel, gray, compact, moist (FILL)

f. SAND, trace silt, brown/orange, compact, moist (SP) becomes brown, m. compact (SP) becomes compact (SP) f.m. SAND, trace silt, brown, v. compact, moist (SP) becomes wet (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

End of Boring at 11.8 ft

883:22 PM4-4-16 6.5

WATER

LEVELS

AND/OR

WELL DATA

G

R A

P H

IC

S

S A

M P

LE

D E

P T

H (F ee

t) Remarks on

Character of Drilling, Water Return, etc.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (F ee t)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(f t)

S A

M P

. A D

V ft)

LE

N . C

O R

E ft)

Blows Per 6" on Split Spoon

Sampler

S A

M P

./C O

R E

N U

M B

E R

"N

V al ue or

R Q

D

DRILLER:

4/4/2016 3:00:00 PM

SURFACE

ELEV:

Fort Drum, New York

CLIENT:

4/4/2016 3:40:00 PM

QCQA Laboratories Inc.

S. Doehla

J. Leonhardt

START DATE and TIME:

FINISH DATE and TIME:

CHECKED BY:

INSPECTOR: N. DeFlorio

BES, Inc.

CONTRACTOR:

637.1 (ft; Estimated)

LOCATION: None

Safety On Cathead Rope

DRILLING METHOD: 3.25" HSA

HAMMER TYPE: ROD SIZE:

CASING

BOTTOM

(ft)

WATER

DEPTH

(ft)

HOLE

BOTTOM

(ft)

READING

TYPE

TIMEDATE

WATER LEVEL

OBSERVATIONS

DRILL FLUID:

AW

DRILL RIG TYPE & MODEL: Truck Rig, CME 45C

Roadway and Intersection Improvements

SUBSURFACE LOG

HOLE NUMBER GA B-1

31387.1001.32000PROJECT NUMBER:

V :\P

R O

JE

C

T S

\A N

Y \K

4\

7\

D A

T A

\B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S \3

_B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P J

During Drilling

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

1.2

1.1

1.2

1.4

3-4-7-6

5-5-7-6

8-7-9-11

5-7-7-7

5-6-8-9

12-9-12-15

Groundwater observations made during drilling may not represent static conditions.

Sample S-2 Laboratory Results Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 98.4% Fines = 1.6%

TOPSOIL (TOPSOIL)

f. SAND, trace silt, trace f. gravel, brown/orange, m. compact, moist (SP) f.m. SAND, trace silt, brown, m. compact, moist (SP) Similar Soil (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

End of Boring at 12 ft

1281:55 PM4-4-16 None

WATER

LEVELS

AND/OR

WELL DATA

G

R A

P H

IC

S

S A

M P

LE

D E

P T

H (F ee

t) Remarks on

Character of Drilling, Water Return, etc.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (F ee t)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(f t)

S A

M P

. A D

V ft)

LE

N . C

O R

E ft)

Blows Per 6" on Split Spoon

Sampler

S A

M P

./C O

R E

N U

M B

E R

"N

V al ue or

R Q

D

DRILLER:

4/4/2016 1:10:00 PM

SURFACE

ELEV:

Fort Drum, New York

CLIENT:

4/4/2016 1:55:00 PM

QCQA Laboratories Inc.

S. Doehla

J. Leonhardt

START DATE and TIME:

FINISH DATE and TIME:

CHECKED BY:

INSPECTOR: N. DeFlorio

BES, Inc.

CONTRACTOR:

694.3 (ft; Estimated)

LOCATION: None

Safety On Cathead Rope

DRILLING METHOD: 3.25" HSA

HAMMER TYPE: ROD SIZE:

CASING

BOTTOM

(ft)

WATER

DEPTH

(ft)

HOLE

BOTTOM

(ft)

READING

TYPE

TIMEDATE

WATER LEVEL

OBSERVATIONS

DRILL FLUID:

AW

DRILL RIG TYPE & MODEL: Truck Rig, CME 45C

Roadway and Intersection Improvements

SUBSURFACE LOG

HOLE NUMBER MCI B-1

31387.1001.32000PROJECT NUMBER:

V :\P

R O

JE

C

T S

\A N

Y \K

4\

7\

D A

T A

\B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S \3

_B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P

Completion

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.4

4-8-8-7

3-6-6-5

4-4-6-8

4-7-9-12

6-7-8-8

10-9-9-11

Groundwater observations made during drilling may not represent static conditions.

Sample S-4 Laboratory Results Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 98.0% Fines = 2.0%

TOPSOIL (TOPSOIL)

f. SAND, trace silt, brown, m. compact, moist

(SP)

Similar Soil (SP) f.m. SAND, trace silt, brown, loose, moist

(SP)

Similar Soil (SP) becomes m. compact (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

End of Boring at 12 ft

1282:50 PM4-4-16 None

WATER

LEVELS

AND/OR

WELL DATA

G

R A

P H

IC

S

S A

M P

LE

D E

P T

H (F ee

t) Remarks on

Character of Drilling, Water Return, etc.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (F ee t)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(f t)

S A

M P

. A D

V ft)

LE

N . C

O R

E ft)

Blows Per 6" on Split Spoon

Sampler

S A

M P

./C O

R E

N U

M B

E R

"N

V al ue or

R Q

D

DRILLER:

4/4/2016 2:05:00 PM

SURFACE

ELEV:

Fort Drum, New York

CLIENT:

4/4/2016 2:50:00 PM

QCQA Laboratories Inc.

S. Doehla

J. Leonhardt

START DATE and TIME:

FINISH DATE and TIME:

CHECKED BY:

INSPECTOR: N. DeFlorio

BES, Inc.

CONTRACTOR:

693.8 (ft; Surveyed)

LOCATION: None

Safety On Cathead Rope

DRILLING METHOD: 3.25" HSA

HAMMER TYPE: ROD SIZE:

CASING

BOTTOM

(ft)

WATER

DEPTH

(ft)

HOLE

BOTTOM

(ft)

READING

TYPE

TIMEDATE

WATER LEVEL

OBSERVATIONS

DRILL FLUID:

AW

DRILL RIG TYPE & MODEL: Truck Rig, CME 45C

Roadway and Intersection Improvements

SUBSURFACE LOG

HOLE NUMBER MCP B-1

31387.1001.32000PROJECT NUMBER:

V :\P

R O

JE

C

T S

\A N

Y \K

4\

7\

D A

T A

\B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S \3

_B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P

S-3

S-4

S-5

S-6

1.5

1.4

1.2

1.1

1.4

1.1

1.4

1-5-7-9

3-5-5-1

4-3-4-6

4-4-10-15

9-15-21-33

38-24-29-33

Groundwater observations made during drilling may not represent static conditions.

Sample S-3 Laboratory Results Gravel = 0.0% Sand = 99.2% Fines = 0.8%

TOPSOIL (TOPSOIL)

f. SAND, little silt, brown, m. compact, moist

(SM)

f.m. SAND, trace silt, brown, loose, moist

(SP)

Similar Soil (SP)

Similar Soil (SP) becomes m. compact (SP)

f. SAND, brown, compact, moist (SP)

Similar Soil (SP) becomes v. compact (SP)

End of Boring at 12 ft

12811:50 AM4-5-16 None

WATER

LEVELS

AND/OR

WELL DATA

G

R A

P H

IC

S

S A

M P

LE

D E

P T

H (F ee

t) Remarks on

Character of Drilling, Water Return, etc.

DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N (F ee t)

R E

C O

V E

R Y

(f t)

S A

M P

. A D

V ft)

LE

N . C

O R

E ft)

Blows Per 6" on Split Spoon

Sampler

S A

M P

./C O

R E

N U

M B

E R

"N

V al ue or

R Q

D

DRILLER:

4/5/2016 11:05:00 AM

SURFACE

ELEV:

Fort Drum, New York

CLIENT:

4/5/2016 11:50:00 AM

QCQA Laboratories Inc.

S. Doehla

J. Leonhardt

START DATE and TIME:

FINISH DATE and TIME:

CHECKED BY:

INSPECTOR: N. DeFlorio

BES, Inc.

CONTRACTOR:

653.7 (ft; Surveyed)

LOCATION: None

Safety On Cathead Rope

DRILLING METHOD: 3.25" HSA

HAMMER TYPE: ROD SIZE:

CASING

BOTTOM

(ft)

WATER

DEPTH

(ft)

HOLE

BOTTOM

(ft)

READING

TYPE

TIMEDATE

WATER LEVEL

OBSERVATIONS

DRILL FLUID:

AW

DRILL RIG TYPE & MODEL: Truck Rig, CME 45C

Roadway and Intersection Improvements

SUBSURFACE LOG

HOLE NUMBER NB B-1

31387.1001.32000PROJECT NUMBER:

V :\P

R O

JE

C

T S

\A N

Y \K

4\

7\

D A

T A

\B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S \3

_B O

R

IN

G _L

O G

S .G

P

Appendix D

Laboratory Test Results

QCQA Laboratories, Inc.

Schuylerville, NY

4/29/16

B2B1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

#10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 78.3 10.0

3.7

0.9796 0.6856 0.3230

0.2826 0.2152 0.1680

0.1500 2.15 0.96

SP

CHA Companies

Fort Drum Intersection and Roadway Improvements

CHA # 31387.1001.46000

ST16-026

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: B2 B-1 Sample Number: S-4 Depth: 6 - 8' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 74.6 3.7 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

Particle Size Distribution Report

4/29/16

B3B1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

#4 #10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 99.6 44.7

3.8 1.6

1.2725 1.0854 0.5863

0.4742 0.3137 0.2216

0.1920 3.05 0.87

SP

CHA Companies

Fort Drum Intersection and Roadway Improvements

CHA # 31387.1001.46000

ST16-026

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: B3 B-1 Sample Number: S-2 Depth: 2 - 4' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

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 0.0 0.0 0.4 54.9 43.1 1.6 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

4/29/16

B4B1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

#10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 84.9

8.1 2.0

0.7171 0.4294 0.3057

0.2717 0.2133 0.1718

0.1565 1.95 0.95

SP

CHA Companies

Fort Drum Intersection and Roadway Improvements

CHA # 31387.1001.46000

ST16-026

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: B4 B-1 Sample Number: S-4 Depth: 6 - 8' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 82.9 2.0 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in

4/29/16

B5B1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

#4 #10 #40

#100 #200

100.0 98.9 36.4

2.2 0.8

1.4042 1.2187 0.6925

0.5643 0.3690 0.2526

0.2157 3.21 0.91

SP

CHA Companies

Fort Drum Intersection and Roadway Improvements

CHA # 31387.1001.46000

ST16-026

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: B5 B-1 Sample Number: S-3 Depth: 4 - 6' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

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 0.0 0.0 1.1 62.5 35.6 0.8 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

/8 in