The URL can be used to link to this page

B1501103_HOLASEK FARMS PROPERTY_GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT PRELIMINARY Table of Contents Description Page A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 A.1. Project Information ............................................................................................................. 1 A.1.a. Site Description ...................................................................................................... 1 A.1.b. Project Description ................................................................................................. 1 A.1.c. Conceptual Nature of Project ................................................................................. 1 A.1.d. Background Information ........................................................................................ 2 A.2. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 2 A.3. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 2 B. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 3 B.1. Field Exploration .................................................................................................................. 3 B.2. Boring Logs .......................................................................................................................... 4 B.2.a. General ................................................................................................................... 4 B.2.b. Geologic Origins ..................................................................................................... 4 B.2.c. Previous Soil Borings .............................................................................................. 4 B.3. Geologic Profile ................................................................................................................... 5 B.3.a. Surface .................................................................................................................... 5 B.3.b. Existing Fill .............................................................................................................. 5 B.3.c. Swamp Deposits ..................................................................................................... 5 B.3.d. Alluvial Deposits ..................................................................................................... 5 B.3.e. Glacial Deposits ...................................................................................................... 6 B.4. Groundwater Observations ................................................................................................. 6 B.5. Lab Testing........................................................................................................................... 6 C. Basis for Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 6 C.1. Conceptual Design Information .......................................................................................... 6 C.1.a. Commercial/Industrial Buildings ............................................................................ 6 C.1.b. Site Grades ............................................................................................................. 7 C.1.c. Pavements .............................................................................................................. 7 C.1.d. Utilities ................................................................................................................... 7 C.1.e. Railroad Spur .......................................................................................................... 7 C.1.f. Stormwater Basins ................................................................................................. 7 C.1.g. Precautions Regarding Changed Information ........................................................ 8 C.2. Additional Geotechnical Evaluation .................................................................................... 8 C.3. Preliminary Design and Construction Considerations ......................................................... 8 C.3.a. Variable Subgrade Conditions ................................................................................ 8 C.3.b. Spread Foundation Support ................................................................................... 8 C.3.c. Deep Foundations .................................................................................................. 9 C.3.d. Alternative Building Support Methods................................................................... 9 C.3.e. Floor Slab Support .................................................................................................. 9 C.3.f. Pavement Support ................................................................................................ 10 C.3.g. Utility Support ...................................................................................................... 10 C.3.h. Railroad Spur Support .......................................................................................... 10 C.3.i. Reuse of Onsite Soils ............................................................................................ 10 D. Preliminary Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 11 D.1. Building Pad Preparation ................................................................................................... 11 D.1.a. Subgrade Preparation .......................................................................................... 11 D.1.b. Excavation Support............................................................................................... 11 D.1.c. Dewatering ........................................................................................................... 12 D.1.d. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Fill and Backfill ................................... 12 Table of Contents (continued) Description Page D.2. Spread Footings ................................................................................................................. 13 D.2.a. Embedment Depth ............................................................................................... 13 D.2.b. Allowable Bearing Pressure .................................................................................. 13 D.3. Deep Foundations ............................................................................................................. 14 D.4. Interior Slabs ..................................................................................................................... 14 D.4.a. Subgrade Modulus ............................................................................................... 14 D.4.b. Moisture Vapor Protection .................................................................................. 14 D.5. Pavements ......................................................................................................................... 14 D.5.a. Subgrade............................................................................................................... 15 D.5.b. Proofrolls .............................................................................................................. 15 D.5.c. Clay Subgrade Option ........................................................................................... 15 D.5.d. Sand Sub-base Option .......................................................................................... 16 D.5.e. Design Sections .................................................................................................... 16 D.5.f. Subgrade Drainage ............................................................................................... 17 D.6. Frost Protection ................................................................................................................. 17 D.6.a. General ................................................................................................................. 17 D.6.b. Exterior Slabs ........................................................................................................ 17 D.6.c. Isolated Footing and Piers .................................................................................... 18 D.6.d. Bituminous Pavements......................................................................................... 19 D.7. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 19 D.7.a. Subgrade Support ................................................................................................. 19 D.7.b. Deep Foundations ................................................................................................ 19 D.7.c. Footing Influence .................................................................................................. 19 D.7.d. Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 19 D.7.e. Corrosion .............................................................................................................. 20 E. Procedures...................................................................................................................................... 20 E.1. Penetration Test Borings ................................................................................................... 20 E.2. Material Classification and Testing ................................................................................... 20 E.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification .......................................................................... 20 E.2.b. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 20 E.3. Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................ 20 F. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. 21 F.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 21 F.1.a. Material Strata ..................................................................................................... 21 F.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................. 21 F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .......................................................................... 21 F.2.a. Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 21 F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ............................................................... 21 F.3. Use of Report..................................................................................................................... 22 F.4. Standard of Care ................................................................................................................ 22 Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets  ST-101 through ST-111 (11 pages) Log of Boring Sheets from Previous Exploration (Braun Intertec 2005)  ST-1 through ST-14 (14 pages) Descriptive Terminology of Soil A. Introduction A.1. Project Information A.1.a. Site Description The project site is located at 8610 Galpin Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The site is bordered to the north and east by Lyman Boulevard, to the south by railroad tracks, and to the west by commercial developments. The general site topography consists of gently rolling hills with some low-lying areas in the central and southern portions. The property is the former home of Holasek Greenhouses and occupies an area of about 50-acres. Several existing structures are present on the northwestern portion of the property while the southern portion has historically been used for agricultural purposes. Demolition of the existing greenhouse structures was underway at the time of this report. It appears site grades have been altered in areas during construction of the existing structures; thus, existing fill is anticipated to be present in areas of the site. An existing stormwater detention pond is present on the southeast corner of the property. We also note an existing underground natural gas utility line crosses the central portion of the site in a west-east direction. A.1.b. Project Description Based on conceptual information provided, the proposed development could include the construction of commercial/industrial use buildings. It is anticipated the planned buildings would be single-story steel framed structures with ground supported concrete slabs. The development would also include the construction of heavy-duty bituminous and concrete paved loading areas, parking lots, and drive lanes along with stormwater detention ponds and new underground utilities. Construction of a railroad spur entering from the south side of the property is also being considered as part of this project. A.1.c. Conceptual Nature of Project This project is still in conceptual stages and a working site development plan is not available at this time. Thus, the intended site use and type of construction will be altered prior to final design. Once final design has been established, additional geotechnical evaluation and borings will be warranted to supplement the information provided in this preliminary report to provide a better understanding of subsurface conditions and design parameters for use in final design. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 2 A.1.d. Background Information We have previously performed a series of soil borings along the undeveloped southern portions of the property. The results of those borings along with the following information were provided for our use in preparation of this preliminary report.  A Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by Braun Intertec dated November 30, 2005.  Historic aerial photographs of the property provided by CBRE. The previous soil borings were used to develop this preliminary geotechnical evaluation; however, the information from that previous report is not discussed herein as the previous report was prepared for another purpose. We provide the previous boring logs in the Appendix for review and show their approximate locations on our Soil Boring Location Sketch. We have also had discussions with members of the development team (CBRE and Chadwick Group) regarding potential site use and development of this property. A.2. Purpose The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical evaluation was to generally characterize subsurface geologic conditions at select exploration locations and provide preliminary recommendations for use in conceptual design and preliminary construction planning of the proposed commercial development. A.3. Scope of Services Our scope of services for this project was outlined in our Proposal for Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation dated February 9, 2015. The tasks were completed in general accordance with the terms of our General Conditions (9/1/2013) and are described below:  Performing a site reconnaissance to observe existing site conditions and evaluate access for our drilling equipment.  Locating the borings in the field and obtaining GPS coordinates and ground surface elevations.  Coordinating the location of underground public utilities near the boring locations. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 3  Drilling 11 standard penetration tests (SPT) borings across the north and northwest areas of the site to nominal depths of 20 to 25 feet.  Classifying the samples obtained and preparing boring logs.  Performing laboratory testing on select soil samples obtained.  Analyzing the results of the boring and laboratory tests.  Providing discussions of conditions that could affect structure and pavement design and performance and presenting alternatives for mitigating their impact.  Providing discussions regarding the general reuse of onsite materials during construction and the impacts of groundwater.  Providing preliminary geotechnical recommendations for foundation and floor slab support of the anticipated commercial/industrial structures.  Providing preliminary recommendations for pavement sections based on anticipated R-values.  Submitting this Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report containing logs of the borings, our analysis of the field and laboratory tests, and our preliminary considerations for use in conceptual design and construction planning of the proposed development. B. Results B.1. Field Exploration We evaluated subsurface conditions with 11 soil borings generally spaced across the northern and northwestern portion of the property to supplement the information obtained from the 14 previous soils. These new borings are denoted as ST-101 through ST-111 and their approximate locations are shown on the Soil Boring Location Sketch in the Appendix. The previous borings are denoted as ST-1 through ST-14 and their approximate locations are also depicted in the site sketch in the Appendix. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 4 The boring locations and existing ground surface elevations were determined using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and utilizing the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT’s) permanent GPS Virtual Reference Network (VRN). B.2. Boring Logs B.2.a. General Log of Boring Sheets for each of our borings are included in the Appendix. The logs identify and describe the geologic materials penetrated, results of SPT and laboratory tests performed on select samples, and our groundwater observations at the time of drilling. Strata boundaries were inferred from changes in penetration test samples and drill auger cuttings. Because sampling was not performed continuously, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may also occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions. B.2.b. Geologic Origins Geologic origins assigned to the materials referenced within this report were based on: (1) a review of available historic information and aerial photographs, (2) visual classification of materials during excavation, (3) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past, and (4) our experience at this and nearby sites in the area. Because of the complex glacial and post-glacial depositional environments, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed. B.2.c. Previous Soil Borings We used information obtained from previous soil borings performed at this site by Braun Intertec in 2005 in our analysis and to formulate our recommendations. The previous borings were drilled with the same general techniques as the current borings. The following summary of soils only pertains to our current soil borings; however, the subsurface conditions encountered during the previous borings are generally consistent with that of the current borings. We also note site features may have been altered in areas since the previous exploration was performed. This is especially true in the southeastern portion of the property near Boring ST-14 where it appears a stormwater detention pond has been constructed since the boring was drilled. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 5 B.3. Geologic Profile The following sections provide a summary of geologic conditions encountered in the borings and is generally presented in the order in which materials were encountered (i.e., from the ground surface down). For more details of descriptions please reference the individual boring logs provided in the Appendix. B.3.a. Surface A surficial layer of topsoil (or topsoil fill) about 1/3 to 1 foot in thickness was encountered at Borings ST-104 and ST-106 through ST-110 at the time of this exploration. The topsoil encountered generally consisted of clayey soils with varying organic content. A surficial layer of crushed aggregate about 3 feet in thickness was encountered at Boring ST-103 at the time of drilling. This boring was drilled within the unpaved driveway accessing the property from Lyman Boulevard. B.3.b. Existing Fill From the ground surface or beneath surficial layers in each of the borings (with the exception of ST-111), existing fill materials were encountered to depths of about 4 to 12 feet below grade. The existing fill encountered was generally composed of clays with zones of sand and silt and contained varying quantities of gravel and organic matter. The penetration resistance values recorded in the existing fill ranged from 3 to 41 blows per foot (BPF); however, we note some of the higher values were encountered in the upper zones where soils were frozen at the time of drilling. B.3.c. Swamp Deposits Beneath existing fill in Borings ST-101, ST-106, ST-107 and ST-108 and from the ground surface in ST-111, swamp deposits were encountered to depths of about 4 to 23 feet below grade. The swamp deposits encountered were generally organic in nature, composed of peat (PT) and organic clay (OL). The penetration resistance values recorded in the swamp deposits ranged from 0 (designated as weight-of- hammer, WH) to 4 BPF. B.3.d. Alluvial Deposits Beneath the swamp deposits in Boring ST-111, alluvial deposits were encountered to the planned termination depth of about 20 feet below grade. The alluvium encountered was generally composed of sandy silt (ML) with clay seams. The penetration resistances recorded in the alluvium ranged from 3 to 7 BPF, indicating a very loose to loose condition. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 6 B.3.e. Glacial Deposits Beneath the existing fill and/or swamp deposits in the remaining borings, glacially-deposited till soils were encountered to the boring termination depths of about 20 to 25 feet below existing grade. The glacial till encountered generally consisted of lean clay (CL) and sandy lean clay (CL) with zones of clayey sand (SC). The glacial till contained varying quantities of gravel throughout the sample depths and till soils commonly contain cobbles and boulders, though none were encountered in these borings. The penetration resistances recorded in the glacial till ranged from 3 to 25 BPF, indicating a soft to very stiff condition. B.4. Groundwater Observations Groundwater was encountered in Borings ST-107 through ST-109 in the central portion of the site at depths ranging from about 12 to 15 feet below existing grades which corresponds to elevations of about 930 to 933 feet mean sea level (MSL). We note the groundwater levels in the previous borings ranged from about elevation 920 to 931 feet MSL at the time the previous borings were performed in 2005. Water levels in clayey soils could take several hours to stabilize in cohesive soils and our borings were immediately backfilled upon completion. Subgrade conditions at this site are also conducive to creating perched groundwater conditions within sandy or organic soils overlying clays. Annual and seasonal fluctuations in groundwater at this site should also be anticipated. B.5. Lab Testing Select soil samples obtained during drilling were subjected to laboratory testing to further classify the materials and determine their engineering properties. Lab testing of select samples included; moisture content, organic content and percent of particles passing the size No. 200 sieve. The results of the laboratory tests are discussed in the following sections of this report and are shown on the boring logs in the Appendix adjacent to the samples tested. C. Basis for Evaluation C.1. Conceptual Design Information C.1.a. Commercial/Industrial Buildings Development of this site could include several commercial/industrial use buildings and the buildings would likely be single-story, steel-framed structures with concrete slabs-on-grade. No below grade levels are anticipated at this time. However, this project is in conceptual stages and no structural details or site Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 7 plans have been developed at this time. Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate the buildings would have individual (column) loads of about 150 to 250 kips and continuous (wall) footing loads of about 4 to 12 kips per lineal foot. Industrial use structures such as these can also experience heavy floor slab loads from storage racking, overhead cranes, fork-lifts, or other items. Floor slab loading would need to be further considered during conceptual design. C.1.b. Site Grades Conceptual site grading information is not available at this time. Based on existing site topography, earthwork cuts and fills in excess of 10 feet could be necessary in areas to reach finished grades. This does not include the depth of any soil correction excavations which may be performed in areas as part of this project. C.1.c. Pavements This development would include the construction of surficial bituminous and concrete pavement surfaces for light-duty and heavy-duty usage throughout the site. Information regarding the location of paved surfaces and anticipated traffic intensities was not available at the time of this report; however, traffic loads of 500,000 equivalent single axle loads (ESALs), or greater, can be experienced at similar developments. C.1.d. Utilities We anticipate a new commercial/industrial development of this nature would include the installation of multiple underground utility services including; water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and natural gas service among others. Typical underground utility construction of this nature would extend to depths of about 5 to 15 feet below grade and traverse much of the project site. However, depending on the location of adjacent utilities and finished site grades, deeper excavations may be necessary for utility installation at this site. C.1.e. Railroad Spur We understand a rail spur from the existing railroad line bounding the property to the south is being considered as part of this project. Plans or potential alignments for the rail spur are not available at this time. C.1.f. Stormwater Basins The location and depth of potential stormwater basins at this site have not been determined at this time. We anticipate stormwater basins at this site would be designed to retain and hold water and not to infiltrate water into the subgrade strata. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 8 C.1.g. Precautions Regarding Changed Information We have attempted to describe our understanding of the proposed construction based on available conceptual information provided by others. Depending on the extent of available information, several assumptions have been made based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the available project information, we should be notified. New or changed information could require additional evaluation, analyses, and/or recommendations. C.2. Additional Geotechnical Evaluation Final design of the proposed commercial development has not been established at this time. The considerations and recommendations provided in the following sections of this report are preliminary in nature for use in conceptual design and preliminary planning for this project. A more detailed geotechnical evaluation will be necessary once final design has been completed to provide final geotechnical recommendations for use in design and construction of this project. C.3. Preliminary Design and Construction Considerations C.3.a. Variable Subgrade Conditions The soil borings encountered a variety of subgrade materials including; existing fill, peat, organic clay, alluvial silt, and glacial till. The existing fill was generally present in the area of the existing buildings and roadways on the north side of the property and was likely placed during previous construction activities. The swamp deposits were present beneath the existing fill at several soil boring locations. This indicates soil corrections to remove the unsuitable organics were not performed prior to construction. Swamp deposits were also encountered in low-lying portions of the site currently used for agricultural purposes. Glacial till was present across much of the site beneath surficial topsoil, existing fill or swamp deposits and contained some zones of soft clay when underlying organics. The variability of subsurface conditions at this site will create different types of challenges during construction which should be considered when developing conceptual site development plans for this property. C.3.b. Spread Foundation Support Depending on actual structural loads and site layout, it may be possible to support buildings on conventional spread foundations where native glacial till is present at finished grades. However, the presence of existing fill, soft clays and swamp deposits in many areas of the site will create some challenges for spread footings. If existing fill and/or swamp deposits are present within building footprints and oversize areas; consideration would need to be given to performing soil corrections prior Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 9 to foundation construction as these materials are compressible and could lead to detrimental settlement. Based on the results of the borings, excavations in excess of 25 feet would be necessary to perform soil corrections in areas of the site to remove the unsuitable, compressible soils. We anticipate soil corrections would be necessary across much of the site to remove zones of existing fill, soft clay and/or swamp deposits prior to construction to provide adequate support for spread footings. C.3.c. Deep Foundations In areas requiring deeper soil corrections, an alternative to supporting structures upon conventional spread footings would be to use deep foundation systems. Deep foundation systems in this area are typically composed of steel pile elements driven to depths capable of achieving design capacity requirements. The use of a deep foundation system would allow materials unsuitable for direct foundation support to remain in place and avoid deep soil corrections. Additional consideration for the use of structurally supported floor slabs would also need to be made when using a deep foundation system. To further evaluate deep foundations for this site, deeper soil borings (100 feet or greater) would be necessary prior to final design to properly evaluate pile types and capacities based on the subsurface strata present. C.3.d. Alternative Building Support Methods In addition to soil corrections and deep foundations (piling), there are other methods of site preparation or building support that can be considered. At this time, without more complete plans and building locations/elevations the applicability of other alternatives would be difficult to assess. Please contact us as plans progress to discuss alternatives as needed. C.3.e. Floor Slab Support Ground supported floor slabs for industrial developments, such as this, can be subjected to heavy loading conditions which can lead to detrimental settlement if subgrades are not adequately prepared. The glacial till at this site would likely be suitable for the support of floor slabs; however, where unsuitable soils are present within building footprints consideration should be given to removing the unsuitable soils during soil corrections from floor slab areas to reduce the potential for detrimental settlement to occur. Depending on anticipated site usage and floor loads, careful consideration for slab support should be evaluated. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 10 C.3.f. Pavement Support Pavements at this site can generally be supported upon the existing fill, new engineered fill and/or glacial till. However, where present beneath paved surfaces, organic soils would need to be carefully evaluated as they will impact pavement performance. Consideration can be given to leaving all, or some, of the organic soils in place beneath paved surfaces and allowing settlement to occur. The application of a preload or surcharge load to paved areas prior to construction would allow some settlement to occur prior to pavement construction and should be considered prior to final design based on actual roadway alignments and usage. The size and duration of preloading would need to be further evaluated prior to final design. If organics are left in place below pavements, the owner must understand they are assuming the risks of future pavement settlement and distress. C.3.g. Utility Support This development will include the installation of several new underground utilities during construction. New utility alignments should avoid known zones of organic soils, where possible, as they can lead to detrimental settlement and damage to underground utilities. Where deep organics cannot be avoided along new utility alignments, subcutting the organics and replacing with crushed aggregate or supporting utilities upon deep founded piling, should be considered during final design. C.3.h. Railroad Spur Support Subgrade preparation for support of a railroad spur line would likely be similar to that of a roadway where the embankment would be supported upon glacial till; however, additional considerations would apply if organics of other unsuitable soils are present along the rail alignment. If planned as part of the development, careful consideration will need to be given by the design team as to the alignment of a rail spur at this site. C.3.i. Reuse of Onsite Soils Based on the subgrade profile encountered in the borings, it appears much of the existing fill or native glacial till may be suitable for reuse as engineered fill. However, organic deposits or silts are not considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill for structural support. If on site glacial till soils are considered for reuse as engineered fill, moisture conditioning along with removal of any organics or debris should be anticipated. It is likely imported fill materials would need to be obtained from a borrow source to balance this site if soil corrections are performed. Any materials to be used as engineered fill or backfill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 11 D. Preliminary Recommendations The following recommendations are preliminary in nature for use in conceptual design and preliminary development planning of this project. These recommendations should be refined once this project is closer to final design and additional borings and a more detailed geotechnical evaluation have been performed for this project. D.1. Building Pad Preparation The following sections provide preliminary recommendations for use in general site grading and preparation of building pads. D.1.a. Subgrade Preparation We recommend any vegetation, topsoil, existing fill, soft clays, and/or organic soils be removed from within building footprints and oversize areas prior to construction. Based on the results of our borings and the previous agricultural usage of this property, deep topsoil zones will likely be encountered in areas of the site. In addition, the sub cut and removal of some soft native clays beneath topsoil or swamp deposits should be anticipated prior to fill or concrete placement depending on where final grades are established. We recommend excavation bottoms be observed by a geotechnical engineer, or their qualified representative, to judge if excavation bottom soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and are suitable for support of fill and/or structural loads. The actual depth of excavations will vary and needs to be determined in the field at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer, or their representative, prior to new fill placement or foundation construction. An experienced engineering technician should work closely with the contractor during excavations to make the necessary field judgments regarding the suitability of the exposed soils and to determine the extent of unsuitable soils. Excavations of 25 feet, or greater, are anticipated in areas of the site. To provide lateral support of structural loads they will support, we recommend over sizing (widening) the excavations 1 foot horizontally beyond the footings for each foot the excavation extends below bottom- of-footing elevations. D.1.b. Excavation Support An Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) approved competent person should review soil classification in the field. Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 2926, Subpart P; Excavations and Trenches. This document states that excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Reference to these OSHA requirements should be included in the project specifications. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 12 Due to the general clayey nature of the soils encountered, soils at this site could generally be considered as Type B material under OSHA guidelines. Unsupported excavations in Type B soils should be maintained at gradients no steeper than 1H: 1V. However, the organic soils at this site would have to be maintained at much flatter gradients, 3H: 1V or flatter, to maintain stability. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of temporary slopes with these dimensions, temporary shoring may be required, and we should be consulted for additional recommendations. D.1.c. Dewatering Groundwater will likely be encountered within deeper excavations at this site. The quantity of groundwater that could enter excavations is not known at this time. Due to the clayey nature of site soils, well points would not be an effective alternative to removing groundwater at this site. The contractor should develop a dewatering plan to be reviewed by the design team prior to construction. D.1.d. Selection, Placement and Compaction of Fill and Backfill We recommend fill and backfill materials be composed of non-organic, mineral soils containing no debris and having a PI (Plastic Index) of less than 20. Any materials to be used as structural fill or backfill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement. We recommend fill and backfill be placed in loose lifts no thicker than 12 inches. Smaller compaction equipment may require thinner lifts to meet specified density. The following table provides our minimum soil compaction recommendations for use at this site based on standard Proctor methods (ASTM D698): Table 1. Soil Compaction Recommendations Reference Area Relative Compaction (ASTM D698) Moisture Content (Variance from Optimum) Below Foundations 98% -1% to +3% Below Floor Slabs 95% -1% to +3% Below Pavements (upper 3 feet) 100% -1% to +3% Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 13 Final grading information is not available at this time. However, based on present topography, areas of this site could receive 10+ feet of fill to reach finished grades. Due to consolidation of deep fill under its own weight along with pressures from structural loads, we recommend any fill placement in excess of 10 feet in thickness below bottom of footings consist of granular soil (sand containing less than 10 percent, by weight, of particles passing a size No. 200 sieve) to minimize risk of detrimental settlement. Otherwise, a construction delay may be necessary to accommodate for this settlement. Further evaluation of deep fills, especially in deep soil correction areas, needs to be performed prior to final design and construction. D.2. Spread Footings The following sections provide preliminary recommendations for use in conceptual design of spread foundations for the anticipated commercial/industrial use buildings. D.2.a. Embedment Depth We recommend footings in heated structures be embedded at least 42 inches below the lowest finished exterior grade. We recommend embedding building footings not heated during winter construction, and other unheated footings associated with canopies, stoops or sidewalks a minimum depth of 60 inches below the lowest exterior grade. Frost can also be driven deeper under high traffic in paved areas, thus, loading dock footings should also bear at least 60 inches below the lowest finished exterior grade to protect against frost heave. Interior footings can be placed immediately below floor slabs provided subgrades are prepared as recommended prior to construction. D.2.b. Allowable Bearing Pressure We anticipate spread foundations for the proposed buildings will bear upon new engineered fill and/or native glacial till following soil corrections in areas. For preliminary design purposes, foundations bearing upon these materials could be designed to exert allowable soil bearing pressures of 2,000 to 4,000 pounds per square foot (PSF). Each individual building area will need to be further evaluated for bearing capacity based on subgrade conditions, actual structural loads and settlement tolerances. We recommend strip footings be a minimum of 2 feet wide and column footings be a minimum 3 feet square to help prevent punching shear failure. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 14 D.3. Deep Foundations An alternative to spread foundations would be to support buildings at this site on deep foundation systems. However, borings deep enough to evaluate deep foundation systems have not been performed at this time and would need to be performed during final design to provide deep foundation recommendations. D.4. Interior Slabs We provide the following preliminary recommendations for use in conceptual design of interior floor slabs. D.4.a. Subgrade Modulus We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 100 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection for design of floor slabs assuming a subgrade composed of clayey soils. This value can be increased by 50 pounds per cubic inch per inch of deflection if a minimum of 6 inches of crushed aggregate base course is placed below the floor slab. This layer of aggregate would also help provide a more stable working surface during construction. D.4.b. Moisture Vapor Protection If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, we recommend a vapor barrier be placed immediately beneath the slab. Some contractors prefer to bury the vapor barrier beneath a layer of sand to reduce curling and shrinkage, but this practice risks trapping water between the slab and vapor barrier. Regardless of where the vapor barrier is placed, we recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and installation of the vapor barrier to preserve warranty assurances. D.5. Pavements The following sections provide preliminary recommendations for use in conceptual design of paved areas. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 15 D.5.a. Subgrade We recommend any vegetation and/or topsoil be removed from beneath paved areas at this site. We note some of the borings encountered organic soils to a depths of up to 25 feet below grade. Paved roadway surfaces crossing deep organic zones will experience excessive settlement. Additional consideration may need to be given to floating the new roadway embankments with a preload or surcharge load to avoid the difficult effort associated with extensive excavations to remove deep organics at this site. These additional considerations will need to be further discussed prior to final design. D.5.b. Proofrolls Prior to placement of aggregate base course, we recommend subgrade soils be proofrolled with a fully- loaded, tandem-axle truck and observed by a geotechnical engineer, or their qualified representative. This will assist in identifying any soft or weak areas requiring soil correction. Typically areas that ‘pump’ or rut more than 1 inch due to wheel traffic should be corrected. Corrective measures should be determined in the field at the time of construction based on actual conditions. D.5.c. Clay Subgrade Option Pavements supported directly on the existing clay subgrade soils are generally less expensive initially, but would require slightly more maintenance since they are highly susceptible to volume changes upon freezing and thawing and possible settlement. With this approach, the pavement section (aggregate base and bituminous or concrete pavement) would be placed directly on top of the clay subgrade. Once grade is established, we recommend proofrolling the subgrade. If unstable areas are detected, we would recommend the proposed paved areas be moisture conditioned (disked and dried) in the upper 2 feet. The moisture conditioned soils should then be re-compacted to 100 percent of soil’s maximum dry density (standard Proctor method) and the moisture content be no more than 1 percent over its’ optimum moisture content. A proofroll should then be performed on the subgrade prior to placement of the aggregate base. If there are still unstable areas, a section of at least 6 to 8 inches of 2- to 4-inch crushed rock could be placed below the pavement section in order to aid in bridging the unstable soils. In order to maintain the integrity and stability of the aggregate base, we recommend placing a geo- textile fabric on top of the clay subgrade. Drain tile should be placed in low areas and as finger drains around catch basins. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 16 D.5.d. Sand Sub-base Option A sand sub-base incorporated into the pavement section is one option to reduce maintenance and provide slightly longer pavement life. A sand sub-base will improve subgrade strength and reduce frost heave potential. The sands drain more freely than the clayey soils on which they lie, and because the sand could act as a reservoir for surface drainage and groundwater, we recommend that drain tile be installed in areas where a sand cushion is placed over frost susceptible soils. Drain tile should be placed in low areas and as finger drains around catch basins in urban section areas. With this approach, the subgrade soils would be subcut to allow for placement of a section of sand approximately 12 to 24 inches in thickness. The sand sub-base should meet the requirements of MnDOT Specification 3149.2B2 for Select Granular Borrow (containing less than 12 percent, by weight, of particles passing a size No. 200 sieve). The bottom of the excavation should then be disked, dried and re- compacted in order to provide a “crust” on which to place the sand sub-base. In order to maintain the integrity and stability of the sand sub-base, a geo-textile fabric could be placed on top of the re- compacted clay subgrade prior to placement of the sand sub-base. We recommend tapering the sand subgrade at a slope of 20H:1V in areas where the sand sub-base transitions to areas without a sand sub-base. This will provide a gradual area over which differential frost heave may occur between the 2 different pavement sections. D.5.e. Design Sections Laboratory tests to determine the Hveem Stabilometer R-value for pavement design were not included in our scope of services of this project. Based on our experience with similar projects in the area, however, it is our opinion that an R-value of 10 can be assumed for preliminary design purposes based on the clayey nature of site soils. Based upon the aforementioned traffic loads (500,000 ESALs) and the assumed R-value, we recommend the following preliminary pavement sections in Table 2 below for use in conceptual site development and planning. Table 2. Preliminary Pavement Thickness Sections Component Light-Duty Areas Heavy-Duty Areas Option Option Clay Subgrade Sand Sub-base Clay Subgrade Sand Sub-base Bituminous Pavement 3 inches 3 inches 6 inches 5 inches Aggregate Base Course 9 inches 5 inches 12 inches 6 inches Sand Sub-base N/A 12 inches N/A 24 inches Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 17 The above pavement designs are based upon a 20-year performance life. This is the amount of time before major reconstruction is anticipated. This performance life assumes maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing, is routinely performed. The actual pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance. D.5.f. Subgrade Drainage We recommend installing perforated drain tile throughout pavement areas at low points and about catch basins to help collect and remove water from pavement sections. The drain tile should be placed at the base of the aggregate base course. D.6. Frost Protection D.6.a. General All or some of the exterior slabs could be underlain by a variety of soil types, some of which are considered to be moderately- to highly-frost susceptible (CL/SC/ML). Soils of the type can retain moisture and heave upon freeing. In general, this characteristic is not an issue unless these soils become saturated due to surface runoff or infiltration or are excessively wet is-situ. Once frozen, unfavorable amounts of general and isolated heaving of the soils and the surface structures supported on them could develop. This type of heaving could impact design drainage patterns and the performance of exterior slabs, isolated footings and piers, and pavements. To address most of the heave related issues, we recommend the general site grades and grades for surface features be set to direct surface drainage away from buildings, across large paved areas and away from walkways to limit the potential for saturation of the subgrade and any subsequent heaving. General grades should also have enough “slope” shown to tolerate potential larger areas of heave which may not fully settle when thawed. D.6.b. Exterior Slabs Even small amounts of frost-related differential movement at walkway joints or cracks can create tripping hazards. Several subgrade improvement options can be explored to address this condition. The most conservative and potentially most costly subgrade improvement option to help limit the potential for heaving, but not eliminate it, would be to remove any frost-susceptible soils present below the exterior slabs’ “footprint” down to the bottom-of-footing grades or to a maximum depth of 5 feet below subgrade elevations, whichever is less. We recommend the resulting excavation then be refilled with sand or sandy gravel having less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing a No. 40 sieve and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a No. 200 sieve. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 18 Another subgrade improvement option would be to build in a transition zone between those soils considered to be frost-susceptible and those that are not to somewhat control where any differential movement may occur. Such transitions could exist between exterior slabs and pavements, between entry way slabs and sidewalks, and along the sidewalks themselves. For this option, the frost-susceptible soils in critical areas would be removed to a depth of at least 4 feet below grade as discussed above. The excavation below the footprint of the sidewalks or other slabs would then be sloped upward at a gradient no steeper than 3H:1V toward the less critical areas. The bottom of the excavation should then be sloped toward the center so that any water entering the excavation could be quickly drained to the deepest area for removal. In the deepest areas of the excavation, a series of perforated drainpipes will need to be installed to collect and dispose of surface water infiltration and/or groundwater that could accumulate within the backfill. The piping would need to be connected to a storm sewer or a sump to remove any accumulated water. If the water is not removed, it is our opinion this option will not be effective in controlling heave. Regardless of what is done to the walkway or pavement area subgrade, it will be critical the end-user develop a detailed maintenance program to seal and/or fill any cracks and joints that may develop during the useful life of the various surface features. Concrete and bituminous will experience episodes of normal thermo-expansion and thermo-contraction during its useful life. During this time, cracks may develop and joints may open up, which will expose the subgrade and allow any water flowing overland to enter the subgrade and either saturate the subgrade soils or to become perched atop it. This occurrence increases the potential for heave due to freezing conditions in the general vicinity of the crack or joint. This type of heave has the potential to become excessive if not addressed as part of a maintenance program. Special attention should be paid to areas where dissimilar materials abut one another, where construction joints occur and where shrinkage cracks develop. D.6.c. Isolated Footing and Piers Soils classified as being “clayey” or “silty” have the potential for adhering to poured concrete or masonry block features built through the normal frost zone. In freezing conditions, this soil adhesion could result in the concrete or masonry construction being lifted out of the ground. This lifting action is also known as heave due to adfreezing. The potential for experiencing the impacts of adfreezing increases with poor surface drainage in the area of below grade elements, in areas of poorly compacted clayey or silty soils and in areas of saturated soils. To limit the impacts of adfreeze, we recommend placing a low friction separation barrier, such as high density insulation board, between the backfill and the element. Extending isolated piers deeper into the frost-free zone, enlarging the bottom of the piers and then providing tension reinforcement can also be considered. Recommendations for specific foundation conditions can be provided as needed. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 19 D.6.d. Bituminous Pavements The ongoing performance of bituminous pavements is impacted by conditions under which the pavement is asked to perform in. These conditions include the environmental conditions, the actual use conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance performed. Because of normal thermo expansion and contraction, it is not unusual to have cracking develop within the first few years of placement and for the cracking to continue throughout the life of the pavement. A regular maintenance plan should be developed for filling cracks to lessen the potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting and softening of the subgrade. It is also not unusual for the pavement to require a seal coat within the first 5 to 10 years to increase the long-term performance of the bituminous pavement. D.7. Utilities We provide the following preliminary recommendations for use in the conceptual design of new underground utilities at this site. D.7.a. Subgrade Support Based on the results of the borings, we anticipate the glacial till or clays encountered at this site are generally suitable for utility support. However, if unfavorable conditions such as soft clays or organics are encountered at invert grades, the unstable soils may require additional subcutting and replacement with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. D.7.b. Deep Foundations Deep organics were encountered in areas of this site, utilities crossing zones of deep organic soils may require deep foundations for support to prevent detrimental settlement. Where possible during design, new utilities should be routed away from zones of known organic deposits. D.7.c. Footing Influence If it is necessary to place utilities within the over sizing of any footings, we should review the documents prior to construction as it may be necessary to backfill with lean concrete or lower the footing elevations near the utility trenches. D.7.d. Groundwater Based on the soil borings, we do not expect groundwater will be encountered at typical utility invert elevations. However, if encountered within deeper excavations any groundwater should be removed from excavations prior to utility installation. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 20 D.7.e. Corrosion The majority of the borings indicate the site is underlain by clayey soils and some organics. These soils are considered moderately- to highly-corrosive to metallic conduits. We recommend utilities be bedded in non-corrosive materials such as sand or gravel. E. Procedures E.1. Penetration Test Borings The penetration test borings were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586. Penetration test samples were taken at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals. Actual sample intervals and corresponding depths are shown on the boring logs. E.2. Material Classification and Testing E.2.a. Visual and Manual Classification The geologic materials encountered were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM Test Method D2488. A chart explaining the classification system is attached. Samples were sealed in jars and returned to our facility for review and storage. E.2.b. Laboratory Testing The results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples are noted on or follow the appropriate attached exploration logs. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM procedures. E.3. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater as the penetration test borings were advanced. Given the nature of the soils encountered onsite, it is likely insufficient time was available for groundwater to seep into the borings and rise to its hydrostatic level. Thus, variations in groundwater levels should be anticipated. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 21 F. Qualifications F.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions F.1.a. Material Strata Our evaluation, analyses, and recommendations were developed from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth, and therefore strata boundaries and thicknesses must be inferred to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and can be expected to vary in depth, elevation, and thickness away from the boring locations. Variations in subsurface conditions present between boring locations may not be revealed until additional exploration work is completed, or construction commences. If any such variations are revealed, our recommendations should be re-evaluated. Such variations could increase construction costs, and a contingency should be provided to accommodate them. F.1.b. Groundwater Levels Groundwater measurements were made under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. It should be noted that the observation period was relatively short, and groundwater can be expected to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal and annual factors. F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility F.2.a. Plan Review This report is based on a limited amount of information, and a number of assumptions were made to help us develop our recommendations. It is recommended that our firm review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications once site development plans and structure design has been established. Additional geotechnical borings and evaluation will also be necessary. F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing It is recommended that we be retained to perform observations and tests during construction. This will allow correlation of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction with those encountered by the borings, and provide continuity of professional responsibility. Holasek Farms LP Project B1501103 April 14, 2015 Page 22 F.3. Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects. F.4. Standard of Care In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Appendix 9 6 11 4 2 1 3 7 71 Benchmark: Elevations were obtained usingGPS and the State of Minnesota's permanent basestation network. 29 73 428 FILL PT OL PT CL FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, dark brown, frozen to 3 feet then wet. PEAT, well decomposed, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) ORGANIC CLAY, trace shells, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) PEAT, slightly decomposed, black, waterbearing. (Swamp Deposit) SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, soft to medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 24 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 9 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 937.7 934.7 929.7 924.7 917.7 6.0 9.0 14.0 19.0 26.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-101 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/25/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-101 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 943.7 Depthfeet 0.0 7 7 9 12 25 18 13 20 24 FILL CL FILL: Lean Clay, trace roots, black to dark gray, frozen. SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray and brown, wet, medium to very stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 942.9 925.9 4.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-102 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/25/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-102 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 946.9 Depthfeet 0.0 50/4" 6 11 9 13 11 16 25 AGG FILL CL CRUSHED AGGREGATE, gray, frozen. FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, dark brown to brown, frozen to 4 feet then wet. SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, with Sand seams, grayish brown, wet, rather stiff to stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 949.3 946.3 931.3 3.0 6.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-103 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/24/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-103 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 952.3 Depthfeet 0.0 7 11 13 13 14 17 10 23 18 FILL FILL CL FILL: Clayey Sand, with Gravel, dark brown, frozen. (Topsoil Fill) FILL: Lean Clay, with Gravel, brown, frozen. SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, with rust staining, grayish brown, moist to wet, medium to very stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 1/2 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 947.9 944.6 927.6 0.8 4.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-104 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/25/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-104 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 948.6 Depthfeet 0.0 9 9 10 9 11 14 16 32 14 FILL FILL FILL CL FILL: Sandy Silt, slightly organic, black, frozen. FILL: Lean Clay, with Sand and seams of Silty Sand, brown, wet. FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Clay seams, brown, wet. SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, grayish brown, wet, rather stiff to stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 1/2 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 956.8 951.8 948.8 939.8 4.0 9.0 12.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-105 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/25/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-105 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 960.8 Depthfeet 0.0 20 7 4 3 10 3 16 6 16 21 26 FILL FILL FILL OL CL FILL: Clayey Sand, slightly organic, dark brown, frozen. (Topsoil Fill) FILL: Clayey Sand, trace Gravel, brown, frozen. SANDY LEAN CLAY: trace Gravel, gray and brown, wet. ORGANIC CLAY, trace Shells and Sand Seams, black and gray, wet. (Swamp Deposit) SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 948.5 945.0 937.0 931.0 928.0 0.5 4.0 12.0 18.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-106 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/24/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-106 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 949.0 Depthfeet 0.0 11 8 9 7 13 15 12 An open triangle in the water level (WL) column indicates the depth atwhich groundwater was observed while drilling. Groundwater levelsfluctuate. 21 20 FILL FILL OL CL CL FILL: Lean Clay, trace organic, black. (Topsoil Fill) FILL: Lean Clay, with Sand, dark gray and gray, frozento 4 feet then wet. ORGANIC CLAY, trace Gravel, wet. (Swamp Deposit) LEAN CLAY, with Sand, gray, wet, medium. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, rather stiff to stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 15 feet with 20 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 1/2 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 944.2 938.2 936.2 933.2 924.2 1.0 7.0 9.0 12.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-107 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/24/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-107 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 945.2 Depthfeet 0.0 5 7 6 6 3 3 3 5 FILL FILL OL PT CL FILL: Lean Clay, slightly organic, black, frozen. (Topsoil Fill) FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, black and grayto dark brown, frozen to 4 feet then wet. ORGANIC CLAY: with sand and clayeye sand seams, black and gray, wet. (Swamp Deposit) PEAT, partially decomposed, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) LEAN CLAY, with Sand, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather soft. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 12 feet with 12 1/2 feet ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water observed at a depth of 14 feet immediately afterwithdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 943.2 932.2 925.2 921.2 918.2 1.0 12.0 19.0 23.0 26.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-108 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/24/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-108 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota Symbol Elev.feet 944.2 Depthfeet 0.0 26 8 19 18 22 10 13 P200=59%21 17 FILL FILL FILL SC CL FILL: Clayey Sand, with Gravel, brown, frozen. (Topsoil Fill) FILL: Sandy Silt, slightly organic, dark brown, frozen. FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, brown, wet. CLAYEY SAND, trace Gravel, brown, moist to wet, very stiff to rather stiff. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, gray, wet, stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 12 1/2 feet with 12 1/2 feet ofhollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 945.4 942.8 938.8 927.8 924.8 0.4 3.0 7.0 18.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-109 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/24/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-109 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 945.8 Depthfeet 0.0 41 7 5 7 8 8 9 FILL FILL CL FILL: Clayey Sand, slightly organic, dark brown, frozen. (Topsoil Fill) FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown, frozen to4 feet then wet. SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown and gray, wet, rather soft to medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 939.3 933.3 919.3 1.0 7.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-110 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/24/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-110 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota Symbol Elev.feet 940.3 Depthfeet 0.0 5 3 7 5 7 7 25 26 PT ML PEAT, partially decomposed, black, frozen. (Swamp Deposit) SANDY SILT, with Clay seams, gray, wet, very loose to loose. (Alluvium) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 17 1/2 feetimmediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. 929.5 912.5 4.0 21.0 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-111 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerK. Keck 2/25/15 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-111 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 933.5 Depthfeet 0.0 7 5 4 6 7 9 22 24 Benchmark: A solid triangle indicates the groundwater levelin the boring on the date indicated. An open triangle in the water level (WL) columnindicates the depth at which groundwater wasobserved whiledrilling. Groundwater levels fluctuate. 1/4 1/2 SC CL SC SC SM CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) SANDY LEAN CLAY, black to dark brown, moist.(Topsoil) CLAYEY SAND, with a trace of Gravel, dark brown, wet, rather soft. (Possible Fill / Glacial Till) CLAYEY SAND, with a trace of Gravel, gray with rust staining, wet, rather soft to medium. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, dark brown with rust staining, waterbearing, loose. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 11 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water observed at 4 feet 5 minutes after withdrawal ofauger. Boring immediately backfilled. 926.3 923.3 920.3 915.3 911.3 0.5 3.5 6.5 11.5 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-1 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-1 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 926.8 Depthfeet 0.0 7 4 5 7 8 7 30 20 1/4 1 1 1 OL CL CL ORGANIC CLAY, black, moist. (Topsoil) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel,brownish-gray with rust staining, wet, rather soft tomedium. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, wet, medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. No water observed with 15 feet of hollow-stem auger inthe ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 1/2 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 936.3 926.3 921.8 1.0 11.0 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-2 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/22/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-2 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 937.3 Depthfeet 0.0 7 7 10 8 7 8 221 1 1/2 1 1/2 SC CL CL SM CL CLAYEY SAND, with a trace of Gravel, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) LEAN CLAY, black and dark brown.(Topsoil) LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, with a little Sand, brown, wet, medium.(Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, with a trace of Gravel, dark brown, waterbearing, loose. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, wet, medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 15 feet of hollow-stem augerin the ground. Water observed at 5 feet 10 minutes after withdrawal ofauger. Boring immediately backfilled. 935.4 933.9 931.9 924.4 920.4 0.5 2.0 4.0 11.5 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-3 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-3 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 935.9 Depthfeet 0.0 7 5 15 10 6 7 24 26 0 0 PT CL CL CL PEAT, semi-decomposed, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray with rust staining, wet, rather soft to medium. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, brownish-gray, wet, rather stiff to stiff. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, wet, medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 13 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 2 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 931.2 926.7 921.7 917.7 2.0 6.5 11.5 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-4 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/22/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-4 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 933.2 Depthfeet 0.0 8 8 7 11 10 9 19 1 1/4 SC CL SC SM CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist. (Topsoil) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, withseams of Silty Sand, brown with rust staining, moist,medium. (Glacial Till) CLAYEY SAND, with a trace of Gravel, with seams of Silty Sand, brown, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial Till) SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with a trace of Gravel, with layers of Clayey Sand, brown, waterbearing, loose.(Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 15 feet of hollow-stem augerin the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 9 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 941.6 933.4 928.4 926.9 0.8 9.0 14.0 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-5 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-5 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 942.4 Depthfeet 0.0 4 WH* WH WH WH WH WH 1 6 Weight of Hammer *Water not observed with 30 feet of hollow-stem auger in theground. Water not observed tocave-in at surfaceimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled.1/2 OL PT CL CL ORGANIC CLAY, with Sand, with a trace of Gravel, black, wet. (Topsoil) PEAT, well-decomposed to semi-decomposed, with a trace of shells, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) LEAN CLAY, with a trace of shells and wood, dark gray, wet, very soft. (Glacial Lacustrine) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, wet, very soft to medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING.* 931.4 914.4 909.4 902.9 2.0 19.0 24.0 30.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-6 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/22/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-6 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota MC %Symbol Elev.feet 933.4 Depthfeet 0.0 4 3 2 6 7 8 28 21 18 1 1 1 CL CL CL LEAN CLAY, black, moist. (Topsoil) LEAN CLAY, with lenses of Silty Sand and Silt, brownish-gray, wet, soft to rather soft. (Glacial Lacustrine) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, moist to wet, soft to medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 15 feet of hollow-stem augerin the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 3 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 931.1 926.6 917.6 2.0 6.5 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-7 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-7 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 933.1 Depthfeet 0.0 5 5 8 10 6 9 25 1/2 1 1 1/2 1 1/2 1/2 CL CL CL SP- SM LEAN CLAY, with a little Sand, black, moist. (Topsoil) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, darkbrown to brown with rust staining, wet, rather soft.(Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, dark brown and gray with rust staining to gray, moist, medium to rather stiff.(Glacial Till) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to coarse-grained, with a trace of Gravel, gray, waterbearing, loose.(Glacial Outwash) END OF BORING. Water observed at 14 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 934.4 929.0 922.0 920.0 1.1 6.5 13.5 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-8 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/22/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-8 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 935.5 Depthfeet 0.0 7 7 10 8 8 7 17 1 1 3/4 1 1/2 1 1/4 CL CL CL LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Roots, black, moist. (Topsoil) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel,brownish-gray with rust staining, moist, medium torather stiff. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, moist to wet, medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 15 feet of hollow-stem augerin the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 8 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 934.7 927.0 920.0 0.8 8.5 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-9 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-9 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 935.5 Depthfeet 0.0 WH WH WH 1 3 4 9 9 36 233/4 1 PT CL CL PEAT, well-decomposed, with layers of Marl, with a trace of shells, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) LEAN CLAY, with layers of Silt, gray, wet, soft to rather soft. (Glacial Lacustrine) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray with rust staining, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 21 feet with 25 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water observed at 2 feet 15 minutes after withdrawal ofauger. Boring immediately backfilled. 922.1 914.6 908.1 11.5 19.0 25.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-10 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/22/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-10 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 933.6 Depthfeet 0.0 WH WH WH WH WH WH 1 8 26 211/2 PT CL PEAT, well-decomposed, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, wet, very soft to medium. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 15 feet with 25 feet of hollow-stemauger in the ground. Water observed at 2 feet immediately after withdrawingthe auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 914.2 907.7 19.0 25.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-11 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/22/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-11 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 933.2 Depthfeet 0.0 WH WH WH WH WH WH WH 17 PT SM PEAT, fibrous, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, gray, waterbearing, medium dense. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water observed at 7 feet with 25 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet immediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 907.8 906.3 24.0 25.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-12 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-12 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota Symbol Elev.feet 931.8 Depthfeet 0.0 3 3 5 9 7 8 26 19 1/2 1 1/2 1 1 1/2 CL CL CL CL LEAN CLAY, black, moist. (Topsoil) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel,brownish-gray with rust staining, wet, soft.(Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, dark brown with rust staining, wet, rather soft. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, moist to wet, medium to rather stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 15 feet of hollow-stem augerin the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 3 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 937.0 931.4 928.9 922.4 0.9 6.5 9.0 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-13 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-13 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 937.9 Depthfeet 0.0 WH WH 4 6 9 9 24 20 1 1/2 2 PT CL CL CL PEAT, fibrous, black, wet. (Swamp Deposit) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, brownish-gray, wet, very soft. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray to brown, wet, rather soft to medium. (Glacial Till) SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of Gravel, gray, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial Till) END OF BORING. Water not observed with 15 feet of hollow-stem augerin the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 1/2 feetimmediately after withdrawing the auger. Boring immediately backfilled. 928.6 926.1 921.6 917.6 4.5 7.0 11.5 15.5 Braun Intertec Corporation, Bloomington MN 55438 ST-14 page 1 of 1 3 1/4" HSA AutohammerDave Lovassen 11/23/05 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER: Tests or NotesWL L O G O F B O R I N G (S e e D e s c r i p t i v e T e r m i n o l o g y s h e e t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s ) LOCATION: See attached sketch. (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908) Description of Materials ST-14 METHOD: BORING: BPF B1501103LO G O F B O R I N G N : \ G I N T \ P R O J E C T S \ A X P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 1 5 \ 0 1 1 0 3 . G P J B R A U N _ V 8 _ C U R R E N T . G D T 4 / 1 4 / 1 5 1 3 : 3 8 Braun Project B1501103 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Holasek Farms Property8610 Galpin BoulevardChaska, Minnesota OC % MC %Symbol Elev.feet 933.1 Depthfeet 0.0 Descriptive Terminology of Soil Standard D 2487 - 00 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Rev. 7/07 DD Dry density, pcf WD Wet density, pcf MC Natural moisture content, % LL Liqiuid limit, % PL Plastic limit, % PI Plasticity index, % P200 % passing 200 sieve OC Organic content, % S Percent of saturation, % SG Specific gravity C Cohesion, psf Angle of internal friction qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf Liquid Limit (LL) Laboratory Tests Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x ( P I ) Drilling Notes Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4” or 6 1/4” ID hollow-stem augers unless noted otherwise, Jetting water was used to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs. Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix “ST” (Split Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2” OD split-tube sampler, except where noted. Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter continuous- flight, solid-stem augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were in- ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, therefore, somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated by the prefix “B.” Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2” or 3 1/4” diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could be manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix “H.” BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6” into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted for second and third 6” increments and added to get BPF. Where they differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for the second and third 6” increments, respectively. WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required. WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required. TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample. Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. Particle Size Identification Boulders............................... over 12” Cobbles ............................... 3” to 12” Gravel Coarse ............................ 3/4” to 3” Fine ................................. No. 4 to 3/4” Sand Coarse ............................ No. 4 to No. 10 Medium ........................... No. 10 to No. 40 Fine ................................. No. 40 to No. 200 Silt ....................................... No. 200, PI 4 or below “A” line Clay ..................................... No. 200, PI 4 and on or above “A” line Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very loose ................................ 0 to 4 BPF Loose....................................... 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense ......................... 11 to 30 BPF Dense ...................................... 31 to 50 BPF Very dense ............................... over 50 BPF Consistency of Cohesive Soils Very soft ................................... 0 to 1 BPF Soft ....................................... 2 to 3 BPF Rather soft ............................... 4 to 5 BPF Medium .................................... 6 to 8 BPF Rather stiff ............................... 9 to 12 BPF Stiff ....................................... 13 to 16 BPF Very stiff ................................... 17 to 30 BPF Hard ....................................... over 30 BPF a. Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve.b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name. c. Cu = D60 / D10 Cc = (D30)2 D10 x D60 d. If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay f. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. h. If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. i. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with claySP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant. l. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.m. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. n. PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. o. PI 4 or plots below “A” line. p. PI plots on or above “A” line. q. PI plots below “A” line. Poorly graded sand h Peat Well-graded gravel d PI plots on or above “A” line PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line j PI 4 or plots below “A” line j Fi n e - g r a i n e d S o i l s 50 % o r m o r e p a s s e d t h e No . 2 0 0 s i e v e Co a r s e - g r a i n e d S o i l s mo r e t h a n 5 0 % r e t a i n e d o n No . 2 0 0 s i e v e Soils Classification Gravels More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 Highly Organic Soils Silts and clays Liquid limit 50 or more Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor Group Symbol Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests a Group Name b GW GP GM GC SW SP SM CL ML OL OL SC Poorly graded gravel d Silty gravel d f g Clean Gravels 5% or less fines e Gravels with Fines More than 12% fines e Clean Sands 5% or less fines i Sands with Fines More than 12% i Fines classify as ML or MH Fines classify as CL or CH Clayey gravel d f g Well-graded sand h Fines classify as CL or CH Fines classify as ML or MH Silty sand f g h Clayey sand f g h Inorganic Organic Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried 0.75 Inorganic Organic PI plots below “A” line Lean clay k l m Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried 0.75 CH MH OH OH Fat clay k l m Elastic silt k l m Organic clay k l m n Organic silt k l m o Organic clay k l m p Organic silt k l m q Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 C PT Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 C Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 C Cu 6 and/or 1 CC 3 C 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 7 “U” L i n e “A” L i n e 10 20 30 40 50 60 4 0 ML or OL MH or OHCL o r O L CH o r O H CL - ML Silt k l m