GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONclay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. The native soils encountered within the full ... proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Proposed OPAL Multi Family Housing Project

North Beach Road Eastsound, Washington

December 18, 2014

Prepared for

OPAL Community Land Trust

741 Marine Drive Bellingham, Washington

Page 1 of 14

December 18, 2015 Job No. 15-0724 Opal Community Land Trust 286 Enchanted Forrest Road Eastsound, WA 98245 Attn: Jeanne Beck Re: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Multi-Family Development

North Beach Road Eastsound, WA 98245 Dear Ms. Beck, As requested, GeoTest Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed multi-family residential development. The purpose of this evaluation was to establish general subsurface conditions beneath the proposed development from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design could be formulated. Specifically, our scope of services included the following tasks:

• Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site by excavating twelve test pits to evaluate subsurface soil conditions associated with the proposed new development.

• Laboratory testing on representative samples in order to classify and evaluate the

engineering characteristics of the soils encountered.

• Provide this written report containing a description of site surface and subsurface conditions, site geology, test pit logs, and our findings and recommendations pertaining to site preparation and earthwork, fill and compaction, wet weather earthwork, proposed building foundation support, allowable bearing capacity, settlement, seismic design considerations, liquefaction potential, concrete slab-on-grade construction, foundation and site drainage, utilities, temporary and permanent slopes, pavement subgrade preparation and geotechnical consultation and construction monitoring.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is currently undeveloped. The project site is bordered by North Beach Road to the west, single family residences to the north, the Orcas Island School sports fields to the east and a residential development to the south. GTS understands that a new apartment complex is planned for the property. We understand that the proposed development will consist of 7 multi-family residential buildings, a commons building and associated paved parking areas and drives. We also understand that there are plans to construct an additional 3 multi-family residential buildings in the northern portion of the project site at a later date. We anticipate that the structures will likely be wood framed and supported by conventional shallow cast-in-place

741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225

20611-67th Avenue NE Arlington, WA 98223

FAX 360 733_7418

TOLL FREE 888 251_5276

PHONE360 733_7318

GeoTest Services, Inc. December 18, 2015 OPAL North Beach Road Housing Project, Eastsound, WA Job No. 15-0724

Page 2 of 14

concrete foundations. GTS anticipates that the structural loads for the project will be relatively light. SITE CONDITIONS This section discusses the general surface and subsurface conditions observed at the project site at the time of our field investigation. Interpretations of the site conditions are based on the results of our review of available information, site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, and our experience in the project vicinity. General Geologic Conditions Geologic information for the project site was obtained from the interactive Geologic Map of Washington State, published by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). According to the DNR map, subsurface soils in the vicinity of the project consist of Quaternary aged undifferentiated glacial drift (Qgd). Continental glacial drift deposits were emplaced during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation and are often composed of glacial till and outwash clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. The native soils encountered within the full depths of our explorations were generally consistent with the mapped deposits. Surface Conditions The subject property is currently undeveloped. The general topography of the project site slopes downward to the southwest with a total vertical relief of approximately 15 feet over the project site. The vegetation onsite consists primarily of mature evergreen trees with sporadic mature deciduous trees, typical forest underbrush, patches of blackberries and field grass. It is our understanding that a single family residence was previously located in the southwest corner of the lot, but had been demolished prior to our investigation. No surface water was present at the time of our site evaluation. Subsurface Soil Conditions Subsurface soil conditions were explored on November 18, 2015 by excavating twelve test pits throughout of the subject property. The test pits (TP-1 to TP-12) were advanced with a tracked excavator to depths ranging from approximately 6 to 9.5 feet below ground surface (BGS). See the attached Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2) for the approximate locations of our explorations. The subsurface soil profile generally consisted of variable topsoil/forest duff depths ranging between approximately 3 to 12 inches throughout the site. The topsoil/forest duff was comprised of loose, organic, dark brown silty, slightly gravelly sand. Underlying the topsoil/forest duff was a variable weathered horizon that ranged in thickness between approximately 6 to 30 inches. The weathered horizon was generally comprised of loose, organic, orange (mottled), silty sand. Underlying the weathered horizon, a very dense, tan with slight mottling, very silty, gravelly, sand (undifferentiated glacial deposits) was encountered to the full depth of our explorations. More detailed subsurface conditions are shown in the test pit logs and grain size test data sheets (Figures 6 through 15) attached at the end of this report.


Page 3 of 14

Groundwater At the time of our subsurface investigations in November of 2015, slight to rapid groundwater seepage was observed within test pits TP-8, TP-9 and TP-12 at approximately 3.0, 2.5 and 6.5 BGS, respectively. No groundwater seepage was observed in the remaining test pit explorations. The groundwater seepage within test pits, TP-8 and TP-9 may be due to runoff from the sports field located on the eastern border of the project site. Evidence of a seasonal high water table was not observed within any of our explorations. We anticipate that the groundwater conditions within the site will support a seasonal perched runoff condition due to the dense glacial drift deposits with variable fines content. A fluctuating, near surface, groundwater reservoir, present throughout the site, is not anticipated due to the site geology. The groundwater conditions reported on the test pit logs are for the specific locations and dates indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other locations and/or times. Groundwater levels and/or seepage rates are not static and it is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, season, precipitation, changes in land use both on and off site, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon evaluation of the data collected during this investigation, it is our opinion that subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project design. We recommend that all building foundations bear on suitably prepared, undisturbed native undifferentiated glacial drift or properly compacted structural fill placed over undisturbed native undifferentiated glacial drift. Based on our explorations we anticipate that an average of approximately 1.25 to 2.25 feet, throughout the site, and up to 3.5 feet in localized areas, of topsoil and/or weathered soils will need to be removed to reach suitable soils for foundation support. Suitable soils for foundation support are recommended to consist of very dense, inorganic undifferentiated glacial drift. Site Preparation and Earthwork The portions of the site to be occupied by proposed foundations, slabs-on-grade, pavements and/or sidewalks should be prepared by removing any existing topsoil, loose weathered soils containing organics, significant accumulations of organic and any other deleterious material from the areas to be developed. Based on our subsurface logs, it would appear that approximately 1.25 to 2.25 feet, with isolated pockets of up to 3.5 feet, of topsoil and weathered soils are present throughout the proposed development area. With regards to the planned site stripping depth, all organic soils will not be suitable for use in cut and fill operations within the site. Accordingly, for quantity calculation purposes, we would anticipate that generally the upper approximately 1.25 to 2.25 feet, with isolated pockets of up to 3.5 feet, of site soils will need to be removed for the project. Prior to placement of foundation elements or structural fill, the exposed subgrade under all areas to be occupied by soil-supported slabs-on-grade, spread or continuous foundations, pavements or sidewalk areas should be in a firm and unyielding condition or re-compacted to such a condition and proof rolled with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or other equipment applicable to the size of the excavation to verify suitability. The purpose of


Page 4 of 14

this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soils and re-compact the soil disturbed during site excavation activities. Proof rolling should be observed by GeoTest personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or are observed to have elevated moisture contents that prevent the soil from being adequately compacted should be over-excavated to firm soil. Over-excavated areas should be backfilled with structural fill as recommended elsewhere in this report. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, GeoTest personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Fill and Compaction Granular structural fill used to obtain final elevations for soil-supported foundations, slabs-on-grade, pavements and/or sidewalks must be properly placed and compacted. In general, any non-organic, predominantly granular soil may be used as structural fill provided the material is properly moisture conditioned prior to placement and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. Material containing topsoil, wood, trash, organic material, or other debris will not be suitable for reuse as structural fill and should be properly disposed offsite or placed in nonstructural areas. Soils containing more than approximately 5 percent fines are considered moisture sensitive. These soils are very difficult to compact to a firm and unyielding condition when over the optimum moisture content by more than approximately 2 percent. The optimum moisture content is that which allows the greatest dry density to be achieved at a given level of compactive effort. Reuse of Onsite Soil It is our opinion that the reuse of on-site, inorganic, undifferentiated glacial drift as structural fill, encountered below the topsoil and weathered soil horizons, is feasible, but will be highly dependent on the weather conditions and time of year the earthwork operation is planned. Notably, native soils have elevated fines contents, are considered moisture sensitive, and can be difficult to compact when they are above the optimum moisture content. It is our opinion that the site soils should be suitable for cut and fill operations during periods of extended dry weather provided that the earthwork contractor plans for sufficient space and time to properly moisture condition the site soils prior to final placement and compaction. If reuse of native soils as structural fill is desired in the described areas, we highly recommend a planning meeting between the owner, design team, contractor and GeoTest to properly plan and discuss moisture control, aeration and compaction techniques prior to the start of construction. We do not recommend re-use of the onsite topsoil and weathered horizon, encountered within the upper 1.25 to 2.25 feet throughout the site and within the upper 3.5 feet near test pit, TP-3 as structural fill due to the organics present within these soils. We recommend re-use of these soils be limited to non-structural applications or stormwater facilities as applicable.


Page 5 of 14

Imported Structural Fill We recommend that imported granular structural fill consist of clean, well-graded sandy gravel, gravelly sand, or other approved naturally occurring granular material (pit run) with at least 30 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve, or a well-graded crushed rock. Structural fill for dry weather construction may contain on the order of 10 percent fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) based on the portion passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot consistently be compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition when the water content is greater than optimum. Accordingly, we recommend that imported structural fill with less than 5 percent fines be used during wet weather conditions. Due to wet weather or wet site conditions, soil moisture contents could be high enough that it may be very difficult to compact even “clean” imported select granular fill to a firm and unyielding condition. Soils with over-optimum moisture contents should be either scarified and dried back to more suitable moisture contents during periods of dry weather or removed and replaced with fill soils at a more suitable range of moisture contents. Backfill and Compaction All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness and thoroughly compacted. All structural fill placed under load bearing areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. The top of the compacted structural fill should extend outside all foundations and other structural improvements a minimum distance equal to the thickness of the fill. We recommend that compaction be tested periodically throughout the fill placement. Wet Weather Earthwork As described above, the native undifferentiated glacial drift deposits are moisture sensitive. It is our experience that the native glacial drift deposits are particularly susceptible to degradation during wet weather. As a result, it will be difficult to control the moisture content of the site soils during the wet season. The site earthwork contractor must be aware of the limitations of the native glacial soils and have contingencies for addressing over-optimum moisture content soils. If construction is accomplished during wet weather, we recommend that structural fill consist of imported, clean, well-graded sand or sand and gravel as described above. If fill is to be placed or earthwork is to be performed in wet weather or under wet conditions, the contractor may reduce soil disturbance by:

• Limiting the size of areas that are stripped of topsoil and left exposed • Accomplishing earthwork in small sections • Limiting construction traffic over unprotected soil • Sloping excavated surfaces to promote runoff • Limiting the size and type of construction equipment used • Providing gravel "working mats” over areas of prepared subgrade • Removing wet surficial soil prior to commencing fill placement each day • Sealing the exposed ground surface by rolling with a smooth drum compactor or rubber-

tired roller at the end of each working day • Providing up-gradient perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and using temporary

sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from ponding and damaging exposed subgrades.


Page 6 of 14

Foundation Support System It should be anticipated that a minimum of 1.25 to 2.25 feet of topsoil and loose weathered soils will need to be removed to reach suitable bearing conditions at the project site. Foundation support for the proposed improvements may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on proof-rolled, undisturbed, very dense, native undifferentiated glacial drift or on properly compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native undifferentiated glacial drift. We recommend that qualified geotechnical personnel verify that suitable bearing conditions have been reached prior to placement of structural fill or foundation formwork. To provide proper support, we recommend that all existing topsoil and loose weathered soils be removed from beneath the building foundation area(s) or replaced with properly compacted structural fill as described above. Alternatively, localized overexcavation could be backfilled to the design footing elevation with lean concrete or foundations may be extended to bear on undisturbed native undifferentiated glacial drift. In areas requiring overexcavation to competent native soil, the limits of the overexcavation should extend laterally beyond the edge of each side of the footing a distance equal to the depth of the excavation below the base of the footing. If lean concrete is used to backfill the overexcavation, the limits of the overexcavation need only extend a nominal distance beyond the width of the footing. All continuous and isolated spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer, and should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade for freeze/thaw protection. The footings should be sized in accordance with the structural engineer’s prescribed design criteria and seismic considerations. In addition, we recommend that all foundation elements for the proposed structures bear entirely on similar soil conditions in order to help prevent differential settlement from occurring. Allowable Bearing Capacity Assuming the above foundation support criteria are satisfied, continuous or isolated spread footings founded directly on the very dense undifferentiated glacial drift soils or on suitably compacted and prepared granular structural fill may be proportioned using a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The term "net allowable bearing pressure" refers to the pressure that can be imposed on the soil at foundation level resulting from the total of all dead plus live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing or any backfill placed above the footing. The net allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient wind or seismic loads. Foundation Settlement Settlement of shallow foundations depends on foundation size and bearing pressure, as well as the strength and compressibility characteristics of the underlying soil. Assuming construction is accomplished as previously recommended and for the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure recommended above, we estimate the total settlement of building foundations should be less than 1 inch and differential settlement between two adjacent load-bearing components supported on competent soil should be less than one half the total settlement. The soil


Page 7 of 14

response to applied stresses caused by building and other loads is expected to be predominantly elastic in nature, with most of the settlement occurring during construction as loads are applied. Seismic Design Considerations The Pacific Northwest is seismically active and the site could be subject to ground shaking from a moderate to major earthquake. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the project, and the proposed structure should be designed to resist earthquake loading using appropriate design methodology. For structures designed using the seismic design provisions of the 2012 International Building Code, the underlying glaciomarine drift interpreted to underlie the site within the upper 100 feet classifies as Site Class D according to Site Class Definitions, Table 1613.5.2. The corresponding values for calculating a design response spectrum for the assumed soil profile type is considered appropriate for the site. Please reference the following values for seismic structural design purposes: Conterminous 48 States – 2010 ASCE-7 Zip Code 98245 Central Latitude = 48.70056, Central Longitude = -122.90568 Short Period (0.2 sec) Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of Ss = 1.049 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fa = 1.080 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SMS = Ss x Fa = 1.133 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SDS = 2/3 x SMs = 0.756 (g)

One Second Period (1 sec) Spectral Acceleration

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of S1 = 0.421 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fv = 1.579 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SM1 = S1 x Fv = 0.664 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 = 0.443 (g) Concrete Slabs-on-Grade Conventional slab-on-grade floor construction is considered feasible for the planned site improvements. Floor slabs may be supported on properly prepared native subgrade or on properly placed and compacted structural fill placed over properly prepared native subgrade. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the subgrade should be proof-rolled as recommended in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. We recommend that interior concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of compacted, clean, free-draining gravel with less than 3 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). We typically recommend a 5/8” clear crushed rock (no fines) or similar small diameter crushed product. The purpose of this layer is to provide uniform support for the slab, provide a capillary break, and act as a drainage layer. To help reduce the potential for


Page 8 of 14

water vapor migration through floor slabs, at a minimum a continuous impermeable membrane of 10-mil polyethylene sheeting with tape-sealed joints should be installed below the slab. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines suggest that the slab may either be poured directly on the vapor retarding membrane or on a granular curing layer placed over the vapor retarding membrane depending on conditions anticipated during construction. We recommend that the architect or structural engineer specify if a curing layer should be used. If construction is planned during the wet season or if the slab-on-grade will be exposed to rain, we do not recommend the use of a curing layer over the vapor retarding membrane. If moisture control within the building is critical, we recommend an inspection of the vapor retarding membrane to verify that all openings have been properly sealed. Also, upgrading to a higher quality vapor barrier membrane product, such as “Stego-15” or other similar product is usually recommended. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade, such as pavements and sidewalks, may be supported directly on undisturbed native or on properly placed and compacted structural fill; however, long-term performance will be enhanced if exterior slabs are placed on a layer of clean, durable, well-draining granular material. Foundation and Site Drainage To reduce the potential for perched groundwater and surface water to seep into interior spaces we recommend that an exterior footing drain system be constructed around the perimeter of new building foundations as shown in the Typical Footing and Wall Drain Section, Figure 3. The drain should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, surrounded by a minimum of 12 inches of filtering media with the discharge sloped to carry water to a suitable collection system. The filtering media may consist of open-graded drain rock wrapped by a nonwoven geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent) or a graded sand and gravel filter. The drainage backfill should be carried up the exterior of the foundation wall to within 1 foot of the final grade and contain less than 3 percent by weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The invert of the footing drain pipe should be placed slightly below the elevation of the bottom of the footing or 12 inches below the adjacent floor slab grade, whichever is deeper, so that water will not seep through walls or floor slabs. The footing drain should discharge to an approved drain system and include cleanouts to allow periodic maintenance and inspection. Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the proposed building to direct surface water away from the foundation and toward suitable drainage facilities. Roof drainage should not be introduced into the perimeter footing drains, but should be separately piped and discharged directly to the stormwater collection system or other appropriate outlet. Pavement and sidewalk areas should be sloped and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water away from the building towards the designed stormwater collection system. Surface water should not be allowed to pond and soak into the ground surface near the planned building or paved areas during or after construction. Construction excavations should be sloped to drain to sumps where water from seepage, rainfall, and runoff can be collected and pumped to a suitable discharge facility. Based on our site observations, we recommend that a curtain drain be installed along the joint property line with the adjacent sports field to help manage offsite water migration onto the subject site. Site drainage design requires preliminary planning, design coordination and field fitting; therefore, we recommend further coordination with regards to site drainage between GeoTest and the design team once the site grading and development plan is finalized.


Page 9 of 14

Utilities It is important that utility trenches be properly backfilled and compacted to minimize the possibility of cracking or localized loss of foundation, slab, or pavement support. It is anticipated that excavations for new underground utilities will be in near surface undifferentiated glacial drift soils. Trench backfill in improved areas (beneath structures, pavements, sidewalks, etc.) should consist of structural fill as defined earlier in this report. Based on the soil grain-size distributions encountered in test pits, it will be difficult to utilize portions of the near-surface site soils for compacted utility trench backfill without proper moisture conditioning. The use of imported, granular soil should be anticipated for backfill in improved areas. Outside of improved areas, trench backfill may consist of onsite soil. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the report section Fill and Compaction and as shown on Figure 4, Typical Utility Trench Section. Surcharge loads on trench support systems due to construction equipment, stockpiled material, and vehicle traffic should be included in the design of any anticipated shoring system. The contractor should implement measures to prevent surface water runoff from entering trenches and excavations. In addition, vibration as a result of construction activities and traffic may cause caving of the trench walls. Actual trench configurations should be the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes should be followed. All open cuts should be monitored by the contractor during excavation for any evidence of instability. If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. If groundwater or groundwater seepage is present, and the trench is not properly dewatered, the soil within the trench zone may be prone to caving, channeling, and running. Trench widths may be substantially wider than under dewatered conditions. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Actual construction slope configurations and maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, should be the responsibility of the contractor, who is able to monitor the construction activities and has direct control over the means and methods of construction. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes should be followed. All open cuts should be monitored during and after excavation for any evidence of instability. If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 ft should be shored or sloped in accordance with Safety Standards for Construction Work Part N, WAC 296-155-657. Temporary unsupported excavations in very dense glacial drift soils (silty, sands) encountered at the project site are classified as a Type B soil according to WAC 296-155-657 and may be sloped as steep as 1H:1V. Where site soils contain minimal fines content or are not in a very dense condition, they are classified as a Type C soil according to WAC 296-155-657 and may be sloped as steep as 1.5H:1V. All soils encountered are classified as Type C soil in the presence of groundwater seepage. Flatter slopes or temporary shoring may be required in areas where groundwater flow is present and unstable conditions develop. We recommend that permanent cut or fill slopes be designed for inclinations of 2H:1V or flatter. Permanent cuts or fill slopes that are part of detention ponds, retention ponds, infiltration


Page 10 of 14

facilities, or other earth structures intended to receive stormwater should be designed for inclinations of 3H:1V or flatter. All permanent cut or fill slopes should be vegetated or otherwise protected to limit the potential for erosion as soon as practical after construction. Permanent slopes requiring immediate protection from the effects of erosion should be covered with plastic sheeting, mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas requiring permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or hydroseeded with an approved seed-mulch-fertilizer mixture. Occasionally, subsurface conditions may result in the concentration of seepage within particular soil zones. The need for additional drainage within specific seepage zones can best be determined during or following construction on a case-by-case basis. Pavement Subgrade Preparation Selection of a pavement section is typically a choice between higher initial cost and lower long term maintenance expenses verses lower initial costs with potentially more frequent maintenance expenses and/or less time before an overlay may be necessary. For this reason, we recommend that the owner participate in the selection of proposed pavement improvements planned for the site. Site grading plans should include provisions for sloping of the subgrade soils in proposed pavement areas, so that passive drainage of the pavement section(s) can proceed uninterrupted during the life of the project. Structural fill placed to establish subgrade elevation should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. Prior to the placement of base-course and paving materials, the exposed subgrade under all areas to be occupied by asphalt and/or concrete pavement should be proof rolled. Proof rolling should be accomplished with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or equivalent piece of equipment. The purpose of this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soil and recompact disturbed areas of the subgrade. Proof rolling should be observed and verified by GeoTest personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or saturated soils that cannot be readily compacted should be over-excavated to firm soil. Over-excavated areas should be backfilled with compacted granular fill. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, GeoTest personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Prevention of road-base saturation is essential for pavement durability; thus, efforts should be made to limit the amount of water entering the base course. Stormwater Design Recommendations We understand that stormwater infiltration and/or dispersion is planned for the site, but final design and locations within the site have not been determined at the time of this report. GTS collected representative soil samples from the twelve test explorations performed on November 18, 2015. From the explorations excavated in the areas of interest, fifteen representative soil samples were selected and mechanically tested for grain size distribution and interpretation according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification. Subsurface infiltration rates corresponding to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification were obtained from the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Table 3.7 and are reproduced in Table 1 below.


Page 11 of 14

TABLE 1 Test Pit Soil Sample Infiltration Rates

Based On The 2005 DOE Stormwater Management Manual Table 3.7

Test Pit Number

Sample Depth (ft) Soil Type Classification

(USDA) Infiltration Rate

Per USDA (Inches/Hour)

TP-1 1.0 SM/OL Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-2 6.25 SM Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-3 3.5 SP-SM Sand 2.0 TP-4 5.75 ML Loam 0.13 TP-5 2.5 GP-GM Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-5 6.0 SP Sand 2.0 TP-6 1.5 SM/OL Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-7 6.25 SM Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-8 1.0 SM/OL Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-8 3.0 GP Sand 2.0

TP-10 1.0 SM/OL Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-10 6.0 SM Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-11 3.25 GW Sand 2.0 TP-12 1.5 SM/OL Sandy Loam 0.25 TP-12 3.5 SP-SM Loamy Sand 0.5

Note: Listed infiltration rates are long-term (design) rates as stated in Tables 3.7. Based on our visual and laboratory classification the silty, gravelly, sand (Undifferentiated Glacial Drift) below the topsoil and weathered horizon encountered at of approximately 1.25 to 2.25 feet BGS have classifications that range from “loam” to “sand” per Table 3.7 of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and have a long-term infiltration rates ranging from 0.13 to 2.0 inches per hour. However, due to the very dense nature of these deposits, we would expect that the long term infiltration rates of these deposits to be lower than the referenced laboratory grain size correlated rates and do not recommend the use of these rates, without further testing. If long-term design infiltration rates for the undifferentiated glacial drift are required for the project we recommend performing Pilot Infiltration Testing to determine the long term design infiltration rates of the undifferentiated glacial drift. Based on our visual observation and laboratory classification the weathered horizon encountered below the topsoil onsite is classified as “sandy loam” per USDA classification and has a long-term infiltration rate of 0.25 inches per hour per Table 3.7 of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Cation Exchange Capacity Testing Cation exchange capacity (CEC) tests were performed by Northwest Agricultural Consultants on 8 samples collected from test pits TP-1, TP-3, TP-6, TP-7, TP-8 and TP-12. A summary of the laboratory test results is presented in Table 2 below.


Page 12 of 14

TABLE 2

CEC, pH & Organic Content Laboratory Test Results

Test Pit Number

Sample Depth (ft)

Cation Exchange Capacity(meq/100 grams) Organic Content (%) pH

TP-1 1.0 10.9 3.15 5.8 TP-3 0.25 25.7 14.32 5.2 TP-3 3.5 6.7 1.65 6.4 TP-6 1.5 8.1 3.22 5.7 TP-7 0.5 23.9 9.89 5.8 TP-8 1.0 10.6 3.66 6.2 TP-12 0.5 16.9 6.00 7.2 TP-12 1.5 10.3 2.66 7.2

Based on the results listed in Table 2, the topsoil, weathered glacial deposits and upper portions of the undifferentiated glacial deposits, generally found in the upper 3.5 feet BGS, appear suitable for onsite pollutant treatment. Suitability for onsite pollutant treatment was determined in accordance with SSC-6 of the 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Geotechnical Consultation and Construction Monitoring GeoTest Services recommends that we be provided the opportunity to review the earthwork and foundation portions of the design drawings and specifications. The purpose of the review is to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated in the design and specifications. We recommend that geotechnical construction monitoring services be provided. These services should include observation by geotechnical personnel during the site preparation, overexcavation and replacement, granular fill placement and compaction operations as well as foundation subgrade preparation to verify that design subgrade conditions are obtained beneath the proposed building and other load bearing areas within the site. We also recommend that periodic field density testing be performed to verify that the appropriate degree of compaction is obtained. The purpose of these services would be to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations of this report, and in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before the start of construction, provide revised recommendations appropriate to the conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest Services would be pleased to provide these services for you. GeoTest Services is also available to provide a full range of materials testing and special inspection during construction as required by the local building department and the International Building Code. This may include specific construction inspections on materials such as reinforced concrete, post tensioned concrete, reinforced masonry, structural steel, wood and/or metal framing, fire proofing, various anchor installations and other items of special inspection. These services are supported by our fully accredited materials testing laboratory.


Page 13 of 14

USE OF THIS REPORT GeoTest Services has prepared this report for the exclusive use of OPAL Community Land Trust and their design consultants for specific application to the design of the proposed new mult-family residential development on North Beach Road in Eastsound, Washington. Use of this report by others is at the user’s sole risk. This report is not applicable to other sites. Our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession; no other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Our site explorations indicate subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions to the limited depth of our explorations at the time of our exploration program, a brief geological reconnaissance of the area, and review of published geological information for the site. We assume that the explorations are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site during the preparation of our recommendations. If variations in subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, we should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction operations at or adjacent to the project site, we recommend that we review this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. The earthwork contractor is responsible to perform all work in conformance with all applicable WISHA/OSHA regulations. GeoTest Services, Inc. should not be assumed to be responsible for job site safety on this project, and this responsibility is specifically disclaimed.


Page 14 of 14

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project and look forward to assisting you during the final design and construction phases. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTest Services, Inc.

Joseph Schmidt, E.I.T. Staff Engineer

Dan Sorenson, L.E.G. Dong-Soo Lee, P.E. Engineering Geologist Sr. Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 Typical Footing and Wall Drain Section Figure 4 Typical Utility Trench Section Figure 5 Soil Classification System and Key Figures 6 - 11 Test Pit Logs

Figures 12 - 15 Grain Size Test Data Cation Exchange, pH and Organic Content test results (2 Pages) ASFE - Report Limitations and Guidelines For Its Use (3 pages)

References: Interactive Geologic Map of Washington State. Online interactive services provided by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. February 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication Numbers 05-10-029 through 05-10-033.

!"#$%&& '(")$%&&

&*+,&-"./0$&!./1$&

2$))/034"56&78&&9:;;<&=4>0$%&&?@ABC&*@@D*@,:&E"F%&&&&&&&&?@ABC&*@@D*+,:

G/3H.$

2I%& J.>K$(#

!"#$%&'()*%&#")+&#(!$),&-#".(*$&!"#$%&'()*%&#")+&

()/$/"0!+1&2)/%3!4$"!&

56789:;

,

,,D,9D,< LM' 8N&'4>O0

/3$(&<3*3!3$=&>)-

5&>?@A

!

JPQLMRS&TQR8SUQV

-8J&PMGMPMVRM!&GPQ-&WQQWTM&-8J'

!"#$% &'"($%))

)*+,)-"./0$)!./1$)

2$((/034"56)78))9:;;<)=4>0$%))?@ABC)*@@D*@,:)E"F%))))))))?@ABC)*@@D*+,:

GHIJKL

2M%) N.>O$'#

!"#$%&'()*%&#")+&#(!$),&-#".(*$&!"#$%&'()*%&#")+&

()/$/"0!+1&2)/%3!4$"! ;

56789:;

!&,;D;,D,< 8P)&4>Q0

/3$(&)!+&(<-,"#)$3"!&-,)!

)R)8==.>F/5"#$)LF=(>."#/>0)S>'"#/>0$-7=

KLGLKLTUL)NS8T)NKVWH!L!)2X)Y8KZ)N8UHGHU)LTIHTLLKHTI

!

!"#$%&& '(")$%&&

&*+,&-"./0$&!./1$&

2$))/034"56&78&&9:;;<&=4>0$%&&?@ABC&*@@D*@,:&E"F%&&&&&&&&?@ABC&*@@D*+,:

G/3H.$

2I%& J.>K$(#

!"#$%&'()*%&#+,&#(!$)-&.#"/(*$&!"#$%&'()*%&#+,&&

()0$0"1!+2&&3)0%4!5$"!

6789:;<

@

,;D,+D,< LM' N>0$

$=.4*)-&>""$4!5&?&3)--&+#)4!&0(*$4"!

0%)--"3&>""$4!50&34$%&4!$(#4"#&*#)3-&0.)*(

!""#$"#%&'()*&"$#)+&##%(#

,$-#)./01)2%&3('(#)4)5(#6$#&'(74)8%9%7)5*:)5%"();5(#6$#&'%$/<)$#%(/'(7)7$=/4)=#&""(7)%/)/$/>=$?(/)9($'(@'%A()6%A'(#)6&B#%04)7%#(0'(7)'$)<-%'&BA()7%<01&#9(C

2#&%/&9()D&'(#%&A);2#&%/)8$0E4):A(&#):#-<1(7C

F-%'&BA()G&'%?()F$%A

F-%'&BA()G&'%?()F$%A

,#(()2#&%/%/9)F&/7)&/7)H#&?(A),%AA);./'(#%$#)<-B<A&B)7#&%/&9()3&I)B()&""A%0&BA()

7("(/7%/9)$/)<%'()0$/7%'%$/<)C

:$&#<()H#&?(A):&"%AA&#I)+#(&E);J)%/01)3%/%3-3>)0A(&#)0#-<1(7)#$0EC

F-%'&BAI)0$3"&0'(7)/&'%?()<$%A)$#)

%3"$#'(7)<'#-0'-#&A)6%AA4)&<)&""A%0&BA( !""#$?(7)G$/>=$?(/)H($'(@'%A()

;D%#&6%)KLMG)$#)(N-%A&?(/'C),%A'(#),&B#%0);KO)%/01)3%/%3-3)6&B#%0)A&"C

FA$"()'$)7#&%/)&=&I)6#$3)<'#-0'-#(

!""#$"#%&'()P&'(#)5#$$6%/9)!""A%(7)'$)P&AA

,%#<'),A$$#

:#&=A)F"&0(

H#$-/7)F-#6&0(

!""#$"#%&'()P&'(#)F'$")&')Q$%/'

!@ABCD&>@@AEFGC&0H@IJK&LB&MN@MBNJO&LINEBK&P@N&PN@CA&MN@ABQAE@F&EF&RQQ@NKRFQB&SEAH&4FABNFRAE@FRJ&'IEJKEFG&*@KB&@N&J@QRJ&LIEJKEFG&Q@KBC&T$OMEQRJJO&6U&EFQHBC&LBJ@S&BVABNE@N&PEFECHBK&GNRKBCW

!"#$%&& '(")$%&&

&*+,&-"./0$&!./1$&

2$))/034"56&78&&9:;;<&=4>0$%&&?@ABC&*@@D*@,:&E"F%&&&&&&&&?@ABC&*@@D*+,:

G/3H.$

2I%& J.>K$(#

!"#$%&'()*%&#+,&#(!$)-&.#"/(*$&!"#$%&'()*%&#+,&&

()0$0"1!+2&3)0%4!5$"!

6789:;<

+

,;D+D,< LM' N>0$

$=.4*)-&1$4-4$=&$#(!*%&0(*$4"!

-)!+0*).4!5&)#()0 -")+&'()#4!5&)#()0

5North Beach Rd Rental Project

North Beach RdEastsound, WA

1

Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s)

Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s)GC

1. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure),as outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classificationof Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487.

2. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows:

SW

ROCK

ML

Field and Lab Test DataDrilling and Sampling Key

Portion of Sample Retainedfor Archive or Analysis

Sample Depth Interval

Recovery Depth Interval

Code Description CodeSample Identification Number

ATD

GroundwaterApproximate water elevation at time of drilling (ATD) or on date noted. Groundwaterlevels can fluctuate due to precipitation, seasonal conditions, and other factors.

abcde1234

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL

CLEAN GRAVEL

Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandyclay; silty clay; lean clay

Soil Classification System

Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity

50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. 50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. 12% - "slightly gravelly," "slightly sandy," "slightly silty," etc. 5% - "trace gravel," "trace sand," "trace silt," etc., or not noted.

Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay

Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content

OL

CO

AR

SE

-GR

AIN

ED

SO

IL(M

ore

than

50%

of m

ater

ial i

sla

rger

than

No.

200

sie

ve s

ize) Poorly graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines

> 30% and <> 12% and <> 5% and <

<

Primary Constituent:Secondary Constituents:

Additional Constituents:

(Liquid limit less than 50)

Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement

Well-graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines

(Mor

e th

an 5

0% o

f mat

eria

lis

sm

alle

r tha

n N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

size

)

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey finesand or clayey silt with slight plasticity

PTOH

SAND ANDSANDY SOIL

GRAVEL ANDGRAVELLY SOIL

SP

MH

(Liquid limit greater than 50)

Notes:

> _ _ _ _

(Little or no fines)

GRAVEL WITH FINES(Appreciable amount of

fines)

(Little or no fines)CLEAN SAND

SAND WITH FINES

GRAPHICSYMBOL

LETTERSYMBOL

GPGM

Organic clay of medium to high plasticity; organic silt

Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand

Well-graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines

GRAPHICSYMBOL

(Appreciable amount offines)

DB

AC or PC

SMSC

RK

DescriptionSAMPLER TYPESAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL

CL

GW

CH

SILT AND CLAY

3.25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split SpoonShelby TubeGrab SampleOther - See text if applicable300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop140-lb Hammer, 30-inch DropPushedOther - See text if applicable

PP = 1.0TV = 0.5

PID = 100W = 10D = 120

-200 = 60GSALGTCA

(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction retained

on No. 4 sieve)

(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction passedthrough No. 4 sieve)

Pocket Penetrometer, tsfTorvane, tsfPhotoionization Detector VOC screening, ppmMoisture Content, %Dry Density, pcfMaterial smaller than No. 200 sieve, %Grain Size - See separate figure for dataAtterberg Limits - See separate figure for dataOther Geotechnical TestingChemical Analysis

SILT AND CLAY

WOOD

DEBRIS

Rock (See Rock Classification)

Wood, lumber, wood chips

Construction debris, garbage

Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines

USCSLETTERSYMBOL

Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s)

Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s)

PAVEMENT

WD

OTHER MATERIALS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

MAJORDIVISIONS

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS(1)(2)

Soil Classification System and KeyFigure

12

3

4

dd

d

d

SM/OLSM/OLSM

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange, damp to moist, silty, medium tofine SAND with organics (Weathered Horizon)Very dense, tan with slight mottling, dry, verysilty, gravelly, SAND (Undifferentiated GlacialDrift)Roots/rootlets to ~2' BGSPP at 3.5' BGS = 4.5+ tsf with minimalpenetrationGrades to gray at ~5' BGSNo groundwater encountered within test pit

W = 28W = 14

GS

W = 12

W = 15

Test Pit Completed 11/18/15Total Depth of Test Pit = 6.3 ft.

Groundwater not encountered.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-1

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Not DeterminedGround Elevation (ft):

Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol

SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER

Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate.2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions.3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols.

6Log of Test PitsFigureNorth Beach Rd Rental Project


15-0

724

12/

14/1

5 X

:\0-P

RO

JEC

TS G

EO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

ST P

IT L

OG

56

7

8

dd

d

d

SM/OLSM/OLSM

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange, damp to moist, silty, medium tofine SAND with organics (Weathered Horizon)Very dense, tan with slight mottling, dry, verysilty, slightly gravelly, coarse to fine SAND(Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)PP at 2.5 to 3.25' BGS = 4.5+ tsf with minimalpenetration

No groundwater encountered within test pit

W = 26W = 15

W = 10

W = 9GS



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-2

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol


9

10

11

12

d

d

d

d

SP/OLSM/OL

SP-SM

Loose, black, moist, very gravelly, coarse to fineSAND with trace silt and abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange, damp to moist, silty, slightlygravelly, coarse to fine SAND with organics(Weathered Horizon)~3.5' boulder at ~1' BGSVery dense, light gray, dry, very gravelly, slightlysilty, coarse to fine SAND (UndifferentiatedGlacial Drift)Silt content increases with depth


W = 20GS

W = 17

W = 5GS

W = 13



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-3

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol





15-0

724

12/

14/1

5 X

:\0-P

RO

JEC

TS G

EO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

ST P

IT L

OG

13

14

15

16

d

d

d

d

SM/OLSM/OLSPML

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange, damp to moist, silty, slightlygravelly, medium to fine SAND with organics(Weathered Horizon)Medium dense, dark gray, moist, very gravelly,SAND (Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)Very stiff to hard, tan with mottling, dry, verysandy, SILT with trace fine gravel and abundantcobbles (Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)No groundwater encountered within test pit

W = 20

W = 6

W = 9

W = 10GS



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-4

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol


17

18

19

20

21

d

d

d

d

d

SM/OLML/OLGP-GMSP

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange-red with sporadic heavy mottling,moist, very sandy, SILT with abundant organics(Weathered Horizon)Medium dense, dark gray, moist, very sandy,slightly silty, coarse to fine GRAVEL(Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)Very dense, tan with slight mottling, dry,medium to fine SAND with trace silt(Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)


W = 25

W = 21W = 5

GS

W = 4GS

W = 10



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-5

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol





15-0

724

12/

14/1

5 X

:\0-P

RO

JEC

TS G

EO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

ST P

IT L

OG

22

23

24

d

d

d

SM/OLSM/OL

SM

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange, damp to moist, silty, slightlygravelly, medium to fine SAND with organics(Weathered Horizon)Very dense, tan with slight mottling, dry, verysilty, slightly gravelly, SAND (UndifferentiatedGlacial Drift)


W = 14GS

W = 9

W = 8



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-6

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol


25

26

27

28

d

d

d

d

SM/OLSM/OLSM

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange-brown, damp to moist, silty,slightly gravelly, coarse to fine SAND withorganics (Weathered Horizon)Very dense, tan with slight mottling, dry, verysilty, slightly gravelly, medium to fine SAND(Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)


W = 31GS

W = 21

W = 6

W = 12GS



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-7

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol





15-0

724

12/

14/1

5 X

:\0-P

RO

JEC

TS G

EO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

ST P

IT L

OG

29

30

31

d

d

d

Rapid perched groundwater seepagegroundwater seepage encountered at 3.0 ft.

SM/OLSM/OLGP

ML

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange with heavy mottling, damp tomoist, silty, slightly gravelly, coarse to fineSAND with organics (Weathered Horizon)Very dense, brown, wet to saturated, verysandy, slightly silty, GRAVEL (UndifferentiatedGlacial Drift)Very dense, tan, damp to moist, slightly sandy,SILT (Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)

W = 17GS

W = 9GS

W = 19


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-8

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol


32

33

34

d

d

d

Rapid perched groundwater seepagegroundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 ft.

SM/OLSM/OLGP

ML

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange with heavy mottling, damp tomoist, silty, slightly gravelly, coarse to fineSAND with organics (Weathered Horizon)Very dense, brown, wet to saturated, verysandy, coarse to fine GRAVEL (UndifferentiatedGlacial Drift)Very stiff to hard, tan, damp to moist, slightlysandy, SILT (Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)

W = 13

W = 17

W = 15


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-9

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol





15-0

724

12/

14/1

5 X

:\0-P

RO

JEC

TS G

EO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

ST P

IT L

OG

3536

37

38

dd

d

d

SM/OLSM/OLSM

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange, damp to moist, silty, coarse tofine SAND with trace fine gravel and organics(Weathered Horizon)Very dense, tan with slight mottling, dry, verysilty, slightly gravelly, coarse to fine SAND(Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)Roots/rootlets to ~3' BGS


W = 22W = 14

GS

W = 4

W = 18GS



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-10

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol


39

40

41

d

d

d

SM/OLSM/OLGW

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange-brown, damp to moist, silty,SAND with trace fine gravel and organics(Weathered Horizon)Very dense, tan with slight mottling, dry, verysandy, coarse to fine GRAVEL with abundantcobbles (Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)Grades to very silty, gravelly, SAND at ~4.5'BGS


W = 15

W = 2GS

W = 12



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-11

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol





15-0

724

12/

14/1

5 X

:\0-P

RO

JEC

TS G

EO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

TE

ST P

IT L

OG

42

43

44

45

d

d

d

d

Slight groundwater seepage encountered at 6.5 ft.

SM/OLSM/OLSP-SM

Loose, dark brown, moist, silty, slightly gravelly,medium to fine SAND with abundant organics(Topsoil)Loose, orange, damp to moist, very silty,medium to fine SAND with organics (WeatheredHorizon)Very dense, gray with mottling, damp, gravelly,slightly silty, coarse to fine SAND(Undifferentiated Glacial Drift)

Grades to very silty at ~6.5' BGS

W = 20GS

W = 19GS

W = 9GS

W = 16


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Excavated By:

TP-12

Test

Dat

a

Excavation Method:

Gra

phic

Sym

bol


Orcas Excavating

Tracked Excavator

Dep

th (f

t)

US

CS

Sym

bol


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

Grain Size Test Data

6 103

Depth

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

8

%CoarseGravel

2 143/4 2006

Cc = D302/(D60* D10)

Cu = D60/D10

1

medium

% CoarseSand

finecoarse

4 404 20

D10D30% FineSand

Point

Per

cent

Fin

er b

y W

eigh

t

140

PI

% FinesD60

fine

D50

Cc

100

Silt or ClaySand

coarse

60

Grain Size in Millimeters

GravelCobbles

3

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

1.5

% FineGravelD100

1/2

ClassificationDepth

3/8

Cu

50

To be well graded: 1 < Cc < 3 andCu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW

LL PL

% MediumSand

16

Point

30HYDROMETER

25.5

43.3

3.9

6.3

51.0

2.7

3.2

25.0

19.8

2.9

44.6

38.7

15.4

21.3

33.2

25.4

9.5

20.2

20.2

8.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.3

0.0

1.9

5.3

35.6

28.1

4.4

19

19

19

37.5

19

0.359

0.169

4.072

3.409

0.123

0.303

0.107

2.88

2.203

0.07

0.16

0.975

0.504

0.263

0.173

Silty, medium to fine SAND (SM/OL)

Very silty, slightly gravelly, coarse to fine SAND (SM)

Very gravelly, coarse to fine SAND with trace silt (Topsoil) (SP/OL)

Very gravelly, slightly silty, coarse to fine SAND (SP-SM)

Very sandy, SILT with trace fine gravel (ML)

1.0

6.3

0.3

3.5

5.8

1.0

6.3

0.3

3.5

5.8

TP-1

TP-2

TP-3

TP-3

TP-4

TP-1

TP-2

TP-3

TP-3

TP-4

0.89

0.43

15.46

19.65

FigureNorth Beach Rd Rental ProjectNorth Beach RdEastsound, WA

15-0

724

12/

4/15

X:\0

-PR

OJE

CTS

GEO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

GR

AIN

SIZ

E W

/STA

TS

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100


6 103

Depth

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

8

%CoarseGravel

2 143/4 2006

Cc = D302/(D60* D10)

Cu = D60/D10

1

medium

% CoarseSand

finecoarse

4 404 20

D10D30% FineSand

Point

Per

cent

Fin

er b

y W

eigh

t

140

PI

% FinesD60

fine

D50

Cc

100

Silt or ClaySand

coarse

60


GravelCobbles

3


1.5

% FineGravelD100

1/2

ClassificationDepth

3/8

Cu

50


LL PL

% MediumSand

16

Point

30HYDROMETER

6.0

3.8

22.3

25.0

39.1

6.7

0.9

2.5

4.3

4.7

16.8

71.0

37.5

31.5

32.5

9.0

24.2

29.5

33.4

17.7

31.5

0.0

6.4

0.0

0.0

30.0

0.1

1.8

5.8

6.0

37.5

9.5

37.5

19

19

13.971

0.356

0.428

0.483

0.241

9.742

0.315

0.36

0.36

0.152

1.365

0.245

0.258

0.149

0.21

0.132

Very sandy, slightly silty, coarse to fine GRAVEL (GP-GM)

Medium to fine SAND with trace silt (SP)

Silty, slightly gravelly, medium to fine SAND (SM/OL)

Silty, slightly gravelly, medium to fine SAND (Topsoil) (SM/OL)

Very silty, slightly gravelly, medium to fine SAND (SM)

2.5

6.0

1.5

0.5

6.3

2.5

6.0

1.5

0.5

6.3

TP-5

TP-5

TP-6

TP-7

TP-7

TP-5

TP-5

TP-6

TP-7

TP-7

0.64

1.28

66.51

2.69


15-0

724

12/

4/15

X:\0

-PR

OJE

CTS

GEO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

GR

AIN

SIZ

E W

/STA

TS

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100


6 103

Depth

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

8

%CoarseGravel

2 143/4 2006

Cc = D302/(D60* D10)

Cu = D60/D10

1

medium

% CoarseSand

finecoarse

4 404 20

D10D30% FineSand

Point

Per

cent

Fin

er b

y W

eigh

t

140

PI

% FinesD60

fine

D50

Cc

100

Silt or ClaySand

coarse

60


GravelCobbles

3


1.5

% FineGravelD100

1/2

ClassificationDepth

3/8

Cu

50


LL PL

% MediumSand

16

Point

30HYDROMETER

21.1

2.9

24.8

38.0

1.3

14.0

14.5

5.2

14.2

9.8

17.9

9.5

32.2

22.5

11.6

36.5

18.0

33.1

17.6

13.9

0.0

38.1

0.0

0.0

35.8

10.5

17.1

4.6

7.6

27.6

19

37.5

19

19

37.5

0.911

15.901

0.471

0.406

15.828

0.627

6.886

0.366

0.181

10.248

0.303

1.937

0.204

2.66

0.342

0.351

Silty, slightly gravelly, coarse to fine SAND (SM/OL)

Very sandy, coarse to fine GRAVEL (GP)

Silty, coarse to fine SAND with trace fine gravel (SM/OL)

Very silty, slightly gravelly, coarse to fine SAND (SM)

Very sandy, coarse to fine GRAVEL (GW)

1.0

3.0

1.0

6.0

3.3

1.0

3.0

1.0

6.0

3.3

TP-8

TP-8

TP-10

TP-10

TP-11

TP-8

TP-8

TP-10

TP-10

TP-11

0.69

1.27

46.43

45.14


15-0

724

12/

4/15

X:\0

-PR

OJE

CTS

GEO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

GR

AIN

SIZ

E W

/STA

TS

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100


6 103

Depth

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

8

%CoarseGravel

2 143/4 2006

Cc = D302/(D60* D10)

Cu = D60/D10

1

medium

% CoarseSand

finecoarse

4 404 20

D10D30% FineSand

Point

Per

cent

Fin

er b

y W

eigh

t

140

PI

% FinesD60

fine

D50

Cc

100

Silt or ClaySand

coarse

60


GravelCobbles

3


1.5

% FineGravelD100

1/2

ClassificationDepth

3/8

Cu

50


LL PL

% MediumSand

16

Point

30HYDROMETER

19.7

32.7

11.0

5.3

1.3

9.0

45.0

48.2

39.2

19.2

17.3

17.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.8

0.5

23.1

19

9.5

19

0.384

0.305

0.886

0.31

0.26

0.421

0.167

0.217 0.062

Silty, slightly gravelly, medium to fine SAND (Topsoil) (SM/OL)

Very silty, medium to fine SAND (SM/OL)

Gravelly, slightly silty, coarse to fine SAND (SP-SM)

0.5

1.5

3.5

0.5

1.5

3.5

TP-12

TP-12

TP-12

TP-12

TP-12

TP-12 0.86 14.31


15-0

724

12/

4/15

X:\0

-PR

OJE

CTS

GEO

\000

00-P

RO

JEC

TS 2

015-

GE

O\F

ULL

GE

O E

VAL

UAT

ION

S\O

PAL

CO

MM

UN

ITY

LA

ND

TR

US

T - 1

5-07

24 -

N. B

EAC

H R

D, E

ASTS

OU

ND

, WA

\GIN

T\N

OR

TH B

EAC

H R

OA

D R

ENTA

L PR

OJE

CT

GIN

T.G

PJ

GR

AIN

SIZ

E W

/STA

TS

15

Northwest Agricultural Consultants2545 West FallsKennewick, WA 99336(509) 783-7450 Fax: (509) 783-5305

GEOTEST SERVICES INC741 MARINE DRBELLINGHAM, WA 98225

SOILClient No.: 9678 Date Received: 11-24-2015Report No.: 36982 Page: 1 of 2fc7128-67338

37377

Grower Sampler Field No. Field Name Crop Year Crop Yield GoalProject No: 15-0724 North Beach Rd.

Depth(ft.)

AvailableInches

NO3-Nlbs/acre

NH4-Nlbs/acre

Sulfurppm

pH SolubleSalts(mmhos/cm)

OrganicMatterPercent

P(bic)ppm

K(bic)ppm

P(ace)ppm

K(ace)ppm

Calcium(meq.per 100grams)

Magne-sium(meq.per 100grams)

Sodium(meq.per 100grams)

Eff. Boronppm

Zincppm

Manga-neseppm

Ironppm

Copperppm

CEC(meq.per 100grams)

% BaseSat.

Chloridelbs. per.acre

Bray 1Pppm

TotalBases(meq.per 100grams)

SampleID

1 5.8 10.92 5.2 25.73 6.4 6.74 5.7 8.1

Total 0.00

Estimated Nitrogen Release from Organic Matter Estimated Total Nitrogen Available to Crop Last Year's Crop Fertilizer

Comments

Sample ID pH Organic Matter Cation Exchange CapacityTP1- 1.0 ft 5.8 3.15% 10.9 meq/100gTP3- 0.25 ft 5.2 14.32% 25.7 meq/100gTP3- 3.5 ft 6.4 1.65% 6.7 meq/100gTP6- 1.5 ft 5.7 3.22% 8.1 meq/100g

Organic Matter Method: Loss on IgnitionCEC Method: EPA 9081

X____________________________________________

Northwest Agricultural Consultants2545 West FallsKennewick, WA 99336(509) 783-7450 Fax: (509) 783-5305

GEOTEST SERVICES INC741 MARINE DRBELLINGHAM, WA 98225

SOILClient No.: 9678 Date Received: 11-24-2015Report No.: 36982 Page: 2 of 270b3fa-71798

37377

Grower Sampler Field No. Field Name Crop Year Crop Yield GoalProject No: 15-0724 North Beach Rd.

Depth(ft.)

AvailableInches

NO3-Nlbs/acre

NH4-Nlbs/acre

Sulfurppm

pH SolubleSalts(mmhos/cm)

OrganicMatterPercent

P(bic)ppm

K(bic)ppm

P(ace)ppm

K(ace)ppm

Calcium(meq.per 100grams)

Magne-sium(meq.per 100grams)

Sodium(meq.per 100grams)

Eff. Boronppm

Zincppm

Manga-neseppm

Ironppm

Copperppm

CEC(meq.per 100grams)

% BaseSat.

Chloridelbs. per.acre

Bray 1Pppm

TotalBases(meq.per 100grams)

SampleID

1 5.8 23.92 6.2 10.63 7.2 16.94 7.2 10.3

Total 0.00

Estimated Nitrogen Release from Organic Matter Estimated Total Nitrogen Available to Crop Last Year's Crop Fertilizer

Comments

Sample ID pH Organic Matter Cation Exchange CapacityTP7- 0.5 ft 5.8 9.89% 23.9 meq/100gTP8- 1.0 ft 6.2 3.66% 10.6 meq/100gTP12- 0.5 ft 7.2 6.00% 16.9 meq/100gTP12- 1.5 ft 7.2 2.66% 10.3 meq/100g

Organic Matter Method: Loss on IgnitionCEC Method: EPA 9081

X____________________________________________

1Information in this document is based upon material developed by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences(asfe.org)

REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR ITS USE1

Subsurface issues may cause construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help:

Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects

At GeoTest our geotechnical engineers and geologists structure their services to meet specific needs of our clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of an owner, a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one – not even you – should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full Report

Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors

GeoTest’s geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless GeoTest, who conducted the study specifically states otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

• not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed, for example, from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed construction, • alterations in drainage designs; or • composition of the design team; the passage of time; man-made alterations and

construction whether on or adjacent to the site; or by natural alterations and events, such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater fluctuations; or project ownership.

Always inform GeoTest’s geotechnical engineer of project changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.


Subsurface Conditions Can Change

This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on the findings and conclusions of this report, whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoTest before applying the report to determine if it is still relevant. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis will help determine if the report remains applicable.

Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions

Our site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoTest’s engineers and geologists review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ – sometimes significantly – from those indicated in your report. Retaining GeoTest who developed this report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with anticipated or unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations are Not Final

Do not over-rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers or geologists develop them principally from judgment and opinion. GeoTest’s geotechnical engineers or geologists can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if our firm does not perform the construction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report may be Subject to Misinterpretation

Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. Lower that risk by having GeoTest confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also, we suggest retaining GeoTest to review pertinent elements of the design teams plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having GeoTest participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do not Redraw the Exploration Logs

Our geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors of omissions, the logs included in this report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable; but recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance

Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, consider advising the contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the GeoTest and/or to conduct


additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. In addition, it is recommended that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in your project budget and schedule.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely

Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering or geology is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that can lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce risk, GeoTest includes an explanatory limitations section in our reports. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions and we encourage our clients or their representative to contact our office if you are unclear as to how these provisions apply to your project.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered in this Geotechnical or Geologic Report

The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated containments, etc. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on environmental report prepared for some one else.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Biological Pollutants

Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts biological pollutants from growing on indoor surfaces. Biological pollutants includes but is not limited to molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional biological pollutant prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe biological infestations, a number of prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of this study, the geotechnical engineer or geologist in charge of this project is not a biological pollutant prevention consultant; none of the services preformed in connection with this geotechnical engineering or geological study were designed or conducted for the purpose of preventing biological infestations.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATIONclay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. The native soils encountered within the full ... proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade.

Documents