final reconnaissance geotechnical report …€¦ · final reconnaissance geotechnical report...

ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING

FINAL

RECONNAISSANCE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

FLOATPLANE POND

JUNEAU, ALASKA

DECEMBER 2006

FINAL

RECONNAISSANCE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

FLOATPLANE POND

JUNEAU, ALASKA

Prepared for:

Toner-Nordling and Associates, Inc. 5368 Commercial Boulevard

Juneau, Alaska 99801

Prepared by:

DOWL Engineers 4041 B Street

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 562-2000

W.O. D59440 Area 6

Report No. 4667

December 2006

FINAL Reconnaissance Geotechnical Report Floatplane Pond December 2006 Juneau, Alaska

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 1.1 Planned Improvements................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of Investigation .............................................................................................1 1.3 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................2

2.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD EXPLORATION................................................................4 2.1 Research......................................................................................................................4 2.2 Field Exploration ........................................................................................................4

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS ...............................................................................................6

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................7 4.1 Floatplane Pond ..........................................................................................................7 4.2 Proposed Development Areas...................................................................................11

5.0 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................13

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................17

FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Map ...............................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Proposed Test Boring Locations .............................................................................15 Figure 3: West End Development Proposed Test Boring Locations ......................................16 Figure 4: East End/RSA Proposed Test Boring Locations .....................................................16

TABLES

Table 1: General Soil Conditions..............................................................................................8 Table 2: Typical Material Gradation.......................................................................................13

PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Stockpiled Material ...........................................................................................5 Photograph 2: Dredge and Barge..............................................................................................9 Photograph 3: Cutting Head on Dredge....................................................................................9

APPENDICES

Appendix A.......................................................................................... Test Hole Location Map Appendix B ........................................................................................... Laboratory Test Results Appendix C .............................................................................. Supplemental Soils Information Appendix D..............................................................................................................Photographs


Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) is considering a plan to dredge material from the

existing floatplane pond at the Juneau International Airport (JNU) in Juneau, Alaska

(Figure 1). Dredging the floatplane pond is being considered as a means of discouraging

ditch weed growth in the pond, and as a way to generate material that can be used to support

future development on the airport. This reconnaissance geotechnical report presents the

results of our preliminary research, preliminary field exploration, laboratory soil testing

program, and our conclusions regarding dredging and site development in support of the

proposed project. This work was performed for Toner-Nordling and Associates, Inc. (TN) on

behalf of CBJ.

1.1 Planned Improvements

The proposed Juneau Floatplane Pond project is the initial step towards constructing planned

airport improvements that will address safety and capacity issues and enhance airport

operations. Currently there are several airport projects under consideration:

• expansion of the runway safety area,

• construction of a new snow removal equipment facility, and

• development of west end and east end acreage which increases developable land to

expand the airport to meet existing and future needs.

These projects will require large quantities of fill material (up to 1.0 million cubic yards).

Under consideration is dredging of the floatplane pond to provide the necessary quantities of

material to construct the airport improvements. The dredging of material also serves to

deepen the floatplane pond which will prevent the growth of ditch weed, an invasive aquatic

weed that flourishes in shallow water.

1.2 Purpose of Investigation

The purpose of this investigation was to obtain information that will assist in the

development of a dredging plan and the construction of the planned improvements.

Information regarding existing subsurface conditions on airport property, as well as an

understanding of previous dredging operations at JNU, was obtained through research and a


Page 2

site visit. During the site visit, samples of the floatplane pond material were collected; the

depth of unsuitable organics and silt overlying the gravels was observed, and the hydrologic

conditions in and around the floatplane pond were evaluated.

1.3 Scope of Work

A geotechnical exploration plan was delineated and submitted in a proposal dated

September 11, 2006. Written authorization to proceed with the project was received on

September 20, 2006, and in accordance with that proposal, the exploration plan was initiated.


Page 3

Figure 1: Project Map


Page 4

2.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD EXPLORATION

This section presents the technical data obtained from office research and the field

investigation. The methods and procedures used in obtaining the data are presented. The

data should be considered accurate only at the locations specified and only to the degree

implied by the methods used. The data presented was obtained specifically to address the

needs of the design, and may not be adequate for construction purposes.

2.1 Research

DOWL Engineers (DOWL) began the preliminary investigation by researching existing soils

information in the project area from their in-house soils library. In addition, the following

organizations were also contacted:

• Toner-Nordling and Associates., Inc.,

• Federal Aviation Administration,

• City and Borough of Juneau,

• Juneau International Airport,

• Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities - Southeast, and

• R&M Consultants - Juneau office.

The information obtained included the draft Environmental Impact Statement, construction

improvement plans for the taxiway extension and Fixed Base Operator lots, and plans from

the Directional Localizer Road relocation project. The subsurface information collected

during this phase is shown on Figures A-1 and A-2, Appendix A.

2.2 Field Exploration

The sample collection and hand probe field exploration for the Juneau Floatplane Pond

Dredging project was conducted on from September 28, 2006. A backhoe excavated five

separate locations along the edges of the pond to a depth of approximately eight feet, the

reach of the excavator from shore.

The excavating was performed with a Hitachi EX200LC tracked excavator owned and

operated by JNU. A geologist supervised the collection of samples from the distinct soil


Page 5

layers. The samples were then transported to DOWL’s laboratory, Alaska Testlab, in

accordance with ASTM 4220, for further testing.

No environmental testing or monitoring was conducted as a part of this investigation.

Probes. Hand probes were performed along the southern banks of the floatplane pond to

define further the depth and extent of peat deposits, as well as within the shallow fingers to

determine the depth of muck and/or organics overlying the gravels. The probes were

performed by hand probing with a steel rod until an unyielding surface was encountered.

The general location of the probes and the estimated depths of the peat/organics are shown

on Figure A-1, Appendix A.

Stockpiled Material. Material from the floatplane pond was removed from an area where

the ditchweed became especially problematic. The material was stockpiled in the southwest

corner of the pond (Photograph 1) and allowed to drain. A bulk sample of the material was

obtained and the results attached in Appendix C.

Photograph 1: Stockpiled Material


Page 6

3.0 LABORATORY TESTS

Soil samples will be stored until February 1, 2007, after which time they will be discarded

unless other arrangements are made.

Particle Size Distribution Tests. Five particle-size distribution tests were performed on

selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM D422. These tests consisted of mechanical

sieving, the results of which are presented graphically as Appendix C.


Page 7

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

The site of the proposed floatplane pond dredging project is located near the south end of the

airport boundary at JNU. The pond is bounded by:

• an access road and Runway 8-26 to the north,

• a public trail and Mendenhall River to the west,

• a dike and Jordan Creek to the east, and

• a dike with a public trail and the refuge to the south.

4.1 Floatplane Pond

Surface. The main channel of the floatplane pond is about 5,300 feet long and 450 to

650 feet wide. On the south side of the main channel, there are two side channels or

“fingers” that extend to the dike. The remainder of the south side of the pond consists of

vegetated areas of spruce trees, low brush, and grasses. These vegetated areas have variable

relief with areas of fill deposits in excess of ten feet high. The vegetative mat that covers the

ground is typically less than one foot thick with localized occurrences of two to three feet of

organics.

Subsurface. In general, the soils encountered in the floatplane pond consisted of a layer of

organic-rich silt over sands. The silt layer was typically less than 12 inches thick. In many

areas little to no silt was encountered while in Sample Area 4, three feet of organic silt was

observed.

Underlying the organic silt, are poorly graded sands with variable quantities of gravel. The

sands contain less than one percent silt and 20 to 40 percent gravel. Based on previous

drilling within the floatplane pond, the amount of gravel is expected to decrease with depth

and the amount of silt to increase. The general soil conditions in each of the areas sampled is

shown in Table 1.


Page 8

Table 1: General Soil Conditions

Estimated Depths (Ft) Sample

Area Organic Silt or

Silty Sand Medium Sand with

Minimal Gravel Sand With Gravel or

Gravel with Sand 1 0-0.5 layer from 3-4 0.5-8 2 0-1 1-3 3-8 3 0-0.5 layer from 7-8 0.5-8 4 0-3 3-8 5 0-0.5 0.5-5 5-8

Water Depths. The depth of water in the floatplane pond varies from about 30 to 40 feet at

the east end to 10 to 15 feet at the west end. The average water depth in the shallow fingers

was less than five feet, although deeper water may be present. A bathymetric survey was

completed in September 2006 by TN.

Previous Dredge Activities. Most of the floatplane pond dredging occurred in the 1940s

using a dragline bucket. No records of the work performed are known to exist.

In 1989, dredging on the east end of the floatplane pond for the expansion of the taxiway and

several pads north of the runway commenced. Dredging began in July of 1989 and continued

until November. Gastineau Contractors, the site contractor and dredge operator, stopped

work for the winter and then began again in the spring of 1990. A total of 400,000 cubic

yards of material were dredged over the two seasons.

A cutter suction dredge affixed to a 12- by 35-foot floating barge with a 16 inch suction hose

and 14 inch discharge hose was used. The front of the dredge has an auger that stirs up the

sediments and then draws the sediment into the hose. Photographs 2 and 3 below show the

dredge and barge.


Page 9

Photograph 2: Dredge and Barge

Photograph 3: Cutting Head on Dredge


Page 10

Gastineau Contractors used the Jordon Creek culvert to run their pipe through to the other

side of the runway. They had a total of 4,000 feet of pipe with the last 1,500 feet requiring a

booster pump to get the dredge material to the site.

The recollection was that the dredge material was very clean and the fines quickly washed

out. The discharge water from the dredging had high turbidity and was very silty. There

were layers of fine sands and silts, but the dredging mixed the material so quickly and

completely that these layers were never really noted. Recounting the dredge operation, it was

recalled that the deeper the material, the finer the material became.

Gastineau Contractors estimated moving about 6,000-7,000 gallons of water/soil per minute

through their system, hydraulically placing the fill, and pushing the material around with a

grader. The water table in the pond dropped about 12 to 18 inches while dredging and water

had to be pumped from the Mendenhall River into the floatplane pond. A cage was built

around the pump and hose to prevent fish from being pumped into the pond.

To access the floatplane pond with the dredge, the contractor breached the dike on two

separate occasions and floated in from the channel side of the airport. The first instance, the

dike was breached about halfway down the floatplane pond on the south side. They cut a

hole in the dike using an excavator and floated in at high tide. The second time, the

contractor cut in through the Mendenhall River side of the pond and used a lock system.

With this system, they excavated into the dike far enough for the barge to fit, filled in behind

the barge to keep the water in, then excavated to the pond and filled behind them.

Future dredging at this site could occur by bringing the barge and dredge by truck. No access

from the river, via the Emergency Vehicle Access Route, or through the dike would be

necessary. The size of the dredge/barge as well as dredging rates will require evaluation

during a future phase of this project.

Hydrologic Conditions. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed

the dike that surrounds the floatplane pond on three sides. It is not known if the work was

performed by USACE or subcontracted. An outlet structure was constructed on the west end

of the floatplane pond and during periods of high tide, permits water to flow into the pond.


Page 11

It is not clear what the original purpose of the dike was. It may have been to separate the

pond from the refuge or to stabilize the water level of the pond by reducing the tidal effects.

With isostatic rebound and a rise in the ground elevation, the elevation of the floatplane pond

is higher than Gastineau Channel by several feet and, currently the dike appears to separate

the floatplane pond from the Mendenhall River and the refuge.

The water level appears to maintain a fairly constant level. This may be due to water inflow

during high tides or from recharge that occurs through the subsurface north of the pond.

Recollections of the 1989/1990 dike breaches indicate that the dike is constructed of sands

and gravels rather than a more impermeable material, such as silts and clays. If the dike is

composed of sands and gravels, then some amount of water migrates through the dike. For

the water level to remain constant, the pond must be recharging at or slightly above the rate

of water loss. Additional information regarding subsurface conditions both in the pond and

the dike are needed to further evaluate the hydrologic conditions.

Proposed Dewatering Areas. The areas proposed for stockpiling dredged material could

require significant earthwork. If the dewatering areas are to be cleared to a clean sand

surface, clearing of trees and the removal of organics and fill will be necessary. An

estimated two to three feet of surficial organics and fill material, with localized areas to five

feet will require removal at the southwest end of the pond. In the middle area, located

between the two fingers, about one foot of surficial organics will need to be excavated. At

the southeast end of the pond, there is an estimated ten feet of fill material stockpiled on the

site and covered in secondary growth. The quality of the fill material is not known.

4.2 Proposed Development Areas

No subsurface information was obtained from the planned west end development. Based on

the regional geology, this area should consist of stream deposits of silts and sands from the

adjacent Duck Creek.

The East End Development area is located between Taxiway E-1 and the Temsco Hangar.

Figure A-2 (Appendix A) shows the locations of the test pits and test borings completed in

the vicinity of the proposed development area. The test pit and test boring logs from these

previous investigations are included in Appendix C, Supplemental Soils Information. Based


Page 12

on the existing information, the site will likely consist of less than two feet of organics over

sands. The water table is expected to be present at a depth of about five feet.

The expansion of the runway safety area will occur on the south side of the runway. Test

borings drilled in the floatplane pond and for the Temsco Hanger show good correlation of

the subsurface conditions. The safety area will likely consist of about one foot of organics

over sands. The water table will be present at a depth of about five to ten feet.


Page 13

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the research and site visit conducted, it appears that there is material available

within the floatplane pond that is suitable for use in proposed development areas. The

amount of available material will depend on the quality of that material at greater depths. A

more detailed geotechnical investigation should be performed to evaluate the material.

Five soil mechanical analyses were performed on the samples recovered. In general the

typical gradation of the material was as follows:

Table 2: Typical Material Gradation

Sieve Size Percent Passing 3-inch 100%

3/4-inch 90 - 100% (average 95%) No. 4 66 - 88% (average 65%) No. 8 28 - 72% (average 55%) No. 50 3 - 16% (average 5%) No. 200 0 - 2% (average <1%)

There are several types of material that will be needed for future development:

• Crushed Aggregate Base Course - below asphalt pavement (roads and runways)

• Subbase - pavement and runway section

• Common Excavations - typically below buildings, to develop building pads, and

below road and runway subbase

Based on the mechanical analyses, the dredge material is sandy and will require blending

with imported gravel to meet the requirement for crushed aggregate base course. It is likely

that this material could be used for subbase as well as in common excavations. The dredged

material has been successfully used on numerous airport projects in the past and was easily

compacted. According to airport personnel, the long term performance of the material has

been more than satisfactory.

Floatplane Pond. The amount of silty material present above the sands was consistently

minimal. Reports of fine-grained material at depths of 30 feet could impact the quantity of

dredged material that is suitable for construction. A more detailed geotechnical investigation


Page 14

should be performed. A total of six to eight test borings drilled within the floatplane pond

and its two shallow fingers have been proposed. The test borings should be drilled to

elevations of -40 to -50 feet below the existing water surface in order to evaluate the material

quality at depth. Proposed test boring locations are shown in Figure 2.

The test boring locations selected provide maximum coverage of the floatplane pond and

include the shallow fingers. A large portion of the costs required to conduct a geotechnical

investigation are due to mobilization, coordination, and logistics. While material may not be

dredged from the shallow fingers, it may be cost effective and prudent to obtain that

subsurface information while on site and potentially eliminate the need for a future

mobilization. As this project moves forward, it is expected that the actual frequency of

drilling and depths will be re-evaluated.

The exploration would occur when the pond is ice-free and if necessary, could be done at

night. A small landing craft with an overall length of 32 feet will be trucked in and launched.

A smaller boat would also be brought in. A small Techno-drill rig or equivalent weighing

about 3,300 pounds would be situated on the landing craft. The drill will be placed off the

side of the craft through a 30-inch opening. A small boat would be tendered alongside as a

working platform. Either 2.5 inch inside diameter auger or a rotary wash method would be

used to reach the anticipated depths. Trap catchers will be used to prevent loss of sampled

material.

An additional six to eight test borings should be completed around the perimeter of the dike

to obtain information regarding its construction. This information will assist in determining

if there are hydrologic conditions that may be negatively impacted by the dredging. The trail

can be accessed through the vehicle gate located at the southwest end of the floatplane pond.

Test borings can be drilled with the tracked Techno drill along the existing trail during a

single mobilization to reduce costs. The following figure shows proposed test boring

locations in the pond and around the dike. The necessity for test borings drilled through the

dike will depend on the dredge plan and should be reevaluated as this project moves forward.


Page 15

Figure 2: Proposed Test Boring Locations

Vegetated Areas. If earthwork will be required to clear the proposed dredge dewatering

areas, it may be prudent to excavate a test pit or two where deeper fill has been stockpiled.

Specifically, the easternmost dredge dewatering area where fill material to depths of ten feet

or more are suspected. These test pits will provide information regarding the quality of the

fill and assist in determining how much material must be moved. This can be done with

minimal effort as an excavator is already available on airport property. Some clearing of

vegetation will be required.

Proposed Development/Expansion Areas. Subsurface information should be obtained

from the development areas. In order to save on mobilization costs, the work should be

performed in conjunction with the floatplane pond investigation. As no site plan has been

developed for each area, test borings should be drilled on a grid at each location. The

information collected would be used for foundation design. If during the design phase,

additional information is required, an excavator could be utilized. Proposed test boring

locations are shown in Figures 3 and 4, and are based on no more than one to two days of

work at each site. These locations should be reevaluated as the project moves forward.


Page 16

Figure 3: West End Development Proposed Test Boring Locations

Figure 4: East End/RSA Proposed Test Boring Locations


Page 17

6.0 REFERENCES

Alcorn and Hogan, 1995, Overview of Environmental and Hydrogeologic Conditions near

Juneau, Alaska, Open File Report 95-412, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage,

Alaska, 14p.

City and Borough of Juneau, 1986, Proposed Taxiway Extension and Airport F.B.O.

Expansion Corps of Engineers Permit Submittal, Juneau International Airport,

Juneau, Alaska, 8p.

City and Borough of Juneau, 2005, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Part I, Juneau

International Airport, Juneau, Alaska, 975p.

FAA, 1962, Directional Localizer Road Relocation Plans, Federal Aviation Agency, Alaskan

Region, Anchorage, Alaska, 2p.

Pewe, T.L., 1975, Quaternary Geology of Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey, Professional

Paper 835, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 145p., 1 map, 2 tables in

pocket.

R&M Engineering, 1988, Laboratory Test Results, Floatplane Pond Sample Gradations,

Borings 1-88 and 2-88, Juneau, Alaska, 4p.

R&M Engineering, 1989, Construction Improvement Plans for Taxiway Extension and

F.B.O. Lots, As-Built, Juneau International Airport, Juneau, Alaska, 18p.

Staff, 1996, Community Information Summary - Juneau, Department of Commerce,

Community, and Economic Development, Research and Analysis Section,

Anchorage, Alaska.

Toner-Nordling and Associates, Inc., 2006, Proposal for Planning and Design Services for

Juneau International Airport, Float Plane Pond Dredging and Fill Projects, AIP 3-02-

0133-046-2005, Juneau, Alaska, 67p.

Wahrhaftig, Clyde, 1965. Physiographic Divisions of Alaska, US Geological Survey

Professional Paper 482, US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 52p.,

6 plates.

APPENDIX A

Test Hole Location Maps

APPROXIMATE AREA DREDGED SPRING 2005 DEBRIS

STOCKPILES

BURN PILE

ASPHALT ROAD

GRAVEL TRAIL

GATE

ASPHALT ROAD

GRAVEL TRAIL

GRAVE

L RO

AD

DREDGE STOCKPILE

GRAVEL ROAD

EXISTING TEST BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION(BY OTHERS)

APPROXIMATE SAMPLE AREA LOCATIONHAND PROBE LOCATION AREA - DEPTHHAND PROBE POINT LOCATION - DEPTH

AIRPORT PROPERTY BOUNDARY

TREELINE

EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD

EDGE OF WATER

INDEX CONTOUR LINE(CONTOUR INTERVAL = 5')

CULVERT

EXISTING GRAVEL TRAIL

EXISTING FLOAT PLANE DOCKEXISTING PAVED ROAD

Test Hole/Sample Area Location MapJUNEAU FLOAT PLANE POND - DREDGING AND FILL PROJECT

RFP E06-100Juneau, Alaska

FIGURE A-1

Sec. 34/35/36, T40S, R66E, C.R.M., Alaska. SCALE: AS SHOWN

TAXIWAY A

RUNWAY

T/W C

T/W C

-2

T/W

D

T/W

D-1

T/W

E-1

JORDAN CREEK

TP-18-88

TP-B4-87 TP-B3-87

TW 1

TW 2-85

TP-16-88

TP-15-88TP-1-88 TP-4-88

TP-7-88

TW 4

TW 3

TP-6-88TP-3-88TP-14-88

TP-11-88

TP-10-88

TP-9-88

TP-10-88TP-12-88TP-13-88

P-2-85

AB-1

P-1-85TP-14-88AB-2

P-4-85

P-3-85

TP-1-83

TP-2-83

YANDUKIN DRIVE

LIVINGSTON WAY

MAPLESDEN

ROAD

PROPOSED EAST END

DEVELOPMENT

TP-2-88

TP-17-88

TP-B2-87

Test Hole Location MapJUNEAU FLOAT PLANE POND - DREDGING AND FILL PROJECT

RFP E06-100Juneau, Alaska

FIGURE A-2

Sec. 34/35/36, T40S, R66E, C.R.M., Alaska. SCALE: AS SHOWN

EXISTING TEST PIT/BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION(BY OTHERS)

TP-B3

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test Results

Client: Toner-Nordling & Associates PARTICLE-SIZE

Project: JNU Float Plane AIP 3-02-0133-046-2005 DIST. ASTM D422Location: Stockpile of Dredged Material W.O. D59440 Lab No. 2006-1684

Engineering Classification: Poorly Graded SAND with Gravel, SPFrost Classification: NFS MOA SIZE PASSING SPECIFICATION

+3 in Not Included in Test = ~%

3" 100%

2" 98%

1 1/2" 97%

1" 95%

3/4" 91%

1/2" 83%

3/8" 78%

No. 4 66%

Total Wt. = 30502g

No. 8 59%

No. 10

No. 16

No. 20 44%

No. 30

No. 40

No. 50 16%

No. 60 12%

No. 80

No. 100 5%

No. 200 2.1%

Total Wt. of Fine Fraction = 476.8g

© Alaska Testlab, 1999 Particle Size (mm) 0.02 mm

David L. Andersen, P.E., Technical Advisor

Received: 10/2/06Reported: 11/15/06

#200

#100

#60

#50

#20

#8

#4

3/8"1/2"

3/4"1"

1 1/2"2"

3"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100

Perc

ent P

assi

ng b

y W

eigh

t

4040 B Street Anchorage Alaska 99503 • 907/562-2000 • 907/563-3953

David L Andersen


Project: JNU Float Plane AIP 3-02-0133-046-2005 DIST. ASTM D422Location: Sample Area 1 W.O. D59440 Sample 1 Lab No. 2006-1681 Depth 5'

Engineering Classification: Poorly Graded SAND with Gravel, SPFrost Classification: NFS MOA SIZE PASSING SPECIFICATION


3" 100%

2" 99%

1 1/2" 99%

1" 98%

3/4" 97%

1/2" 88%

3/8" 82%

No. 4 67%

Total Wt. = 59683g

No. 8 52%

No. 10

No. 16

No. 20 31%

No. 30

No. 40

No. 50 6%

No. 60 3%

No. 80

No. 100 1%

No. 200 0.3%





#200

#100 #60

#50

#20

#8

#4

3/8"1/2"

3/4"1"

1 1/2"2"

3"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100

Perc

ent P

assi

ng b

y W

eigh

t


David L Andersen



Engineering Classification: Well Graded GRAVEL with Sand, GWFrost Classification: NFS MOA SIZE PASSING SPECIFICATION


3"

2"

1 1/2" 100%

1" 98%

3/4" 90%

1/2" 66%

3/8" 54%

No. 4 38%

Total Wt. = 31456g

No. 8 28%

No. 10

No. 16

No. 20 15%

No. 30

No. 40

No. 50 4%

No. 60 3%

No. 80

No. 100 1%

No. 200 0.6%





#200

#100 #60

#50

#20

#8

#4

3/8"1/2"

3/4"1"

1 1/2"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100

Perc

ent P

assi

ng b

y W

eigh

t


David L Andersen



Engineering Classification: Silty SAND , SMFrost Classification: Not Measured SIZE PASSING SPECIFICATION


3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4" 100%

1/2" 99%

3/8" 98%

No. 4 94%

Total Wt. = 6818g

No. 8 90%

No. 10

No. 16

No. 20 83%

No. 30

No. 40

No. 50 67%

No. 60 62%

No. 80

No. 100 48%

No. 200 32%





#200

#100

#60

#50

#20

#8

#4

3/8"1/2"

3/4"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100

Perc

ent P

assi

ng b

y W

eigh

t


David L Andersen



Engineering Classification: Poorly Graded SAND , SPFrost Classification: NFS MOA SIZE PASSING SPECIFICATION


3"

2"

1 1/2"

1" 100%

3/4" 100%

1/2" 99%

3/8" 97%

No. 4 88%

Total Wt. = 24154g

No. 8 72%

No. 10

No. 16

No. 20 30%

No. 30

No. 40

No. 50 3%

No. 60 2%

No. 80

No. 100 1%

No. 200 0.2%





#200

#100 #60

#50

#20

#8

#4

3/8"1/2"

3/4"1"

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0010.010.1110100

Perc

ent P

assi

ng b

y W

eigh

t


David L Andersen

APPENDIX C

Supplemental Soils Information

APPENDIX D

Photographs

Photograph No. 1. Outlet structure

Photograph No. 2. Southwest end of pond

Photograph No. 3. Shallow finger and vegetation

Photograph No. 4. Shallow finger

Photograph No. 5. Ditch weed growth

Photograph No. 6. Dike and trail at west end

Photograph No. 7. Trail along dike

Photograph No. 8. Cutter head

Photograph No. 9. Barge

Photograph No. 10. Muck above sand

final reconnaissance geotechnical report …€¦ · final reconnaissance geotechnical report...

Documents