REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION - Maine.gov · recommendations in the following report are based...

REPORT

OF

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

Report of Geotechnical Evaluation

Proposed Maine Dept. I.F.&W. Casco Hatchery Site Improvements

Fish Hatchery Road, Casco, Maine

For

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

41 State House Station

Augusta, Maine 04333-0041

Prepared by

MAIN-LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC.

Livermore Falls, Maine

November 04, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

1 Proposed Construction

1 Subsurface Exploration

2 Laboratory Testing

2 Subsurface Conditions

2 Evaluation

3 Building Foundations

3 Construction Considerations

3 New Pipe Trench

3 Recommendations

4 Site Excavation and Subgrade Preparation

5 Building Foundations

6 Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining and Foundation

Walls

6 Foundation Drainage

7 Closure

Attachments:

Figure 1, Existing Conditions Survey, with revised Boring locations

Appendix A. Main-Land Exploration Logs

Appendix B. Laboratory Test Results

MAIN-LAND helps people add value to their land: to understand it, develop it, and protect it.

November 04, 2016

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife

41 State House Station

Augusta, Maine 04333-0041

Attention: Mr. Todd Langevin, Superintendent of Hatcheries

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Evaluation



Dear Todd:

Main-Land Development Consultants, Inc. (Main-Land) is pleased to present the following report of

geotechnical evaluation for the subject project in Casco, Maine. The following report provides geotechnical

recommendations for final design and construction of the proposed new water treatment building, as well as

subsurface information along the planned upgraded water supply pipeline route. The geotechnical

recommendations in the following report are based on recent soil test borings conducted to characterize

subsurface conditions in and near the proposed improvement footprints.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

Existing layout and grading at the Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (IF&W) Hatchery in Casco, Maine are

depicted on Figure 1, Existing Conditions Survey, with revised boring locations, attached (Note: this

drawing was provided by Owen Haskell Inc., Project Surveyors). The proposed new water treatment

building will be located in the vicinity of the existing UV building.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

The subsurface exploration program for the proposed site improvements was performed by Main-

Land during August 12, 2016 and consisted of six test borings designated TB-1 through TB-6. Exploration

locations were selected by HDR, Inc. (Project Design Engineer) and staked in the field by Owen Haskell

Inc. See Figure 1, attached, for the as-drilled locations of the subsurface explorations. All borings except

TB-2 and TB-5 were drilled at the staked locations. The following table provides the offsets with respect to

the project coordinate system of borings TB-2 and TB-5:

Boring No. Offset North Offset East Offset

vertical

New

Northing

New Easting New

Vertical

TB-2 -5.523’ 2.344’ +1.75’ 428987.690 2858157.252 405.86’

TB-5 -17.025’ -33.413’ -2.81’ 428820.316 2858389.772 424.22’




MAIN-LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC 2 of 7

www.main-landddci.com

The test borings were advanced by New England Boring Company, Inc., of Hermon, Maine using a

track-mounted, rotary drill rig and auger drilling techniques to depths ranging from about 7.5 to 16.5 feet

below current grades. Standard penetration tests were conducted in the test borings using a 24-inch long,

split-barrel sampler, and soil samples were recovered for description and laboratory testing purposes.

Exploration activities were coordinated and observed by a Main-Land geotechnical engineer who prepared

the exploration logs provided in Appendix A of this report.

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing consisted of twelve grain size tests and accompanying moisture contents. The

twelve tests consisted of two soil samples selected from each of the six borings. Grain size test results are

provided in Appendix B, and moisture contents are reported on the boring logs. The soil tests were

performed at the R.W. Gillespie & Associates, Inc. soil and materials testing laboratory in Saco, Maine.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The test boring explorations encountered topsoil and/or fill at current ground surface, which were

underlain by native glacial till deposits. Where encountered, the topsoil layer ranges from about 0.3 to 0.4

feet thick and consists of dark brown and brown loamy sand. Fill was encountered at three borings (TB-1,

TB-2, and TB-6). Fill at ground surface at TB-1 was about 3.5 feet thick and consisted of dense, light brown

gravelly sand, likely associated with construction of the nearby existing hatchery building and access road.

Fill underlying topsoil at TB-2 was about 0.6 feet thick and consisted of loose, light brown sand with gravel,

likely associated with site landscape grading. Fill at ground surface at TB-6 was about 5.5 feet thick and

consisted of very loose, light brown silty sand, likely associated with pipe trench backfill at that boring

location.

The near surface topsoil or fill is underlain by native glacial till deposits. The glacial till typically

consists of medium dense to very dense, light gray to light brown, silty medium to fine sand, with coarse

sand, gravel, and probable occasional to frequent cobbles and boulders. Glacial till samples ranged from

damp to wet, depending on depth in the borings.

Refusals to drilling advance were encountered at depths ranging from 15.3 to 15.5 feet at borings

TB-1 through TB-3. These refusals were encountered during sampler spoon driving, and were interpreted to

be on either very dense till or a boulder in the till. Refusal to auger advancement was encountered at 7.5 feet

depth at TB-6; this refusal was interpreted to be on probable weathered bedrock.

Based on soil moistures observed during drilling, and water levels observed in some of the

completed boreholes, it appears that seasonal high groundwater likely occurs approximately 1.5 to 3 feet

below ground surface throughout the area of the borings. In general, groundwater levels observed in the test

borings will fluctuate due to factors including variations in precipitation, temperature, season, and

construction activities.

EVALUATION

Engineering evaluations for this project are based on the subsurface explorations, laboratory testing

data, and the building and site design information currently available.






Building Foundations

Information provided by HDR, Inc., Project Design Engineer, indicates that new treatment

building wall loads will not exceed 2,000 lbs. per foot of wall and the headtank bearing pressure will be no

greater than 1,000 lbs. per square foot. Total and differential settlements should not exceed 1” and ½”,

respectively.

Construction Considerations

Exposed subgrade within the building area will be susceptible to disturbance from moisture or foot

traffic during construction, especially where subgrade consists of silty glacial till soils. All spread footing

foundations and floor slab areas should be underlain by a minimum of 8” thick pad of compacted,

geotextile-reinforced structural fill to better distribute footing and floor loads, protect subgrade from

disturbance, and act as a working surface for subsequent foundation construction activities.

It is anticipated that permanent groundwater levels will occur near or above footing excavations. In

addition, surface water runoff that penetrates the upper fill and loose till soils could perch at the underlying

interface with less permeable till. This shallow groundwater and/or infiltrated surface water could infiltrate

foundation excavations and require open pumping during construction to avoid subgrade disturbance and

allow construction in-the-dry.

New Pipe Trench

It is anticipated that the new water supply pipe will be placed in or near the existing pipe trench

which extends from the existing dam to the Fish Hatchery. The existing pipe will likely be removed from

the trench prior to placing the new pipe, and new backfill will be placed around the new pipe. Design

freezing temperature penetration depth through granular trench backfill is anticipated to be on the order of 5

to 6 feet below bare ground surface. Pipes which are not below this anticipated freezing penetration depth

could be further protected using a minimum of 2” of rigid styrofoam insulation over the pipe.

Probable bedrock was encountered near 7.5 feet depth in boring TB-6, and several apparent boulders

were also encountered at that boring location. As the existing pipe trench approaches the dam, it is likely

that bedrock becomes shallower. During construction, bedrock might be present at or above proposed new

pipe trench invert. The bedrock consists of relatively hard, slightly weathered granite. If necessary, it is

anticipated that small volumes of bedrock could be excavated using a mechanical hoe ram. Controlled

blasting may be necessary to remove larger amounts of bedrock, depending on final trench elevations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are provided for design of building foundations. It is recommended

that foundation design and construction be in compliance with building code requirements and applicable

ordinances, regulations, and rules, including International Building Code 2012 (IBC 2012) and ASCE 7-10

for seismic site classification.






Site Excavation and Subgrade Preparation

Prior to placing new fill inside the new building footprint, all unsuitable materials including topsoil,

organics, obsolete structural elements such as asphalt drives and underground utilities, and loose fill, should

be removed. Existing underground utilities might have to be relocated; discontinued utilities should be

removed in their entirety from beneath new foundations and structural elements. Subgrade beneath new

floor slab areas which consists of existing granular fill should be proofrolled with the largest practical

compaction equipment to re-densify soils disturbed during clearing and to identify subgrade soils which

weave beneath the proofroll and are not suitable to support subsequent fill and floor slab placement. All

existing fill should be removed from beneath spread footing foundations, down to native glacial till soils.

Following clearing and removal of unsuitable subgrade, all suitable subgrade beneath floor slab and

footings should be covered with the recommended minimum 8” thick pad of compacted, geotextile-

reinforced structural fill. The geotextile should consist of a woven geotextile stabilization fabric (Mirafi

600X or equivalent) to act as a separator and reinforcement for overlying compacted structural fill. The

geotextile should be placed on suitable subgrade and overlapped a minimum of 12 inches at its edges.

Compacted structural fill should be placed over the geotextile and up to design base of floor slab and

base of spread footing foundations (Note: If the Structural Engineer prefers a layer of compacted crushed

stone underlying floor slab, then the stone thickness should be in addition to the minimum recommended

structural fill pad thickness). In addition, structural fill should be used as compacted backfill in all

foundation excavations. Structural fill should meet the following gradation:

Sieve Size or Screen Number Percent Passing

3 inch 100

¼ inch 25 to 70

No. 40 0 to 30

No. 200 0 to 7

(Note: this Structural Fill is similar to MEDOT 703.06 Aggregate Subbase Type D, except that it is

3-inch minus, and might be produced by passing Type D over a 3-inch sieve)

Based on the grain size results from test boring soil samples, on site soils will not meet the above

recommended structural fill gradation, and are therefore not suitable for reuse as structural fill. On site soils

will likely not meet the gradation of select pipe backfill. On site soils, particularly those excavated during

new pipe installation, will likely be suitable for reuse above the select pipe backfill zone in the remainder of

the utility trench, except in areas where utility trenches pass beneath structural elements such as foundations

or access roads. Because of the anticipated variability of excavated on site soils, it might be difficult to

achieve recommended compaction where these soils are reused as general utility trench backfill.

Minimum compaction requirements with reference to modified proctor density (ASTM D 1557) for

all fill materials are as follows: 95 percent beneath building and driveway areas, and immediately

surrounding and minimum 12” above buried pipe; 92 percent compaction in walkways and utility trenches

above the 95 percent compaction zone; and, 90 percent compaction beneath lawns or unimproved areas.

Compaction should be performed by complete coverages on each lift such that the required density

is achieved throughout each lift. One coverage consists of a forward pass and a back pass (2 passes). In open






areas, a minimum of two coverages in each of two directions perpendicular to each other should be made to

compact each lift, with a maximum loose lift thickness of 12 inches. In confined areas such as foundation

backfill zones adjacent to foundation walls and near existing structures, smaller compaction equipment such

as light vibratory drum roller or hand-operated plate compactor should be used with maximum loose lift

thickness reduced to 6 inches.

In-place density tests should be performed on each lift of compacted fill at the following minimum

testing frequencies: one test per 1,000 square feet beneath buildings, parking and access areas, and

walkways; one test per 1,000 square feet beneath lawns or unimproved areas; one test per 30 lineal feet in

continuous footing trenches; 2 tests in isolated column footing structural fill pads; and, one test per 75 lineal

feet in utility trenches.

During construction, compacted fill which becomes wet and/or disturbed should either be allowed to

dry in place and be re-compacted, or be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill prior to placing

additional fill over the disturbed area.

Building Foundations

It is anticipated that the new building can be supported on conventional spread footing and slab-on-

grade foundations. It is recommended that foundations be supported by a minimum 8” thick layer of

compacted, geotextile-reinforced structural fill.

The 8” thick reinforced structural fill pad should extend a minimum 12” beyond the outside edge of

footings, and be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of modified proctor density. A layer of woven

geotextile stabilization fabric (Mirafi 600X or equivalent) should be placed to cover suitable subgrade

beneath the entire structural fill pad. Excavation for structural fill pads should be made using a smooth-

edged bucket to minimize subgrade disturbance and to provide a uniform surface for geotextile placement.

The proposed building should be designed to withstand lateral, uplift, and overturning forces due to

earthquake. Soils encountered in the explorations are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. In

accordance with IBC 2012 and ASCE 7-10, the soil profile at the site is classified as Site Class C.

Footings should be designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).

Anticipated total settlements are on the order of 1/2 inch or less, and differential settlements are anticipated

to be less than about 1/4 inch. Continuous wall footings should be at least 2.5 feet wide and isolated footings

should be at least 3 feet wide.

For frost protection, all exterior footings and interior footings in unheated areas should be a

minimum of 4.5 feet below lowest adjacent ground surface. Interior footings in heated areas should bear a

minimum of 18 inches below top of ground floor slab. All footings and floor slab elements should be

protected from freezing and frost action during construction.

Interior floors may be slab-on-grade supported on the minimum 8” thick layer of compacted,

geotextile-reinforced structural fill. Additional subslab fill required by the Project Structural Engineer, such

as a leveling layer of crushed stone, should extend above the 8” thick structural fill pad. A subgrade

modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch should be used for slab-on-grade design. It is anticipated that






additional slab-on-grade construction details including vapor retarder type and thickness, concrete thickness

and reinforcing, and control joint depth and spacing will be provided by the Project Structural Engineer.

Exterior slabs at entrances and loading docks should be underlain by a minimum of 2 feet of free-draining

material such as compacted structural fill and/or crushed stone wrapped in filter fabric, and the surrounding

areas should be sloped away from the structure to reduce available moisture for frost lens and ice

generation.

Lateral loads from wind and earthquake may be resisted by friction between the footing bottoms and

subgrades and earth pressures against sides of footings and exterior walls. A friction coefficient of 0.35 is

recommended for footings bearing on compacted structural fill; a lateral bearing of 200 pound per square

foot per foot depth is recommended. Only compacted structural fill should be used as backfill of footings,

piers, and foundation walls.

Cast-in-Place Concrete Retaining and Foundation Walls

Retaining walls for loading docks, and tank and foundation walls with unbalanced loading, should be

designed to resist lateral earth pressures. For walls that are not restrained against rotation (active condition)

an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot (Ka = 0.33) should be used. Lateral pressure due

to surcharge behind the wall should be considered in addition to the earth pressure and calculated as the

surcharge pressure multiplied by the active pressure coefficient of 0.33 and applied as a uniform lateral

pressure distribution at the back of the wall.

Walls fixed against rotation should be designed to resist at-rest equivalent fluid unit weight of 65

pounds per cubic foot (Ko = 0.5). Lateral pressure due to surcharge should be considered in addition to the

earth pressure and calculated as the surcharge pressure multiplied by the active pressure coefficient of 0.5

and applied as a uniform lateral pressure distribution at the back of the wall. The above active and at-rest

equivalent fluid unit weights assume that foundation walls are fully drained.

Foundation Drainage

Foundation drains should be installed at the base of exterior footings and be discharged via gravity to

the site storm drainage system. We recommend that foundation drains be installed both on the inside and

outside of the exterior footings; the “interior” footing drains will help to provide subgrade drainage during

construction when the building footprint is open to precipitation. A connecting pipe may need to be cast

through the foundation to allow the “interior” footing drains to discharge. Roof drains should not be

connected to the foundation drains. The foundation drains should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated PVC

pipe surrounded by a 6-inch thick layer of ¾ inch crushed stone completely wrapped in a non-woven filter

fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent.

Main-Land recommends that design groundwater elevation be taken as 2 feet below pre-construction

ground surface in building areas. The bases of water treatment tanks inside the building which are lower

than this elevation should be considered susceptible to hydrostatic uplift due to seasonal high groundwater,

especially when a tank is empty. The tanks should resist uplift to the design elevation by weight and/or

restraint. In addition, if gravity flow allows, drainage could be provided beneath the tank by placing a 12-

inch thick layer of geotextile-wrapped, ¾ inch crushed stone beneath the tank bottom, and sloping subgrade

toward the center of the tank where a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe would be placed at the base of






the stone layer. The geotextile fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent) would separate the crushed stone from

surrounding soils to prevent the infiltration of fines to the stone, and would not have to extend beneath the

tank itself.

CLOSURE

The analyses and recommendations provided in this report are based in part upon the data obtained

from widely spaced explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not

become evident until construction. If variations are encountered, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the

recommendations of this report. To the best of Main-Land’s knowledge, this report of geotechnical

evaluation has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering

practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Main-Land looks forward to providing continuing engineering, design, and construction observation

services for future phases of the project.

Sincerely,

Main-Land Development Consultants, Inc.

__________________________________

Scott R. Dixon, P.E., C.G., L.S.E.

Senior GeoEngineer




MAIN-LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC

www.main-landdevelopment.com

APPENDIX A

Main-Land Exploration Logs

TB-1

PAGE: 1 of 1

S. Dixon, P.E., C.G., L.S.E.

DEPTH: 15.4'

augers

0 S1 0 10

24/16 21 35 Dense, light brown gravelly Sand, trace silt, dry to damp G.S.

14 to dry MC = 3.5%

2 14 -FILL-

3.5'

5 S2 5 24/24 27 Dense, light gray, with mottling near 5.5', silty Sand, little fine gravel,

24 45 damp grading to moist near 6.5', with probable cobbles and G.S.

21 small boulders MC = 7.9%

7 18

10 S3 10 24/24 17 Dense, same as above, wet

20 40

20

12 28

-GLACIAL TILL DEPOSITS-

15 S4 15 5/5 55/0.4' 55+ Same as above, except moist

15.4Bottom of Exploration at 15.4'; Spoon sampler refusal on probable

boulder at 15.4'

20

REMARKS: TB-1 drilled at surveyed location

PROJECT: IFW Hatchery Improvements LOG OF SUBSURFACE

EXPLORATION

EXPLORATION NO.

LOCATION: Casco, Maine

JOB NO. 16-123 DRILLER / RIG: New England Boring Co., Hermon, ME/ATV Rig

LOGGED BY: DRILLING METHOD: 2-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Augers

EXP. START: 12-Aug-16 DRILL STEM OD: 6"

EXP. COMP: 12-Aug-16 HAMMER TYPE: Safety Hammer

EXISTING GRADE: El. 400.8' +/- WEIGHT & FALL: 140 lb./30"

EXP. LOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan GROUNDWATER OBS: Water at 6.7' in open hole after pull

LAB.REC"

DE

PT

H

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

RA

NG

E

PEN"H

AM

ME

R

BL

OW

SN DESCRIPTION

TB-2

PAGE: 1 of 1


DEPTH: 15.3'

augers

0 S1 0 1 Brown loamy Sand, dry -TOPSOIL-

24/18 6 10 0.4' Loose, light brown Sand, little gravel, dry G.S.

4 1.0' -FILL- MC = 7.0%

2 10 Loose to medium dense light yellow brown mottled to 1.5', light gray

below 1.5', silty Sand, little fine gravel

3.5'

5 S2 5 24/22 9 Dense, light gray-brown silty Sand, little gravel, wet, with frequent

18 33 cobbles and small boulders G.S.

15 MC = 9.9%

7 16

10 S3 10 24/24 23 Very dense, light gray silty Sand, little gravel, wet, with lenses of light

32 63 gray fine sandy Silt

31

12 29


Denser near 14'

15 S4 15 4/4 55/0.3' 55+ Same as above, except moist


boulder at 15.3'

20

REMARKS: TB-2 not drilled on survey location due to overhead powerline

Delta Northing = -5.523'; Delta Easting = 2.344'; Delta x = 1.75' (higher than staked location)

DESCRIPTION LAB.REC"

DE

PT

H

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

RA

NG

E

PEN"H

AM

ME

R

BL

OW

SN


EXP. LOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan GROUNDWATER OBS: Open borehole dry to 10' after pulling






EXPLORATION

EXPLORATION NO.


TB-3

PAGE: 1 of 1


DEPTH: 15.5'

augers

0 S1 0 1 Dark brown loamy Sand -TOPSOIL-

24/24 4 8 0.4'

4 Loose, gray to orange-brown medium to fine Sand, some silt, dry

2 7

5 S2 5 24/20 30 Very dense, light yellow-brown Sand, little to some silt, little

35 72 gravel, occasional cobbles and boulders, moist G.S.

37 MC = 9.1%

7 42

10 S3 10 24/24 31 Very dense, same as above, except wet G.S.

33 67 MC = 10.9%

34

12 32


15 S4 15 6/6 75/0.5' 75+ Very dense, gray sandy Silt, little gravel, damp to dry


probable at 15.5'

20



DE

PT

H

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

RA

NG

E

PEN"H

AM

ME

R

BL

OW

SN


EXP. LOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan GROUNDWATER OBS: Water at 8.3' in open hole 3 hrs. after pull






EXPLORATION

EXPLORATION NO.


TB-4

PAGE: 1 of 1


DEPTH: 12.0'


24/18 1 3 0.3'

2 Very loose, light orange-brown to light brown silty Sand, damp G.S.

2 6 MC = 11.8%

5 S2 5 24/24 12 Dense, light gray-brown silty Sand, little gravel, occasional boulders

17 35 and cobbles, moist to 6', wet below 6' G.S.

18 MC = 9.0%

7 19


10 S3 10 24/20 20 Very dense, light gray silty Sand, moist to wet

28 57

29

12 35

Bottom of Exploration at 12'; Not Refusal

15

20



DE

PT

H

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

RA

NG

E

PEN"H

AM

ME

R

BL

OW

SN


EXP. LOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan GROUNDWATER OBS: Open borehole dry to 8' after pulling augers






EXPLORATION

EXPLORATION NO.


TB-5

PAGE: 1 of 1


DEPTH: 16.5'


24/24 3 6 0.4'

3 Loose, light brown medium to fine Sand, little silt, damp

2 2

frequent boulders from 2.5' to 5.5'

5 S2 5 24/24 20 Very dense, light gray silty medium to fine Sand, trace coarse sand

29 53 and fine gravel, damp to dry G.S.

24 MC = 5.4%

7 34

numerous boulders beginning near 8.5'

10 S3 10 18/18 31 Very dense, light brown-gray medium to fine sandy Silt, trace fine G.S.

31 64 gravel, dry to damp MC = 8.6%

11.5 33


Very dense on augers below 12.5', occasional cobbles and small

boulders

15 S4 15 18/18 16 68 Very dense, gray sandy Silt, little gravel, damp to dry

33

16.5' 35

Bottom of Exploration at 16.5'; Not Refusal

20

REMARKS: TB-5 not drilled on survey location due to large trees, topography, and existing pipeline

Delta Northing = -17.025'; Delta Easting = 33.413'; Delta x = -2.81' (lower than staked location)


EXPLORATION

EXPLORATION NO.







EXP. LOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan GROUNDWATER OBS: Not observed


DE

PT

H

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

RA

NG

E

PEN"H

AM

ME

R

BL

OW

SN

TB-6

PAGE: 1 of 1


DEPTH: 7.5'

groundwater near 4.5' based on mottling

0 S1 0 1 Very loose, light brown silty medium to fine Sand, dry

24/8 1 2

1 G.S.

2 1 MC = 8.9%

-PROBABLE TRENCH BACKFILL-

5 S2 5 22/22 11

15 33 5.5' G.S.

18 Medium dense grading to dense, light brown mottled silty medium to MC = 5.4%

6.8 24/.3' find Sand, trace fine gravel, damp -GLACIAL TILL DEPOSITS-

(50/0) Augers encounter probable boulders from 6.5' to 7.5'

Auger refusal on probable weathered bedrock surface at 7.5'

-WEATHERED BEDROCK-

Bottom of Exploration at 7.5'; Auger refusal on probable weathered

bedrock

10

15

20



EXPLORATION

EXPLORATION NO.







EXP. LOCATION: See Exploration Location Plan GROUNDWATER OBS: Not observed; possible seasonal high


DE

PT

H

SA

MP

LE

NO

.

RA

NG

E

PEN"H

AM

ME

R

BL

OW

SN




MAIN-LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS, INC

www.main-landdevelopment.com

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test Results

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION - Maine.gov · recommendations in the following report are based...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION - Maine.gov · recommendations in the following report are based...